especially when it takes the form of wireless telegraphy. It was the attempt to install this system at Marakesh which was the immediate cause of the murder of Dr. Mauchamp last March, a murder which led to the occupation by the French of Ujda, an occupation which still continues. The bombardment and subsequent occupation of Casablanca on the western coast of Morocco was due to a massacre of Europeans, chiefly Frenchmen, who were at work in making modern improvements to the harbor. This massacre took place on the 30th of July, and ever since the French government has been puzzled how to act. For behind the Moors are the Germans, and if French action goes beyond a certain line, and it is not easy to discover where that line is drawn, grave danger would arise of at least a diplomatic conflict with Germany. The Act of Algeciras imposed upon France and Spain the duty of training police for the sea-port towns and of providing the officers of this force. Very little had, however, been done to carry out this commission when the massacre took place; but to France and Spain it naturally fell to act in this emergency. Both powers sent ships and men, and both have taken part in the fighting and in the occupation of the town. The part taken by Spain, however, seems to have been somewhat reluctant and ineffectual, and this possibly indicates a difference between the two governments.

The massacre which took place at Casablanca gave reason to apprehend that similar events might happen at the other seaports in which Europeans were living. To guard against this, France proposed to the powers that these ports should be policed by a force composed of Frenchmen and Spaniards. The Algeciras Act authorized a police force, but this force was to be composed of Moors with French and Spanish cfficers. The proposal consequently went further than the Act. The German reply to the French proposal, while not offering any direct opposition to it, was so qualified in its approval and so carefully called attention to the fact that it went further than the Act, that it seems that the French government is reluctant to carry it out. Indeed it is asserted that urgent need no longer exists, all apprehension of further massacres having been removed.

It will be seen how great are the difficulties in which France is involved. If she leaves Morocco to its fate, her possessions, which border upon it, may rise in revolt; if, on the other hand, she takes decisive action and penetrates, as she is tempted

to do, into the interior, she may become involved in a war, not merely in Morocco, but with her neighbor across the Rhine.

In internal matters the anti-Militarist movement and the question of the abolition of capital punishment have excited the greatest interest. No one denies that some of the soldiers have adopted the teachings of M. Hervé and M. Jaurès, men who condemn war in every case except that of an unprovoked invasion. Those who take optimistic views say that it will require at least six months to remedy the evils produced by the anti-Militarist propaganda in the army; they claim, too, that should a national emergency really arise there would be no danger of these unpatriotic theories being put into practice. The character of this anti-Militarism was clearly shown by M. Jaurès in a speech which he made recently at a large Socialist meeting. After declaring that it was the duty of governments to maintain peace between nations, and in case of the failure of their own efforts then to appeal to arbitration, he went on to say: "If you will not do so, appeal, that is, to arbitration, you are a government of scoundrels, a government of bandits, a government of assassins, and it is the right and duty of the proletariat to rise against you and to keep and to use against you the rifles which you place in their hands. It will be no longer necessary to inquire which government is the aggressor. It will be the government which refuses arbitration. In such cases we shall use our rifles, not to cross the frontier, but by a revolution to upset the criminal government."

The leader of the anti-Militarists, M. Hervé, was not to be outdone by M. Jaurès. He declared both the French government and the German government to be thieves and equally ignoble thieves. "Are you going to offer," he asked the meeting which he was addressing, "to Prussian bullets the only thing which you possess-namely, your skins ?" "As for us," he continued, "we detest all mother countries. We will not give an inch of our skin for our own; and if we have to risk our lives, it must be for something worth while, and that is to make a revolution."

It is often advantageous to have a clear statement of principles and their consequences; and these statements of M. Jaurès and M. Hervé have opened the eyes of many even of their fellow-Socialists, and have brought upon them almost universal condemnation. It cannot but be, however, a matter for

anxiety when a prominent man, so eloquent, cultivated, and influential as M. Jaurès, can be found to use language of such a character, nor would he use it had he no backing. Politicians nowadays are not teachers, prophets, or even leaders, but hunters after a following which makes or unmakes them. It must have been in the hope of securing such a following that M. Jaurès spoke.

The secularization of education in France has not yet brought about the millenium. In several of the cities so great is the amount of crime that there is said to be a reign of terror. In Paris hardly a day passes without a contingent of murders or of murderous assaults. In Marseilles certain quarters are under the rule of bands of young men called Apaches. These ruffians commit not only highway robbery, but shoot or stab their victims, attacking them in gangs. The low price for which revolvers can be bought and the liberty to carry these weapons are causes which have led to this increase of crimes. A still greater cause, however, is found in the practical abolition for many years past of capital punishment. This is the legal penalty, but it is so rarely carried out, owing to the President's exercise of the prerogative of commutation into transportation, that hardened criminals look forward with confidence to a life which is somewhat easier than that to which honest people are accustomed.

