THE ISTHMIAN CANAL.

The reports that England has consented to modify the Clayton-Bulwer treaty

turn out to be correct. The problem

which Mr. Blaine rushed at in his eager, blundering way, with those ludicrous arguments and that gross garbling which Lord Granville so cruelly exposed, Secretary Hay appears to have solved satisfactorily. It is one diplomatic triumph more to be added to his achievement in securing the open door in China.

And it is not merely a diplomatic triumph; it is a victory of good sense and civilization. It is a negotiation in which both parties to it see their ideas prevail. The great aim of the ClaytonBulwer treaty, so far as it related to an Isthmian canal, looked to the neutralization and perfect freedom of any waterway that might be cut. Secretary Hay now undertakes to guarantee that this chief end of the treaty shall be safeguarded. The canal is to be as open as the high seas to the commerce of the world. If built under "the exclusive control and management" of the United States, it is yet to favor our ships no more than those of any other nation. In peace or war, merchantmen or battleships are to come and go as freely as through the Suez Canal. No military advantage is to accrue to us by possession of the canal or its termini. We even undertake not to fortify its approaches. All is to be open and equal to all. This represents such a distinct and enlightened advance over what American diplomacy has hitherto contended for that Mr. Hay is to be warmly congratulated upon his success.

We could wish, however, that he were well out of the woods with his new treaty, or convention. That it will meet with bitter and unreasoning opposition is clear. All the consistent foes of England in this country-and they are many and vociferous-will soon begin to rage after their manner. They would attack any agreement with Great Britain, even if it gave us everything we asked for. The only way they can get on happily with England is always to be disagreeing with her. And they will be sure to suspect the existence of some hidden quid pro quo. Suppose they find that Secretary Hay has made a slight concession in the matter of the Alaskan boundary; will they not tear him to pieces? If all else fails, they will pounce upon the very concession he has made in respect of the military control of the canal. To waive that will be a deadly sin in their eyes. Is Mr. Hay prepared to deny that the canal must be a part of our coast line? Does he make light of the contention of our Congressional strategists that to allow foreign warships the right to pass through it freely in time of war would be equivalent

national suicide? There will be live

es when all these things come up

in the secret session of the Senate. We doubt if Senator Morgan can contain himself even in open session. He will see in Mr. Hay's negotiation a direct flouting of his own bill and report referring to a Nicaragua canal. Morgan's bill directs the President in express terms not only to "excavate" a canal, but to "defend" it. What is the use of a canal which you cannot defend-that is, go to war over? Moreover, Senator Morgan would have "fortifications for the defence of the canal." Shall these be basely abandoned at the request of the wily Briton? We have always maintained that a good part of the eagerness among politicians for an Isthmian canal was due to their hope of getting a rousing international quarrel by means of it. Their zeal will rapidly cool if it is to be a tame work of peace, for ever dedicated to peace; and their disappointment may take the form of a savage turning upon the Secretary who has tried to rob them of an ancient feud.

The Clayton-Bulwer treaty extended, and we understand its prospective modification will extend, not simply to the Nicaraguan route, but to any route whatever that may be pitched upon as the best for a canal across the Isthmus. In so far, and pending the report of our investigating commission, the scales are held even as between the Nicaragua and the Panama locations. It should not be forgotten, however, that there are other and serious diplomatic difficulties in the way of the Nicaragua route. These are the treaties still in force between Nicaragua, on the one hand, and Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, and Belgium, on the other, securing to those nations equal rights in any interoceanic canal that may be constructed through Nicaraguan territory. Of course, if Secretary Hay is prepared to guarantee equal rights to all, it will doubtless be an easy matter to secure the abrogation or modification of the treaties mentioned. But they are still in vigor, and, until got out of the way, constitute an effective diplomatic barrier to our exclusive control of a canal via Lake Nicaragua.

