« PreviousContinue »
as soon as possible, the American railway concession from Canton to Hankow. While China is abundantly traversed by extensive watercourses from west to east, the line of communication from south to north will not be definitely established until the completion of this railway, which will constitute the only remaining but indispensable link whereby communication between the southern and northern boundaries of the empire may be perfected. The railway would connect with the various systems now in operation or in process of construction - systems which are already branching out to the most important terminals on the coast. It is but necessary to glance at the map to form a conception of the tremendous importance which the Canton-Hankow Railroad would acquire through its connection with the very useful roads already established.
A third important agent of progress will be the China Development Company. This company was first established in Belgium, the shares. being divided among various nations of Europe and America. The corporation, I learn, has now been bought up by an American firm and is entirely in the hands of American capitalists. I should strongly advise this corporation to send to China not only mining and railway engineers, but experts in various industries, and especially in textiles, such as cotton, silk, and woollen goods, and to have them bring back their reports to the United States. By such means the people of this country would eventually become cognizant of the enormous resources of China and of the best means of utilizing them to their profit and to the advantage of the world at large. The gain to China through a corporation controlled by American capitalists and judiciously administered by them would be immeasurable.
Though the Japanese are closely affiliated with the Chinese by reason of the racial tie, historic traditions, similarity of language, and many other factors, they cannot take the initiative in the movement here indicated, because the present war with Russia is a tremendous strain upon Japan's financial resources, and it will take a great many years before the country can be restored to its former economic condition, and enabled to embark on commercial enterprises in China. It therefore devolves upon the United States to embrace the splendid opportunity here afforded by her geographical position, as well as by the recent and wonderful increase of her Asiatic commerce. Besides, the commerce between Japan and the United States has, within the last few years, increased beyond any comparison, and our American trade now occupies a foremost position in the report of the foreign trade of the empire.
Therefore, let the Japanese, with their advantages of racial and linguistic similarity, clear the way for the American people in their Chinese enterprise; and, on the other hand, let the Americans, with their business experience and ample capital, reinforce the Japanese in their Chinese business. It is most important I should say necessary - for the Japanese company and the United States corporation to form an economic alliance in their Oriental commerce, because the Americans are most anxious to extend their market in China, and they also know that they cannot do so if they disregard the importance of Japan in Chinese affairs. As the Americans are actuated by such an idea, it is equally important for the Japanese to take a similar step in order to coöperate with the Americans, thereby benefiting in their Chinese commerce through the support of America. In this way, the people of the two countries might work hand-in-hand on the Asiatic continent and reap all the harvests of Chinese trade by their mutual support and reciprocal assistance. Then this economic alliance will also be regarded by the world at large as a primary factor in the maintenance of the "opendoor" policy in China. It will tend to dispel treacherous designs regarding the dismemberment of the Celestial Empire, and will introduce in the Far East the world-renowned influence of Anglo-Saxon civilization. BARON KANEKO.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GREAT CITY.
"THE city of Boston," said its mayor recently to a committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, "prays to-day to be relieved from the imposition of any further burdens by the Commonwealth. Nearly $2,500,000 was withdrawn from Boston's resources for State and metropolitan uses in 1903. It has been taken away from us and devoted to general purposes, and we have been prevented from expending it to improve our own city as we otherwise might have done." A few weeks later one of the leading experts in Massachusetts on municipal, water, and sanitation problems stated to other members of the Massachusetts Legislature that within twenty years the separate water systems of many of the cities of the State would be united into one single gigantic system to be operated and controlled by State officials, and that Springfield and Boston, ninety miles distant from each other, would buy of these State officials water taken from the same artificial reservoir. To those who heard both speakers, it was a striking illustration of the two points of view concerning the future of the great city. On the one hand was a city officer demanding for his city unrestricted independence, believing that its prosperity and happiness lay in self-development; on the other hand was a State-constituted commissioner, seeing in the city but a densely populated part of the Commonwealth, and unfolding a programme of centralized control which scarcely recognized municipal boundaries.
