VOL. XII.

No. 2

Two Speeches and Their

Fourth of July utterances as a rule possess more of general ardor than Consequences. of particular significance. It happens, however, that at least two Fourth of July speeches made this year have attracted a remarkable degree of international attention; and results of some pith and moment seem destined to follow from them. One of these speeches was made by M. Hanotaux, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the Independence Day banquet of the American Chamber of Commerce in Paris. The other was delivered in New York at the Tammany Hall celebration by the Hon. James E. Campbell, of Ohio, formerly congressman and governor. M. Hanotaux was the guest of honor at the Paris banquet and sat at the right hand of Minister Eustis. His speech was a very brilliant and intelligent tribute to the United. States of America as the foremost of modern nations, and nothing has been said in a long time that has been so deftly designed to promote warm relations between the French republic and our own as M. Hanotaux's frank and hearty speech. But the speech finds its principal significance when it is examined in connection with several other contemporary events.

It is evident that our minister, Mr. The Influence of Eustis, has been exerting himself to Minister Eustis. the end of securing a sound understanding with the French foreign office. Mr. Eustis has been expressing himself of late with a large degree of freedom regarding the foreign policy of the United States, and particularly with regard to European colonies and European intervention in the Western hemisphere. It is true that Mr. Eustis has disavowed the elaborate interview published in the Figaro, in which he was quoted as favoring the annexation of Cuba by the United States, a strong American policy against the English in their encroachments upon Venezuelan soil, and the ultimate acquisition of Canada. But although Mr. Eustis' protest-that he said none of these things by way of interview for publication-is accepted on all sides, nobody is in doubt as to his real views and opinions, and there is every reason to believe that he has had

HON. JAMES B. EUSTIS,

United States Minister to France.

abundant opportunity to impress those opinions upon the mind of the French foreign minister. M. Hanotaux is the ablest and boldest minister who has conducted the foreign policy of his government for many decades. Unless we are greatly mistaken in reading what seems as simple as the alphabet, the French republic has wisely concluded that the best possible course for the French to pursue in their dealings with Western hemisphere questions is to consult frankly and cordially with the United States and to make their policy so far as possible conform with the policy and wishes of this country. In his speech M. Hanotaux said of the United States that this nation is "employing admirable practical sense

M. HANOTAUX, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER. and legitimate authority among the nations to restrain warfare and develop the benefits of peace."

Consequences of M. Hanotaux's Policy.

Two highly significant steps have followed. One has been the announcement that France and Brazil will settle by friendly arbitration the dispute which has lasted for several generations concerning the boundary line between French Guiana and the great South American republic. Meanwhile the administration of the disputed strip of territory is to be in the hands of a Dual Commission in which France and Brazil are to have equal representation. The little map which we present herewith is to show the position of the French, Dutch, and British parts of Guiana relatively to Venezuela and Brazil. It is reproduced from a recent publication by the United States government, and the boundary lines it indicates are those which are claimed by Venezuela and Brazil rather than by the European powers which have a foothold on the mainland of South America. We do not publish it, however, with any reference to the precise claims of the parties in dispute, but rather because it conveniently shows the general geographical situation. The piece of territory which France and Brazil both claim is large enough to have very considerable importance, but the principle at stake is much more important than the strip of territory. The United States, France and Brazil are the world's three greatest republics. It is through the influence of the United States that France and Brazil have been willing to settle this boundary dispute by arbitration. It is now expected that the President of the Swiss republic will be arbi

trator. Following this step, as if by way of acknowledging the influence of the United States in bringing about so fortunate a termination of so disagreeable a dispute, the French Chamber of Deputies and the French Senate have concurred in adopting a resolution asking M. Hanotaux and his ministerial colleagues to endeavor to negotiate a permanent treaty for the arbitration of all disputes that may ever arise between France and the United States. We must beg to assure our readers that we consider the policy of M. Hanotaux toward North and South America, and his great desire to cultivate intimate and cordial relations with the United States, as one of the greatest steps in the progress of the world that the past month has revealed.

"Campbell, of Ohio. Mr. Campbell appeared on the platform with an elaborate speech which he had evidently prepared with great care. It was in defense of the Monroe Doctrine, and its particular burden was the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela touching the boundaries of British Guiana. This is no new topic to the readers of the REVIEW OF REVIEWS, for this periodical, as it happens, has been foremost in urging the plain duty of the United States with reference to England's continued refusal to arbitrate. Mr. Campbell presented the facts regarding British encroachments, and their bearing upon the position and policy of the United States, with unusual clearness and force. In doing this Mr. Campbell was not performing a pioneer duty. The Republican leaders are quite as strongly aroused upon this question as any of their opponents. For example, Senator Cushman K. Davis, who is a high international authority, had recently taken the same grounds in an address delivered to some of his constituents in Minnesota; while Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, has not only made eloquent speeches but has published a somewhat impassioned article in the North American Review invoking the Monroe Doctrine as against British aggressions. Furthermore, Governor Campbell, Senator Davis, Senator Lodge, and all the hundreds of other orators of both parties who are taking up Venezuela and the Monroe Doctrine, are merely following out the tone and spirit of a resolution passed by both Houses of Congress before the adjournment of the session four months ago, calling upon the executive branch of our government to urge Great Britain to consent at once to arbitrate with the aggrieved South American republic.

some real American news and correspondence to its columns. To this end it secured the services of that eminent journalist George W. Smalley, who has for ever so many years,-perhaps for a quarter of a century,-been living in London as the chief foreign correspondent of the New York Tribune. Mr. Smalley has accordingly resigned from his position as correspondent of the Tribune and has taken up his residence in New York as American correspondent of the London Times. He had only just entered upon his new duties when the Hon. Mr. Campbell made his fiery but highly specific speech in praise of the Monroe Doctrine and in condemnation of Great Britain. It seemed to Mr. Smalley that it ought to be worth while for English readers to know that these things were being said in the United States. Consequently in his regular dispatches to the Times he insisted upon attaching very great significance to the anti-English tone of Governor Campbell's address. Now it may seem an incredible thing to

A BRITISH

ayenne

FRENCH

DUTCH

Urange jaspore Cowruni

Autre

Maraca Mouth of the Amazon

Macapa

Chave

ara

GGurty