Why, then, are the Nicaragua bills so urgently pressed in Congress? Why is the word quietly passed around that the Administration has set its heart on passing them? Why, above all, is it proposed to adopt the exceedingly awkward and irregular course of going blindly ahead without waiting for the report of our own commission? Well, we gather that Hanna very much desires the beginning of a canal as a political asset in Mr. McKinley's campaign for reëlection. He desires to include that in the gorgeous programme with which the country is to be beguiled. Here was a problem which had troubled our statesmen for more than half a century; but the great McKinley came along, and, lo! he loosed the Gordon knot of it, "familiar as his garter." Hanna also regarded the com

mission as a mean trick played upon him by Speaker Reed in the last Congress. Worse than simply refusing the money for the canal last year, it shoved the question along till next year. Why wait for the report of the eminent engineers when their appointment was a legacy left by a man now out of politics? Such, we understand, is the present working of the Ohio intellect, which does not see how indecent haste would leave the President in the attitude of eating his own words and repudiating his own appointees, and would be practically a fraud on the country. The legislative part of the business should be done with as decent a regard for the opinion or mankind as Secretary Hay has shown in the diplomatic part, if we are really to get a civilized canal in a civilized way.

OUR CONQUESTS AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

The report of the majority of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, in providing a tariff for Porto Rico different from that which prevails throughout the United States, raises perhaps the most momentous constitutional question which our country has ever faced. It commits the Republican party to the doctrine that Porto Rico is not in or a part of the United States; that the United States may have territory belonging to it to which the Constitution does not apply; and that Congress has power to act as the governing body of such territory without any constitutional limitations whatever. It is not surprising that the Democratic minority of the committee say of this doctrine that the majority submit no opinion or decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to sustain the contention they make. It would be remarkable if a court created by the Constitution for the purpose of pronouncing on the constitutionality of the acts of a Congress created in the same way, should declare that that body is not subject to constitutional limitations.

What that court has heretofore declared, when similar questions have come before it, admits of brief statement. The issue is a great one, but it is simple. The question whether the United States may acquire territory in war, or by treaty, is not now involved; and the power has been exercised so often that it would be unprofitable now to question its constitutionality. But the status of territory so acquired has been several times considered by the court, and its decisions contain language so apt in its application to the present situation, and so conclusive in its repudiation of the doctrine put forth by the party in power in Congress, that we quote it in the hope that' it may attract the attention of the country.

The case of Loughborough vs. Black,

reported in 5 Wheaton, arose from the act of Congress imposing a direct tax on the District of Columbia, and it was held that such taxes were constitutional if levied in proportion to the census directed to be taken by the Constitution. The following words were used by Chief Justice Marshall:

"The power, then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must be exercised, throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly, this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other."

The foregoing extract may be profit ably compared with this declaration of the Republican majority of the Ways and Means Committee:

"(1.) That the term 'United States' in that provision of the Constitution which declares that 'all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States' means and is confined to the States that constitute the Federal Union, and does not cover also the territory belonging to the United States."

The general principle laid down above by Chief Justice Marshall was amplified and made more explicit by Chief Justice Taney in the celebrated Dred Scott case. In view of some of the attempts recently made to maintain that Congress has, during all our history, been administering our Territories in the exercise of

a power free from constitutional limitations, the following passages are peculiarly apposite and timely:

"There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure. No power is given to acquire a territory to be held and governed permanently in that character. No one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right of trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. A power, therefore, in the general Government to obtain and hold colonies and dependent territories, over which they might legislate without restriction, would be inconsistent with its own existence in its present form."

Such language as this cannot be explained away. It gives a perfectly clear, intelligible, and consistent explanation of the status of territory acquired by the United States. It excludes, as thoroughly and completely as any language can do, the theory which the exigencies of protectionism have forced the Administration to adopt, that Congress, or the President, can exercise powers independently of all constitutional restraints. What decisions the Supreme Court may here

after render we cannot predict; but it has only to follow established precedents to insure to the people of Hawaii and Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands the most important of those rights which the war of the Revolution was fought to secure to the people of the United States. To abandon these precedents is simply to hold that the men in control of the government of the United States can exercise the same autocratic powers over many millions of human beings that the Czar of Russia and his councillors can employ in ruling their subjects.

YEAR ONE OF THE EMPIRE.