Examples of the same divergence of opinion upon what may be called metropolitan issues are occurring daily all over the United States, whenever a city has grown to such a point that its wealth and prosperity vitally affect the welfare of the cities and towns near it and the State in which it is situated. They create a problem which is as new as the great city itself, and not less perplexing and important than the questions of housing the poor, of municipal sanitation, or of the effect of the city upon the abandoned farm. What is to be the form of government of the great city? Is the present accepted system of city government applicable to the larger unit, or must there be essential modifica
tions of it to meet new municipal conditions? What are these new conditions?
The most conspicuous single feature of the great metropolis of modern times is its youth. The city which is its centre, and which may or may not give to it its name, is perhaps so old that its settlement was a prehistoric event; but the development from the central city to the metropolis is astonishingly recent. Until one sits down with a book of statistics or stands in a church steeple and is pointed out the portion of the city which is the product of the last fifty years, he scarcely realizes that even the Paris, the Rome, and the London that have made history were but the cores of the densely populated districts which bear those names to-day. The area now covered by "Greater London" was probably occupied by less than a million people in 1800. In 1850 that number had increased to a little over two millions. To-day it is probably between five and six millions. The population of "Greater Paris"
has doubled since 1850.
In America, of course, the New York, Boston, and Philadelphia of fifty years ago, not to speak of Western cities, would have been little more than towns to their citizens of to-day. There has, indeed, even in Europe, been no such evolution of the metropolis out of the great town which would give an opportunity for a metropolitan government to be gradually developed or for its policy to be justified by history. The administration of the modern metropolis was a responsibility which first fell upon men who might be now alive, and their work is only to-day bearing the test of actual trial.
The second striking feature of the metropolis from a governmental point of view is perhaps peculiar to the cities of England and America. It lies in the nature of their growth. The continental city developed from within its walls. Beyond its stone fortifications were farming lands and small country hamlets. The population within the walls grew more and more dense until there was no opportunity for further increase. The city grew in area by bursting through its walls from plain inability to stand the restraint any longer, and the population spread out from its teeming centre into the adjoining fields. English and American cities, on the other hand, have seldom developed from a central densely settled hub out into a sparsely inhabited rim. Around them have always been suburbs, which were perhaps entirely distinct centres of population, and which were usually self-governing under their own municipal officials. The growth of the American and English metropolis has almost universally taken the form of the gradual
unification of several entirely distinct cities and towns. First, the principal thoroughfares from a central city to a suburb become lined with buildings; then the highways between the different suburbs change from country roads to populous streets; and then, gradually, all the open spaces between these lines of communication become almost, if not quite, as densely settled as the original highways. Stand, for instance, in the dome of the State House at Boston to-day, and the city apparently extends as far as the eye can see; yet it is in reality about fortyfive separate municipalities that lie before one. If one could look from
the top of St. Paul's to the end of "Greater London," he could count nearly one hundred and twenty vestries, towns, and parishes, which originally were wholly or at least fundamentally independent and self-governing.
The result of this method of growth of the American metropolis is that the town boundaries between different municipalities are seldom natural lines of division, but tend more and more to become artificial surveyor's lines. The streams they once followed are now underground sewers, of whose existence the average inhabitant may be ignorant. The lines of hill tops which formerly marked them have been levelled till the grade is imperceptible. The boundary now runs along the city street or even through the centre of a brick block. The average citizen, just as he may be ignorant of the existence of the old landmarks, may be almost unaware of, or at any rate unaffected by, the fact that these town boundaries exist. His life and interests are not confined by them. His home is in one municipality and his business in another; he may buy his food in a third and play in a fourth.
Within the last fifteen years municipal boundaries as division lines have been fated to still further insignificance. Formerly men "went into town" to work. Their homes were in the suburban towns, and their business was in the "city." To-day a great current of business life sets each morning out of the city into the suburb, or across from one suburb to another, or circles like a human eddy around about a little centre of its own, apparently unmindful of the stream of the working world close beside it. This readjustment of business conditions is due primarily to the development of the telephone, to the ability to transmit electric power, and to rapid transit. These three forces have made it possible for industrial establishments to be moved from the city street into the country. The treasurer of a factory finds in its new situation lower taxes and freedom for expansion. From his small office in the city he is in constant communication by telephone with his superintendent at