Suche löschen...
The Daily record and the Dresden daily : 18.07.1908
- Erscheinungsdatum
- 1908-07-18
- Sprache
- Englisch
- Vorlage
- SLUB Dresden
- Digitalisat
- SLUB Dresden
- Lizenz-/Rechtehinweis
- Public Domain Mark 1.0
- URN
- urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id416971482-190807184
- PURL
- http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id416971482-19080718
- OAI-Identifier
- oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-416971482-19080718
- Sammlungen
- Zeitungen
- Historische Zeitungen
- Strukturtyp
- Ausgabe
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
Inhaltsverzeichnis
- ZeitungThe Daily record and the Dresden daily
- Jahr1908
- Monat1908-07
- Tag1908-07-18
- Monat1908-07
- Jahr1908
- Links
-
Downloads
- Einzelseite als Bild herunterladen (JPG)
-
Volltext Seite (XML)
•aFTTglW "’•iggg^ .'i l ji»»v^rr»“ i , y:’v^»> t wyHg* ^sm ‘i'\^*w> r"^jmjtwr^w.'K 1 ^fTvvyw^ ^PfTT 5 ^- f ’H^;^3F7ry~s r r W.,Potsdamer Strasse 10/11. Telephone: VI 1079. ®jc Dailn Becurb and THE DRESDEN DAILY. A., Struve Strasse 5,1. Telephone: 1755. The First Daily Paper in English published in Germany. M 743. DRESDEN AND BERLIN, SATURDAY, JULY 18, 1908. 10 PFENNIGS. Ihe *** R ‘ mrd “ % hand in and mmj ** y ,T^ th ™° h rj he * « P^e, daily, eacepliny Moneys and days following legal holidays m Dresden <*« of Germany and Austria, mark 1.-. For other countries, marks 2.S0 PUBLIC DISSERVICE. (Prom our London correspondent.) It is quite just that public services should be re warded by public distinction, that every effort which involves the sacrifice of individual power to the good of the State should be judged according to its intent and success. But why are we not more systematic in meeting the spread of what may be called “public disservice,” of narrow fanaticism and mischievous interference? Democracy should mean government by the competent, not mis-govern- ment by everybody and anybody, and it should be provided with some weapon to protect itself against the danger of bad advice. That danger becomes greater as education grows more general, and large classes, rich and poor, of partially educated people awaken to a sense of political responsibility. De mocracy, in spite of all its boasted moral suscep tibilities, is but a slip-shod affair in which moral values adjust themselves according to the play of circumstances. The ardent democrat claims that they adjust themselves according to the irresistible force of majorities or the sweeping trend of public opinion. But, as a matter of experience, the ana lysis of political motive reveals desolating results. Men are sometimes bribed with money, but there are also, other, and subtler, forms of bribery—a bribery of the intelligence prompting it to seek the path of ^ least resistance, a bribery of the imagi nation impelling it into fantastic labyrinths of political sentimentality, a bribery of the primeval force of self-interest. These bribes, in many forms and many combinations, are dangled before an electorate like so many sacred principles of patriotism and humanity; and the electorate makes the fit response of shouting for two hours on end or breaking the windows of dissentients. In electioneering methods America is the logical continuation of England; the difference is only one of degree. Nor do the fallacies of democracy end with elections; they prosper as soon as a Govern ment feels itself firm in the seat of power and begins to act with independence. Politics is so much a matter of chance that it is almost impos sible to tie down a party to a programme of acts as well as of principles. Someone must judge where acts break away from principles, after the country has chosen the principles which are to underlie the acts. The critics are the Opposition, and if they convince the country that the acts are inconsistent with the original principles the latter has no choice but to attach itself to the series of principles maintained by the opposition. Thus, the electorate has either to change its principles when it is anxious only to change the acts of the Govern ment, or else parties have to regard principles simply as variable colouring with which to enshroud the essential acts. From this cause arises the lamentable spectacle of party superstition—the help lessness of original politicians in the face of or ganization, and the open dishonesty of electioneering methods. The crucial inconsistency, however, lies here, that m addition to the orthodox politicians who are openly dishonest, there are other, and less orthodox, Politicians who are personally dishonest from a real lack of honesty or a lack of political adroitness, i hese are the men whom we would include under the