It is now a full year since the treaty with Spain was ratified, and the ignoble and bloody war in the Philippines began -a true annus horribilis. Nothing but the gradual induration of heart and conscience could enable Americans to look back upon such a twelvemonth without shame. If they had been told on February 6, 1899, that February 6, 1900, would see the work of devastation and death still going on, they would have shrunk from the prospect with horror. Why should the retrospect seem any less repulsive to them? Shall we add to our disgrace by pretending now to approve what then we should have. vehemently reprobated? At any rate, we cannot honestly refrain from reckoning up the bitter humiliations of this year in Cathay. We admit that the moral balance-sheet is not pleasant reading; but to those who take offence at it, we must say, with Swift, that we write for their amendment, not their approbation.

subdue them, the cost of the war, have all been grossly miscalculated, so that we have to look back on a twelvemonth of disappointment and thwarting and humiliation, merely as respects our ca pacity to make war intelligently.

But on the side of moral and political standards and ideals, the year has brought us a disillusionment still more grievous. Its steps can be conveniently traced in the person of the President. He stands as a general type of the people in this regard-the "homme moyen," if there ever was one; and his own progress from first enduring to pitying and then embracing the Philippine vice is illustrative of the moral decay from which public sentiment at large has suffered. Mr. McKinley began by professing his earnest aim to "win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines," and to bestow upon them "the blessings of a good and stable government." When the unhappy war broke out, largely in consequence of his illegal and mischievous proclamation, he still was able to say, as he did say at Boston, that "every red drop from the veins of a misguided Filipino is anguish to my heart." But it was not long before he began to threaten the "cruel leaders" under whom the Filipinos fought so heroically, and to assert truculently, like another Arolas or Weyler, that he would tolerate no further "parley" with such miscreants. From that it is only a short step to the proclamation which he is now said to be contemplating, declaring all Filipinos in arms to be bandits, and so liable to be

hung without trial. That would be a fitting end of the policy of "benevolent assimilation."

We do not mean to single out the President for special condemnation, except as his official power and responsibility call for special severity of judgment. He only typifies the general decadence which results from the abandonment of principle. The country has sinned with him and suffers with him. From tolerating an alleged necessary evil, we have gone on to defending it and then exulting in it. If the President does issue an order to string up on sight every Filipino taken with arms in his hands, he will be but executing the policy which too many people are advocating with unconscious brutality. Such is the sure acceleration of tyranny when once we adopt its methods. That is the true explanation of the cries of "Treason" heard even in the Senate. It has come to be felt that every objection to what is going on in the Philippines is an affront to the head of the state, an impairment of the reverence and awe due him, and so a lessening of his chances of reëlection. Who could be a more unblushing traitor than one who hoped that Mr. McKinley's

In one respect all are agreed this Philippine year has been "one of illusion succeeding illusion, and hope deferred. The war has dragged on its misery beyond all computation. A pitiful collection of unfulfilled prophecies could be made out of Gen. Otis's dispatches and the official utterances of the Government at Washington. Thus, on March 17, nearly a year ago, the Administration assured the country that hostilities would end "within a very short time." On March 24 we were informed that the insurgent army would have "ceased to exist" after Otis had delivered his next blow. Otis himself telegraphed on April 3 that the insurgent Government was in a "perilous condition." On April 4 the War Department was confident that "the backbone of the insurrection is broken." By April 29 Gen. Otis was positive that the insurgents were "tired of war." On May 18 the "end of the insurrection was at hand." But why go on with the record of promises never kept, and flattering hopes always dashed to the earth? Everybody recalls the general fact. The American people has been fed for a year on official optimism respecting the Phi- | Philippine performances would endanger lippines. The resisting power of the natives, the number of troops needed to

his continuance in office?

To get a proper perspective for the

humiliation which the United States have undergone through this Philippine business, we need to look at the matter from the international point of view. What a disgrace it is for us to encounter on every hand sneers at our good faith, taunts at our incompetence, and cries of disgust at our professed ardor for liberty! Even Spaniards talk condescendingly of our ignorant blundering in the Philippines. You cannot speak with an Englishman or Frenchman or German about the Philippines without seeing how we have, and deserve, their wondering scorn. The Boer war has come as a timely touchstone of what we have lost. One cry of "How about the Filipinos?" is sufficient to check the most eloquent orator in the midst of his appeals for the heroic Dutchmen of South Africa. We have disabled ourselves from expressing sympathy with any oppressed people on earth. Our generous professions of love for liberty stick in our throats (the blood of Danton chokes us) as we think of what we have been doing in this Year One of our new Empire.