A horrible case, which has recently taken place, of the outrage and murder of a little girl by a brute named Soleilland has excited public opinion on the question. This rascal is said to have expressed satisfaction at his prospects in the future. He would be reprieved, he felt sure, and in a few years he would be able to put by money and to secure a comfortable home in New Caledonia. The President, M. Fallières was appealed to from all parts of France, and by all kinds of people, not to commute the sentence in this case. To these appeals he turned a deaf ear. The result has been that he has lost a good deal of his popularity, and troops have had to be called out to maintain order. The question too has been raised, whether he has not gone beyond the powers given him by the Constitution. Capital punishment is the law of the land, and while to the President power to reprieve or commute is given, this power is to be exercised only in special cases and for good reasons, and not to be used practically to repeal the law. This is left for

the Parliament, and habitual exercise is an infringement of its rights. There is, in fact, a bill before the Chamber abolishing altogether the death penalty. What effect upon its passing the recent increase of crime and the Soleilland agitation may have remains to be seen. Whatever the prospects of the proposal may be, a movement in favor of depriving the President of his prerogative has begun. It is declared to be a relic of monarchical institutions. Voices too are heard in favor of lynching the fiends who are guilty of outrages on children.

Germany.

Germany has recently been the scene of two Socialist Congresses. The former, held at Stuttgart in Wurtemberg, was international in character, the latter, held at Essen in the Ruhr district, was confined to the Social Democrats of the Empire. Both Congresses met under the shadow of the great disaster-the defeat at the last elections.

But it

is worth pointing out that the defeat was not so great as it seemed. Many seats were lost, indeed, but a quarter of a million votes were gained; so that when an attempt is made to form an idea of German political and social thought, the opinions of 3,250,000 Social Democratic voters must not be left out of account. Especially must this be borne in mind in estimating the probability of Germany's going to war. For this must be said in favor of the Socialists, that they are opposed to militarism and jingoism. But the German Socialists are not antiMilitarist in the same way as MM. Jaurès and Hervé. Both these gentlemen were at the International Congress, and when M. Hervé introduced a resolution declaring that soldiers should desert and even revolt in case of war, Herr Bebel vehemently opposed the motion. A resolution, however, was passed in favor of the abolition of all standing armies, while allowing the arming of the entire male population for national self-defence. By the same resolution all Socialists are called upon to vote against war-budgets in favor of treaties of arbitration; to rise and demonstrate when the slightest danger of war occurs. The Socialist Bureau is to keep watch the world over, so that the Socialists may become the greatest and the most effective peace party.

While the International Congress at Stuttgart was the more

imposing of the two, there having been present 886 delegates representing 18 nationalities, the Congress of the Social Democrats held at Essen deserves attention, though confined to the German nationality. Although the Social Democrats are a minority, yet that minority is so large that it cannot be without influence upon national questions. The chastisement which they received at the recent elections made them less exuberant than at previous Congresses. Personal questions fell into the background and the necessity for harmonious action was recognized. More confidence was placed in their leaders, and every effort made to meet what all acknowledged to be a difficult situation, inasmuch as to all appearances they would have to rely on their own strength alone, every other party being against them. But notwithstanding every obstacle and all opposition the future, it was declared, belonged to the Social Democracy. The proceedings resulted in the reorganization of the party with a view to more efficient action.

The Pan-Germans have also been holding a Congress, but its proceedings do not seem to have attracted as much attention as usual, because, perhaps, its aims are so well known. Resolutions were passed, of course, for the strengthening and increasing of the navy. How great this increase has already been may be judged from the fact that the numerical strength of its personnel has doubled in ten years. While in 1897 it mustered only 23,403, this year it numbers 46,951, and next year will exceed 50,000; nor is it apprehended that the government will have any difficulty in carrying its looked-for proposals for a further increase.

Two remarkable speeches have been recently made by the Kaiser. The first was an appeal for unity addressed to the German Empire. With reference to social questions he declared his adherence to the manifesto on social policy issued by the Emperor William I. in 1881. He desired the assistance in realizing this programme both of Catholics and of Protestants, and declared religion to be the only means by which a union of all classes can be effected. To illustrate and enforce this necessity the Emperor proceeded as follows: "During the course of my long reign, I have had to do with a great many people, and I have had to endure a great deal from them. Unwittingly, and often, alas! wittingly they have caused me bitter pain. And when in moments like these my anger threat