SSWWS$
The Commoner.
Kossuth's reception in this country. He said that
he was greeted with enthusiasm wherever he went.
Daniel Webster received him as a hero; so did
Henry Clay, William H. Seward, Robert Wln
throp, Governor Hunt of New York, members of
the cabinet, governors of states, senators, all took
part in the reception to a man who was fighting
lor liberty.
Kossuth was arrayed against Austria; and at
tho very time, when wo'wero opening our arms to
reccivp him with true Amorican hospitality and
showering upon him genuine American honors, this
government was maintaining diplomatic relations
with Austria.
If Paul Kruger came to America today, would
he bo received as Louis Kossuth was received?
Undoubetdly the people would welcome him cor
dially, but would the members of congress with
one accord assemble at the banquet board to pay
honor to Kruger as their predecessors assembled
at the banquet board to pay honor to Kossuth?
Would senators and governors and cabinet officers
tumble over one another in the effort to speak a
word of encouragement to the president of tho
South African republic? Would the president of
the United States give to Kruger, as one of his
distinguished predecessors gave to Kossuth, the
assurance that tho sympathy of the American
people was with those who battle for liberty and
for a republican form of government? If not, why
not? .What has brought about the change, that
makes it impossible in this day. that we should
take our stand on liberty's side", as the Americans
0 earlier days did?
It would be instructive to look a bit farther
ir-to'the Kossuth affair. Remember that our rela
tions with Austria were not seriously disturbed by
the Jhngs we did, because Austrian statesmen un
derstood that in liberty's cause this government
and this people had the right, as it was their
duty, to do anything to advance liberty's interests
or to -aid and- encourage those' fighting' fdr free
dom. Zachary Taylor, then president of the United
States, in a message tp congress in 1849, said
that during the cojiflict between Austria and Hun
gary, "there seemed to be a prospect that, the lat
ter might become an independent nation," and
Taylor added that "however faint that prospect at
the time appears," he thought it his duty in ac
cordance with the general sentiment of the Ameri
can people to stand prepared upon the contingency
ot tho establishment by law of a permanent gov
ernment to be the first to welcome independent
Hungary into the family of nations. Then Presi
dent Taylor informed the congress that with this
thought in mind, he had instructed an agent to
"declare our willingness promptly to recognize
her independence in the event of her ability to
sustain it." And then in the contemplation of
Hungary's unsuccessful struggle, President Zach
ary Taylor made bold to say, "But the feelings of
this nation, were strongly enlisted in the cause,
and by the sufferings of a bravo people who had
made a gallant though unsuccessful effort to be
free."
In 1850, in his message to congress, President
Taylor reiterated tho sympathy of the American
people with tho Hungarians, even though they
were unsuccessful and ho added, "Although she
is now fallen and many of her gallant patriots
aro in chains, I am free still to declare that had
she been successful in the maintenance of such u
government as we could have recognized, we
should .have beenthe first to welcome her into, the
family of nations."
What if. President Roosevelt would say some-
thing like that In behalf of the republicans of
South Africa, who are fighting in defense of their
republics; and why cannot President Roosevelt
say something like that? If President Roosevelt
.. would say something like that, tliero wnuiri iiA
pore question that he would reflect the senti-
lents of the overwhelming majority of the Ameri
can people than there was that President Taylor
reflected the sentiments of the American people '
at the time he expressed sympathy for the Hun
garians. But the American people went considerably
farther in the Kossuth affair than the mere ex
pression of sympathy. Kossuth escaped to Turkey,
and" in spite of demands for his extradition, he
was protected by the Turkish authorities. On
March 3, 1851, both houses of the American con
gress adopted a resolution requesting President
Milliard Fillmore to authorize the employment of
a public vessel to convey to this country Kossuth
and his associates in captivity.
The story of how this resolution was carried
out Is told in President Fillmore's message to con
gress in December, 1S51. The president said:
"The instruction above referred to was complied
with, and the Turkish government having released
Governor Kossuth and his companions from
prison, on the 10th of September last they em
barked on board of the United States steam frigate
Mississippi, which was selected to carry into effect
the resolution of congress. Governor Kossuth left
the Mississippi at Gibraltar for the purpose of
making a vfsit to England, and may shortly be
expected in New York. By communication to the
department of state he has expressed his grateful
acknowledgement for the interposition of this
government in behalf of himself and his asso
ciates. This country has been justly regarded as
a safe asylum for those whom political events have
exiled from their own homes in Europe, and it is
recommended to congress' to consider in what
manner Governor Kpssuth and his companions,
brought hither by its authority, shall be received
and treated."