If the events of the past twelvemonth have been thus melancholy for ourselves, what have they been to the Filipinos? We are bound to consider their feelings in reckoning up the total result. Even granting that we have the noblest impulses in the world, and the best intentions, we have to take into the account what they think of us. Their sentiment towards us is what we are mainly trying to influence, and what is that sentiment to-day? What would an educated Filipino say had been the chief import of the year past to his people? He would have a terrible array of disasters to specify. He would point to dawning hopes of liberty crushed to earth by the land of liberty; to broken promises; to trenches full of Filipino dead; to smoking heaps where once were happy villages; to desolate fields and ruined industries and starving women and children; to soldiers, with no heart in their task, pursuing the defenders of freedom to their last stronghold in the mountains-and he would say:

"These are the tyrant's trophies of a year."

THE NEW CONSULAR BILL. The question of a reform in our consular service was, it will be remembered, taken up seriously over a year ago by a number of the chief chambers of commerce throughout the country; the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, through its then President, Harry A. Garfield, being in the lead. Of course, no action was had by the last Congress, as questions growing out of the war with Spain pushed all other measures aside. The matter has now been revived before the present Congress, and at the joint invitation of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York through Mr. Schwab, and of the Cleveland Chamber

through Mr. Garfield, a concerted effort is being made by the principal trade organizations to secure consideration of a new bill which has been introduced by Mr. Burton of Ohio in the House and by Mr. Lodge of Massachusetts in the Senate.

The new bill provides for ConsulsGeneral of three classes, with salaries from $5,000 to $8,000 per annum, and for consuls of six classes, with salaries rising from $1,500 to $5,000 per annum. It requires a reclassification of all the existing consular offices, and permits the abolishing of any that are or shall become superfluous. All the present incumbents are to be assigned to consulates with salaries as nearly as possible the same as those they now receive, after which they are to be gradually recalled and subjected to the same examination as is required for entrance to the service. Those who pass are to be definitively a part of the new system, and those who fail are to be dropped out. The service is to be arranged by classes and not by places, so that the consuls may be shifted from one station to another, according to the needs of the service. All unofficial fees, which now go into the consuls' pockets, and the full amount of which no one can more than guess at, are to be turned into the Treasury, so that the only compensation shall be by fixed salaries. It is probable that this provision would result in making the whole service not far from self-supporting. Vacancies above the lowest class are to be filled from the next lower class, but the President may skip a class in making a nomination, provided he publishes his reasons for doing so.

Entrance to the consular service is to be after public competitive examination by a board composed of the Secretary of State or an official of the State Department acting for him, an officer of the consular service, and the Civil-Service Commissioners. The names of five persons who pass the best examination are to be certified to the President, and from them he is to make his nomination. A new appointee may be dropped at any time during the first year of his service, but after that he cannot be dismissed except for due cause and after trial be

exercises extra-territorial jurisdiction unless he shall have passed an examination in the principles of the common law, the rules of evidence, and the trial of civil and criminal cases.

Such are the chief provisions of the bill. If, in the multitude of measures already before Congress, many of which will have the benefit of greater personal importunity than the consular bill can expect to enlist, the chances appear to be against favorable action at this session, the fact should not discourage the advocates of the reform, which is based upon just principles, and is rapidly gathering strength.

Our consular service has been anything but a source of credit. It is true that from it has emanated an excellent series of printed consular reports, but these come from a small proportion of the consuls, and are, after all, rather a tribute to the system evolved by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the State Department than to the consular service as a whole. Every traveller and every person engaged in foreign trade knows the deficiencies of the service. It is largely recruited from a class of small politicians who look upon it as only a temporary refuge, and not as a permanent career offering any opportunity of advancement. From such a class it would be unreasonable to expect good consuls to come; and almost before they have been trained to their new duties, they are recalled to make room for other small politicians of a different political faith. There is thus no stability in the service; it is composed of constantly shifting individuals, who are not wholly responsible for their conduct to the service itself. The consequence is that our foreign trade suffers, that the rights of individual Americans are often put in jeopardy, that our prestige is lessened, and that we are humiliated in the eyes of foreign nations. In the face of this situation, which the passage of the Chambers of Commerce bill would rectify, it would seem to be simply a patriotic duty for Congress to respond to the general demand in favor of the reform.

