'Cbe Coneervativc *
TIIE CONSERVA-
ANGLK VS. 1IOKII. . . . .
TIVE is in receipt
of a number of letters expressing ' 'indig
nation" regarding nn article on this
subject , published in its issue of Janu
ary 11 , in which the position was taken
that it would be better for the people of
the United States and civilization , that
the English rather than the Boer suc
ceeded. The war in South Africa was
considered in the light of history , and
the inviolable law of self-preservation
as applied to ourselves. The question
of sympathy with either the English or
Boer was not and should not be taken
into consideration. In spite of all mis
taken coilceptious to the contrary all
questions of right and rights begin and
end at home , if intelligently considered.
Justice , like charity , begins and ends at
home. One of the indignant objectors
declares that we upheld the position
that "not an American cares today what
piece of highway robbery falls under his
eyes , he closes them tight , provided he
has the assurance that the robber divid
ed his plunder. "
Such an accusation is false. It is an
absolute evasion of the position taken in
THE CONSERVATIVE. That position was
that British success would be more
favorable to commercial prosperity in
the United States and elsewhere , mak
ing a greater market for our goods ,
thereby increasing the freedom of Amer
ican laborers , and for the cause of
freedom in general , than that of the
Boers. If that position is not absolutely
true and founded on the history of An
glican colonization , even in this country ,
then THE CONSERVATIVE pleads guilty
of ignorance.
That there are others who take the
same "mercenary" view may bo seen
_ , . . from the following
There Arc Others. . _ . . , ,
in the Philadel
phia Times , perhaps more mercenary
were our position appreciated , for the
writer never yet had sense enough to be
accused of "mercenary views" by those
who know him. The Times says : "Eng
land has now no choice but to surrender
South Africa to the Boers or make
South Africa an English colony. None
who have studied the English character
can for a moment doubt what choice
England will make , and when her
choice is made she has the power to
carry it to its consummation.
"The Boer war now promises to be a
long struggle , and none can hope for its
termination for a year , and it is possible
it may last for several years. England
is equal to all the exactions that this
war shall make upon her , and this coun
try will profit by the conflict just in
proportion as the war shall be increased
in magnitude. "
The Boston Herald and other leading
papers , by no means administration or
gans , uphold the same position and not
on mercenary grounds by any means.
Our indignant correspondent further
says : "Could anything show a more
rottenly dishonest heart and braiu than
the following : 'The Boers wanted
their whole country to themselves and
only tolerated others if they could make
them pay tribute. To that there is no
objection if the Boors were strong
enough to do it. ' " "To that , " our cor
respondent says , "the Boers are right
and there is no objection to their mak
ing laws governing immigration provid
ed some overwhelming power does not
set covetous eyes on their territory , in
which case 'might makes right , ' and
your correspondent commends the acts
of might. The principle is dishonest.
The paper that publishes it is not safe.
Stop my paper. "
Again , it is said , the indignant corre
spondent either does not see or evades
. , , , tne issue. First ,
14. Makes * .
Might Right. ,
as we have said
and shall continue to say , might is not
only invariably right , but might only
makes right. The mistake made is in
reading the assertion to mean that the
apparent mighty always do right. The
only standard of action is the nature , or
liability , of the reaction on the actor.
When the actor so acts as to bring the
liability of a dangerous reaction on him
self , he is weak in intelligence and self-
control. He is no more mighty no
matter how brutally , or otherwise suc
cessful. In this issue , we think both
the English government and that of the
Boers weak , regardless of the brutal
might of either or both. They are both
working serious injury to themselves
which an intelligent might would have
prevented. Our correspondent is run
away with by the ideal that a right ex
ists in theory , whereas a thing existing
in theory only has no actual existence.
There is no such thing as theoretic right.
No right ever existed without the might
to make it actual. No right ever will
be such without might behind it. Weak
ness never made a right , nor is weakness
ever right. The survival of the fittest
is dependent on the might to survive
and is the strongest manifestation of
force in nature. Time decides what is
fittest , not theoretic idealism.
The question at issue between the
English government and the Boer government -
_ , . . . , ernment is not
The Question ut Issne , , . ,
one of highway
robbery of territory , not even one of
self-government on the parb of the people
ple of Boerdom , but whether all the
people , particularly the English inhabit
ants of Boerdom , shall have an equal
share in the government ? It is the old
of "Taxation without
question Repre
sentation , " with the tables reversed , for
which our fathers fought. The English
government is fighting for the equal
representation of its people in the gov
ernment of Boerdom. We do not say
that territorial expansion is not in the
issue , though we doubt it. At any rate
Americans cannot throw stones at Eng-
A4'iSMt * *
.
< - SMt4. '
land on that score. The Filipino stares
ns in the face.
While it cannot be said that no one
should be indignant at ideas expressed
by others , it is a
, , . , ,
T iT
. . .
Indignation ut Id ens. . ,
question when he
should express his indignation. Those
who express indignation , and de
mand that THE CONSERVATIVE be
stopped , because of ideas herein ex
pressed , are outrageously inconsistent.
"While in sympathy with the freedom of
the Boers they would be , and are so far
as they can be , opposed to freedom of
expression , a cardinal American princi
ple if there be such.
All cowardice is based on ignorance
or self-conscious weakness. There is no
cowardice so great
Indignation Often M f0Qr of an M
Cowardice. . . .
no matter how re
pugnant it may be to one's preconcep
tions. An idea itself can harm no man.
It is the action following on , or liable
to , that can harm. The question is the
nature of the harm. An idea that is
antagonistic to preconceptions , hurts
feelings only and is therefore harmless.
The only ideas that are dangerous are
those liable to lead to the destruction of
life or property , which may include
freedom of action , but not so-called
freedom in thought or speech. A man
may proclaim there is no God , no im
mortality. It may hurt feelings but it
does no harm. But , if he advocates the
destruction of the churches , of the cler
gy , or of believers because he thinks
there is no God , then his ideas are dang
erous to life and property , and he should
be shut up. He is a weak man because
he imperils his own life , no matter how
strong his arguments may be. So of
the man who asserts he does not believe
in government. He may assert it till
the crack of doom , but if he seeks to
put his thoughts into action he tramples
on the law of self-preservation which in
others is mighty and in himself weak.
The very basis of all government , and
our own particularly , is the will of
the majority , which is but the logical
acceptance that might is and makes
right , for the time being at least. But ,
if that majority undertakes to deprive
the minority of freedom of discussing
its actions , it portrays cowardly weak
ness and imperils its might.
The majority of those who favor the
Boers do so either on traditional or pre
judicial grounds.
The Boer Question .
, fto (
Again. \ . . . - f
tcrhoc : it has been ,
therefore it must be , is no argument at
all. Some time since quite a famous
clergyman entered upon the impossible
task of "converting" the writer. He
put this question , as to him an all con
clusive argument : "If you knew that
all the best men in the world , past and
present , your father and mother and all
your most respected relatives were of
an opinion directly opposed to yours ,
