devil which their powwows often doe." "If," says he, "upon a just war, the Lord shall deliver them into our hand, wee might easily have men, women, and children enough to exchange for Moors (negroes), which will be more gaynefull pilladge for us than wee conceive; for I do not see how wee can thrive untill wee get in a stock of slaves sufficient to do all our business."

This is Downing's letter, in Moore, on page 10.

In a book written by Du Bois on the Suppression of the Slave Trade I find the following:

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were largely engaged in the slave trade, and New Hampshire to some extent. This trade declined very little till the Revolution. Newport was a mart for slaves offered for sale in the North and a point of reshipment for all slaves. It was principally this trade that raised Newport to her commercial importance in the eighteenth century. Connecticut, too, was an important slave trader, sending large numbers of horses and other commodities to the West Indies in exchange for slaves, and selling the slaves in other colonies. Owners of slaves carried slaves to South Carolina, and brought home naval stores for their shipbuilding; or to the West Indies and brought home molasses. The molasses was made into the highly prized New England rum, which was shipped to Africa and traded for more slaves. * * Massachusetts annually distilled 15,000 hogsheads of molasses into rum. Although in earlier times the most reputable New England people took ventures in slavetrading voyages, yet there gradually arose a moral sentiment which

*

* *

tended to make the business somewhat disreputable. * * * It was

not until 1787-88 that slave trading became an indictable offense in any New England State.

I thought this related to the sale of Indians, but I see that it relates simply to the slave trade generally. I did not intend to read it, and will read no further.

I had often wondered why we had heard so much from New England in regard to the wrongs of the Western Indians. The Indian Rights Association are most active about the Indians who are most distant from them. This inquiry led me to look up the early history of the people of the colonies in connection with their treatment of the Indians, and it revealed to me the reason why tradition, carried from one to the other, crossed the continent and made the Indians so jealous of the

encroachments of the white and so earnest that the conta should not be near or close. I am not surprised.

Neither do I object to the philanthropy of New Englan I wish it would bear fruit sufficient in some measure to compe sate for the wrongs of the past in their conduct toward thes people.

APPENDIX III

THE BOER WAR

Whereas from the hour of achieving their own independence the eople of the United States have regarded with sympathy the struggles f other people to free themselves from European domination: herefore,

Resolved, That we watch with deep and abiding interest the heroic attle of the South African Republic against cruelty and oppression, and ur best hopes go out for the full success of their determined contest or liberty.

R. PETTIGREW.1 Mr. President, it is my opin

MR

ion that the Senate should pass this resolution of sympathy for the people of South Africa. If we do ot, it will be the first time in our history as a Republic that we have failed to express our sympathy and interest, in emhatic terms, for any race or people whatever who were striv ng to maintain free institutions.

We are parties to the agreement resulting from the conerence at The Hague last year; and while I do not believe hat America should take up the quarrels of other nations or ecome complicated in European controversies, it does not ap-ear to me that the Administration has made an honest effort n good faith to comply with and carry out the terms of The Hague agreement. For that agreement provided

ART. 2. In case of serious dissension or of conflict, before the appeal o arms, the signatory powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumcances will permit, to the friendly offices or to the mediation of one or f several friendly powers.

ART. 3. Independently of this resort, the signatory powers think it o be useful that one or more powers who have no part in the conflict may offer of their own volition, so far as circumstances may make it ppropriate, their friendly offices or their mediation to the states en1. Speech in the Senate April 14, 1900.

gaged in the conflict. The right to offer these friendly offices or mediation is absolute in the powers which take no part in the conflict eve during hostilities. The exercise of this right shall never be considered by either of the parties to the contest as an unfriendly act.

ART. 4. The duty of a mediator consists in conciliating the opposing claims and appeasing the resentment which may have sprung up be tween the states engaged in the conflict.

ART. 5. The duties of a mediator cease from the moment when it is officially declared by either party to the strife, or by the mediator himself, that the methods of conciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

I can not learn that we have proposed any method of con ciliation. It is reported that, in a perfunctory way, our Gov ernment asked Great Britain if it could do anything to settle the quarrel. Our plain duty was to have acted before the first gun was fired, and then, if refused, to have at once expressed our disapproval of England's course by passing resolutions of sympathy for the South African Republics.

Instead of taking the most American course our Adminis tration has allowed the world to believe we are in full sympathy with Great Britain. Even if there is not a verbal understanding between Mr. Hay, our Secretary of State, and the English Government, approved by the President, it is evident that as long as Mr. McKinley is in power England will have at least the moral support of the United States in whatsoever she may do. I believe that there is such an understanding, for in no other way can I explain the course and conduct of the President.

There is strong corroboration of this view in the visit of the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Hanna, to England last year. and his great admiration for the English Government, expressed on his return.

The struggle going on in South Africa is between the same despotic power, intensified a hundredfold, that over a century ago endeavored to destroy liberty on the American continent and a republic weaker in numbers than we were when we made our triumphant resistance to British tyranny.

Who can say that the Boers are not prompted by as lofty a patriotism, by as ardent a desire for freedom, as inspired

our forefathers in that Revolution which, in 1776, brought our own Republic into being as a model after which the liberty of the world has been fashioned.

Under the conditions and circumstances grouped about the origin of our Government and the historical events attending its course of development, the most unnatural alliance for us to make is an English alliance. Our most natural alliance would be one of sympathy with the heroic defenders of the Transvaal, who have been winning victories that take their places beside Marathon, Bunker Hill, and Lexington.

And in response, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a wave of enthusiasm moves across our continent, and in public meetings the hope everywhere finds expression that the Republic of South Africa shall not perish from the earth, and that the red uplifted hand of British greed may be stayed.

Why, then, did not our Executive take action in behalf of liberty and humanity, action that would have convinced the world that we still believed liberty and humanity should prompt nations in their dealings with each other? Simply because he is engaged in the same wretched business as that which is drenching the soil of Africa with the blood of martyrs. He is busy with an effort to rob the people of the Philippine Islands, and is slaughtering those who resist robbery because, forsooth, it will pay, because they are rich and are worth robbing, and because their island possessions will furnish a foothold for other robberies. The Executive has the power to intercede in behalf of the South African Republic, and if he had spoken as Cleveland spoke in the Venezuela case, there would have been no war in South Africa. But the President will not avail himself of the humane opportunity. The duty is then upon us to act.

Who are these people that excite our sympathy?

They are of our own race. The same blood courses in their veins and in our veins. They sprang from the Dutch, who drove Philip out of Holland, and from the French Huguenots, who fled to Holland rather than surrender their convictions. Their career in South Africa is a living, burning page in the history of the world, and the impress of their ear