title of “public disservice.” Strangely enough, molish politicians are more dangerous than corrupt oaes. Corruption is exposed almost mechanically; ’olishness may corrode its surroundings and earn a good name for itself in addition. The intelligence, Lite virtue, too often breaks down before mere insistence; and if modern politicians of the smaller by have one outstanding quality it is that of in sistence. They fight each other in the Press, and biey fight the Press on the platform. This atmo sphere of dead-earnestness soon condenses itself jiito heroico-sanctific halo, and the public, great a by in politics as in literature, seldom knows how o laugh when it sees a foolish face mouthing from out a home-made halo; the public is actually im pressed by such a spectacle. There are, let us hope, enough well-balanced and e men in the House <Jf Commons to see through ie thin proprieties of the foolish, the corrupt and bie fanatical. It is not enough to fly to the refuge the dining-rooms when inconsequential people catch the Speaker’s eye. There ought to be some sort of Censor, appointed for the sake of saving the nation’s time, and there ought to be some sort of stamp with which to brand for ever the propa gators of so much mischief. In this respect the Russian administration is ahead of us; they know whom they object to and why, and they have their Siberia ready. I leave to Sir W. S. Gilbert the development of the suggestion of a British Siberia, humane, just, no more severe than the schoolboy’s Coventry—but implacable. Every sensible member of Parliament and many sensible electors have, doubtless, theif 4 proscription lists ready. After that, the English Constitution will move along as merrilv as it does in Bagehot. GENERAL NEWS. NEWS FROM ENGLAND. IF RUSSIA RULED INDIA. There is a short, but rather significant, article m the Modern Review, in which the writer asks what the fate of India would be if it were to pass into the hands of Russia. He holds that Russian rule might not prove so destructive to India as foreign rule is generally apt to be. The two countries are so much alike. Russia, like India, is an agricultural country; and economi cally the Russian rule would not prove so dis astrous to India by draininig away her foodstuffs and other agricultural produce. Neither would she destroy Indian industries and manufactures as the British rule has done. The British have destroyed the Indian ^ merchant shipping, which the writer thinks Russia would develop. Russia possesses vil lage communities and the joint family system, and 'would strengthen the organisation of Indian family life instead of destroying it. Hindus could go to Russia without losing caste, as they would not have to travel by sea. Russia admits Mussulmans and Asiatics to the Duma, but where are the Hindu and Mussulman Members of Parliament representing Indian constituencies? The Russians are devoid of the insular pride and haughty spirit; they mix with the natives in Central Asia, by whom they are loved and respected. On their railways in Central Asia they do not label compartments “for Europeans only,” and the na tives who travel with the Russians in the same compartment are not subjected to those indignities and ill-treatment which present such an unedifying spectacle in railway travelling in India. As for the statement that there is no freedom of speech or press in Russia, the writer asks, have not the Indians been gagged? Have not printing- presses been destroyed in the Central Provinces and in East Bengal, and have not Indian orators, editors and printers been deported without trial, or sent to gaol for doing what Anglo-Indian editors do with impunity every day? If Count Tolstoy were an Indian, would he be allowed the liberty he has in Russia ? And there is not much more personal safety in India for the political suspect than there is in Russia. We should also like to know, says the writer in conclusion, the names of the Indians whom the British Government have ap pointed governors of provinces and generals in the army, as Russia has appointed a few at least of her Asiatic subjects. PROPOSED IBSEN MEMORIAL. In Christiania the subject is under consideration of buying Ibsen’s house and transforming it into a museum. The dramatist’s son, Sigurd Ibsen, does not approve of the project, seemingly on the in adequate ground that his father was only the tenant of the premises. He advocates the creation of a general Ibsen collection, by purchasing the scattered memorials of the poet, beginning with the Collin exhibits at Copenhagen, and those to be seen in the University Library of Christiania, to which he would add those in the possession of his own family. The partisans of the Ibsen Museum hold to their idea, and it is said that among their number is M. Arctander, a former Cabinet Minister, who is a tower of strength in his own country. WEATHER FORECAST FOR TODAY of the Royal Saxon Meteorological Institute. Strong south-westerly winds; cloudy; temperature not much altered; thunderstorms and showers. