The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-08-01

bs cited and not the nrst portion alone for fair interpretation.
 Another extract upon which he laid particular strsss is taken from his let- ter to the Masters of the Bench of the Junior Temple, published In the June number of the Indian secioloeist" It ran as follows:
 Section 1os of the Indian, Penal Code recognises the right of private de- renee of property, which extends in cases robbery. etc to legally causing the death or any other harm to the wrongdoer," 1t being quite inmateriai what means we employed for causing the death Taking the word legally" as synonymous with justly" and "eQui- tably." I repeat that the people of India have sustained wrongful loss Of their property at the hands of the British, whose cause in India the late founder of the Posittvist community in London believed to be unjust, that of the Hindus just. as the legitimate effort of nation to shake off an op- pressive yoke" and he solomnly ad- vised his own countrymen in the mem- orable year. 1857, to withdraw from their Occupation of India without any necessary delay, within the shortest period compatible with due arrange ments for the security of European life oAA RhVPSAtys 6hu WAhn 6uCu Iuc86uTGS as shah be deemed advisable in the interest of Indian independence and good government.
 This passage is followed by quota tions from Herbert Spencer. He col lected proofs to show particularly in reference to India. that by tho English ''all conquest and annexations have been made from base and selfish mo- lives alone" He saw nc crime 'fn the r4 YvAl A. foreign yoke" Loyalty Krishnavarma contended bred lying and dishonest characters. Servility and obsequiousness caused deceit. Thus. whereas in free England tradespeopie were, as a rule, conscientious, 1t was the reverse in India. and in all downtrodden coun- tries.
 Krishnavarma was asked how would India get on alone if the English left 1t? We'll. he replied, take the case of little child. If it were always carri- ed, 1t would never learn to walk. Set 1t on its feet it may have some falls and bruises. but 1t will walk at last So it would be with India. The Eng fish had passed through a troublous training, what with the civil War, the Commonwealth. and the Revolution. and now they were as independent as they could possibly be. So 1t was With the French after a series of re- voiutions. But the English had had this advantage over Continental na- tions that they had not known in- vasion for centuries. and this had left them in peace to build up their consti- tution. India would have her trials, but 1t would all come right in the end.
 Krishnavarma does not seem to at- tach any importance to the grievance of some of his ow-countrymen in India, that they are not admitted by the English to social intimacy. He re- marks that their habits, manners and customs are so widely different that they can never understand each other, But what he does declaim against is what he terms arbitrary arrest and the suspension of habeas corpus. and he argues that if a man receives a blow 1t is his duty to return it. as the striker may. if he refrains, be led on to assault other people. In conclu- sion. Krishnavarma argues that his fellow-countrymen are sub bjected to an arbitrary system which they have a right to reject.