MOREAU.

PARIS, January 25, 1900.

The life of General Moreau has never been written with the fulness which is found in modern biographies. His end cast a gloom over his beginnings; he remains among the dark figures of history. His great victories are mixed up with the darkest days of the French Revolution; his name, however, will always be connected with the famous Republican armies of the Rhine-armies of volunteers, led by young generals, which astonished the world by their endurance and their audacity, and which paved the way for the brilliant successes of the Empire. The history of Moreau's campaigns belongs chiefly to the period of the Directory; he deserved to be considered as the worthy rival of young General Bonaparte, whose first campaigns in Italy astonished the world and began a new era in the terrible art of war.

The operation of the armies of the Rhine in 1796, after the defeat of Jourdan, ended in Moreau's famous retreat, which was considered as great a feat as a victory. When the Archduke Charles, after having crushed Jourdan's forces, forced him to recross the Rhine, Moreau had already crossed the Danube and the Lech, and was on his way to Munich. When he heard of Jourdan's retreat, he found himself isolated; he immediately began his retreat by the valley of the Danube, having sixty thousand men following him in the rear, and expecting to find sixty thousand Austrians in the passes of the Black Forest. He fought a battle on his way, gained it, went through the Valley of Hell (Val d'Enfer), and reached the Rhine in perfect order after a march of twenty-six days. After a petty engagement with the advance guard of the Archduke, he recrossed the Rhine by the bridges of Breisach and Hüningen. This splendid retreat gave Moreau a high place among the generals of his time, and he was looked upon as a worthy rival of Gen. Bonaparte.

I cannot follow Moreau in his successive campaigns. His reputation grew from year to year, and, after the battle of Hohenlinden, equalled that of Napoleon. The imperial army of the Danube in 1800 was a hundred thousand strong, under the Archduke John. Moreau had a hundred thousand men between the Isar and the Inn. The operations of the armies of the Rhine and of Italy were to be harmonized. The Archduke John suffered a great defeat at Hohenlinden; he lost six thousand men and sixteen thousand prisoners. The Austrians retreated in the greatest disorder; in twenty days they lost forty thousand men and a hundred and fifty guns. Vienna was terrified. The Emperor gave the command to the Archduke Charles I., but it was too late. When the Archduke saw the state of the army, he begged the Emperor to make peace at any price. Moreau, who had arrived at Steyer, consented to an armistice on condition that Austria would treat separately from England, and that the fortresses of Tyrol and Bavaria should be placed in the hands of the French.

From the day of Hohenlinden, Moreau became a formidable rival to Napoleon; he became during the Consulate even a centre of opposition. Many of the generals and officers of the armies of the Rhine were hostile to the heroes of the armies of Italy, who had become richer, more popular; they af

fected the Republican ways and manners of the first armies of the Revolutionary period, In contrast with the more frivolous manners of the brilliant officers who surrounded Napoleon, and who already formed a sort of court. The Republicans, those whom Napoleon afterwards called the idealogues, thought to find in Moreau the head of a real Republic, of a wise and constitutional government; the royalists imagined that Moreau would be tempted some day to play the part of Monk.

Moreau heard them all, and gave no definite hope to anybody; his chief passion was jealousy of Bonaparte a jealousy which became a real hatred, and was increased by purely personal considerations. The vanity of his wife and his mother-in-law, Madame Hulot, had been wounded by the First Consul and Madame Bonaparte. The relations between Napoleon and Moreau became such that, in the great trial of 1804 of the royalist George Cadoudal and Pichegru, Moreau was designated by Napoleon as their accomplice and condemned to two years' imprisonment. He was held up as a promoter of civil war, as an agent of foreign Powers. There seems little doubt that Napoleon desired and expected that the judges would condemn Moreau to capital punishment. He found the punishment too lenient, not wishing Moreau to remain in France, even in prison. At Fouché's instigation, Madame Moreau went to Josephine, the new Empress, with a letter in which she asked for her husband permission to go to the United States. Napoleon at once commuted the sentence rendered against Moreau into perpetual exile. Moreau started for the United States the day of the execution of Cadoudal and his friends. His name was struck from the army rolls. His private property was sold; under cover of Fouché's name, Napoleon bought his hôtel in Paris, which he gave to Bernadotte, and the estate of Grosbois, which he gave to Berthier. Moreau was not allowed to start for the United States from England; he received a passport for Cadiz and left Europe from Spain. At Barcelona he was joined by Madame Moreau and their young son; from Barcelona they went to Cadiz, where, a few days afterwards, Madame Moreau was confined and had a daughter. They were obliged to remain several months, and left only in July, 1805, in an American ship.