In the early days, this country was justly re
garded as a safe asylum of those whom political
events had exiled from their homes in Europe;
but haw different the situation is today! T.he
American people, by. an' overwhelming majority,"
sympathize with Kruger and his people, yet this .
sympathy can find no voice through olicial chan
nels. On the contrary, horses and mults and muni
tions of war are permitted to be shipped from this
country for the benefit of the British soldiery. The
only expression we hear through official
scurces is an expression of exceptional
friendship for the oppressors of the Boars.
Not one word is permitted to escape the lips of
American officials which could be distorted into
the slightest evidence of sympathy for the men who
are fighting as Kossuth fought.
What has happened since the days of Zachary
Taylor and of Milliard Fillmore that the official
representatives of this country dare,-.not express
the popular sympathy for republics in their strug
gle against empires?
Lord Salisbury's Neighbors.
In his speech delivered at the Lord Mayor's
banquet in London, Lord Salisbury referred to the
war In South Africa, and among other things said:
"We have had neighbors in South Africa whose
conduct for years has been a menace to the stabil
ity of that section of our empire. Now we are en
gaged in removing ttiis menace, and we are deter
mined to do it so effectively that it will nevei' re
quire doing again."
The newspaper reports say: "This declaration
was received with cordial, but with by no means
enthusiastic applause." Probably Lord Salisbury's
hearers were struck by theuse of the word "neigh
bors." Wo have been told that the South' African
Dutchmen were subjects of Great Britain, that
sovereign power was acquired by the English
authorities, but Lord Salisbury frankly refers to
them as "neighbors." ,
In1 this light it is interesting to recall- the
things' which Great Britain sought to do with it3
South' African -"neighbors." Not content with
telling these "neighbors" that they should not
seek in any way to interfere with British sov
ereignty or British possessions, the BVitish author
ities actually undertook to tell x their "neighbors"
what they should do and what they should not
do with respect to the laws relating to their own
government, and with respect to the rules which
they should lay down whereby men might be
come citizens of the country over which these
"neighbors" ruled. It is true that one nation has
a right to insist that its neighbor shall not do any
thing that will injure the health or seriously af
fect the welfare of that nation, but it is something
new in International law, something new in the
realm of common sense, to be told that a nation
has a right to control the domestic affairs of a
neighbor.
Lord Salisbury's way of removing this menace
"so effectively that it will never require doing
again" is to remove the "neighbors," to exter
minate the "neighbors," to destroy not only the
"neighbors' " government, but to destroy the
'neighbors" themselves. To bo sure, Lord Salis
bury is not succeeding in an eminent degree in
this respect, but the purpose and the will are
apparent.
General Buller promised to eat his Christmas
dinner at the "neighbor's" table in 1898. tho
promise was not kept, and, while the British have
possession of the "neighbor's" capital, while they
hold a3 prisoners of war the wives and children of
these "neighbors," it seems that there are yet in
the fiejd many of these "neighbors" fighting for
constitutional government and waging heroic war
against British aggression.
Perhaps Lord Salisbury did not intend to be
frank when he used the word "neighbors," and yet
the fact is that the two republics of South Africa
were by no means subject to British authority.
Those two republics were neighbors of the Brit
' is.i coionies. They had built for themselves gov
ernments embodying their ideals, and when tho
British ministry forced war- upon them, destroyed
their capital1 and drove their officials and their
citizens from' these republics, one of the blackest
pages in history was written.
In the records the two South African republics
were written as "neighbors;" in the view of Glad
stone and former British leaders these republics
were "neighbors," they were not colonies. And
there is no claim more susceptible of complete
proof than that Great Britain had no authority to
interfere with or to control the domestic policies
of either the Orange Free State or the South Afri
can Republic.
As Lord Salisbury stated, they were "neigh
bors," and Great Britain stands convicted' before
the civilized V. of waging an unjust, lawless
and merciless warrare, not upon men subject to
British authority, but upon men who stood, plain
ly and clearly on their rights and denied to Great
Britain privileges which British testimony shows
Great Britain was not entitled to, and which Brit
ish testimony shows were rights belonging ex
clusively to the brave Dutchmen of South Africa,
JJJ i
The Export Tax Decision.
The federal constitution provides: "No tax.
or duty shall be levied on articles exported fromi
any state." Congress levied a duty on goods go
ing from the United States to Porto Rico. Tile,
supreme court has held this duty to be not in vio- '
lation of the constitution. '
It is fair to say that the court expressly dis-
aVows any inclination to sanction an export tax,v
and yet it is not unfair to say that this disavowal
was necessary In order for the justices to seriously
maintain the position they assumed.
If a tax levied upon goods going from the
X'nited States is not an export tax, then it is dif-
flcult to understand SVlVat would be an export tax. '
The court, however-(J8leaking through Justice
Brown, reasons thai '"'if a tax levied by congress,
on articles exported' from the United States to th