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. London, July 16. ^ Mr. MacNeill asked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been directed to the statements of Mr. J. W. Logan, who was for many years a member of this House, that the ladies, of whom his daughter is one, who were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in connection with the agi tation for woman suffrage, are placed in solitary confinement for 23 hours out of the 24, have prison dress, have coarse prison food to eat, and were not allowed to have letters or books or newspapers, ex cept one book a week from the prison library; in what respect did this punishment differ from'the prison discipline enforced on prisoners guilty of heinous crimes; and whether he would in these cases advice the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown for the removal or reduction of the cruel and humiliating incidents of such an imprisonment. - Mr. Gladstone explained that these prisoners were in the second division, and had the same diet as in the first division. There were restrictions as to conversation and as to the receipt of letters until they had served one month. The punishment dif fered from that of prisoners convicted of heinous crimes, but they were not altogether separated from other criminals. Anyone could secure their release hy giving security for their good behaviour, and he could not recommend the exercise of the pre rogative of mercy.—Mr. MacNeill: Are these ladies whom the right hon. gentleman has termed crimi nals compelled to wear prison clothes formerly worn by women criminals.—Mr. Gladstone: They are under the rules governing the second division.—Mr. Mac Neill: And they wear the cast-off clothes of other prisoners ?—Mr. Gladstone : I really can’t say. Of course, new clothing cannot be supplied to all pri soners who enter the prison.—Mr. W. Redmond: Are these ladies obliged to take exercise in as sociation with those who are convicted of ordinary criminal offences ?—Mr. Gladstone: That is not the case. They are kept apart from ordinary criminals. —Mr. Keir Hardie: Do I understand there is a separate exercise ground? —Mr. Gladstone: They are carefully kept away from association with the ordinary prisoners.—Mr. C. Wason: As these are really political offences, to some extent caused by the right hon. gentleman himself, will he not con sider the desirability of treating them as first-class misdemeanants?—Mr. Gladstone: I have already answered that.—Mr. Leif Jones: What good pur pose is served by limiting the number of books?— Mr. Gladstone: I am not at all sure that this rule is adequate, but I do not agree that there should be any differentiation in those cases (cheers).—Mr. MacNeill: Are those books the only books the pri son library has—goody-goody Sunday School books? —The Speaker: Any further questions must be put on the paper. Mr. Stanier asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could give the names of the two destroyers bought by the Government to take the places of two ships lost, and whether they equalled in strength and value the ones they replaced.—Mr. M’Kenna said the purchase of these vessels was not yet com pleted, as the necessary trials had not yet been carried out to ascertain fully their capabilities. If the trials were satisfactory it would be because they were considered not less suitable for service than the vessels they replaced. Their names were not yet determined. Lord Robert Cecil asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any official in formation showing that a group of capitalists in America had formed a combination called the Beef Trust to control the beef supply of that country, which had been the subject of official investigation by the United States Senate, that that combination had secured control of four-fifths of the imports of beef into this country, and was now in process of securing, by acquiring the means of retail distri bution, the same control of the beef supply here that the Beef Trust had already secured in America; and, if so, whether he proposed to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.—Mr. Churchill, in reply, said: I am aware of the official reports of (Continued on page 2.)
- Aktuelle Seite (TXT)
- METS Datei (XML)
- IIIF Manifest (JSON)
- Doppelseitenansicht
- Vorschaubilder
Erste Seite
10 Seiten zurück
Vorherige Seite