Talleyrand sent special instructions with regard to General Moreau to the French Minister at Washington, named Turreau. The arrival at Philadelphia was reported by Turreau in these terms:

"Moreau lodged, after landing, with a certain Madame Cottineau, who pretends to be a relation of Madame Moreau. The house was soon filled with all sorts of people, and the General had to receive 'How d' ye do's' till he was deaf, and shake hands till he was lame. The next day a fraction of what is here called the army, two companies of the town militia, came to pay their respects. Moreau, not knowing the language of the country, was reduced to salutations. The ex-General remained only three days in town, and started for Morrisville, an estate which he has taken near Trenton."

Moreau established himself there, on the Delaware River; he spent his time in fishing and hunting, and made long journeys as far as the Mississippi, the Great Lakes, and (in the South) Louisiana. He spent his winters in New York and Philadelphia. Mme. Moreau, who was still young, was fond of society. It would be interesting to have

some account of the impression made by Moreau on American society; we know very little on this subject. Mme. Moreau made the acquaintance of a Frenchwoman whose husband, Hyde de Neuville, had been a secret agent of the Bourbons in Paris, under the Consulate, and who had been obliged to leave France. The two ladies met accidentally at a watering-place. Hyde de Neuville arrived in America in 1807, with a letter for Moreau from Mme. de Mouchy, but Moreau was rather shy of making his acquaintance. By degrees the intimacy which sprang up between the two ladies brought the husbands nearer together. Hyde de Neuville succeeded in bringing Moreau over to the idea of a monarchical restoration in France.

Moreau was directly tempted in another way on the side of Russia. He was not willing to serve Austria or England, from fear of offending French feelings; he was not unwilling to form an independent French corps made up of soldiers who had served under him and to use this force, in alliance with Russia and Prussia, against the man whom he considered the Scourge of Europe. Such dreams savored of high treason, and it was Moreau's misfortune to have entertained them. His independent force never existed except in his imagination; his coöperation with Russia and Prussia became a reality. In the month of August, 1805, the principal adviser of the Emperor Alexander, Prince Czartoryski, offered Moreau the place of general in the ranks of the allied armies. At that time, Moreau had left for America. He wrote a polite answer to the Emperor, refusing his offer. In 1812, when war broke out between the United States and England, Moreau offered his services to President Madison. His wife fell ill, and left for Europe. Bernadotte, who had become Prince Royal of Sweden and had entered into the coalition against Napoleon, made new offers to Moreau, through Madame de Staël. At the end of 1812, Moreau sent his aidede-camp, Repatel, with instructions to St. Petersburg and Stockholm. He wrote a letter to Bernadotte, in which he said: "I am ready to enter France at the head of French troops, but I cannot conceal from you my repugnance to reëntering it at the head of foreign troops." He left America with a passport (under the name of John Caro, born in Louisiana) on June 21, 1813. On July 26 he landed at Gothenburg, and the Swedish general who received him said to him: "You bring us in your person an army of a hundred thousand men."

Moreau left Sweden somewhat disgusted with the personal and egoistical views of Bernadotte, and, joining the headquarters of the allied sovereigns, found the Czar at Prague, where he met Jomini. The rest is well known: at the battle of Dresden, Moreau was riding next to the Czar, be-tween too English officers, Cathcart and Wilson; he was struck by a cannon-ball and mortally wounded.

Correspondence.

KENTUCKY AND THE BOSS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

SIR: William Goebel, a Senator for the State of Kentucky and contestant for the