right or wrong." A politician's best chance to secure votes

is to gloss over the faults of his own party or nation,
to dilate on the wickedness of his neighbors and to exhort his compatriots

to be loyal to their national flag. Can it be wondered at
that men who are imbued with such doctrines become selfish and narrow-minded

and are easily involved in quarrels with other nations?
Patriotism is, of course, the national life. Twenty-four centuries ago,

speaking in the Greek Colony of Naxos, Pythagoras described this emotion
in the following eloquent passage: "Listen, my children, to what the State

should be to the good citizen. It is more than father or mother,
it is more than husband or wife, it is more than child or friend.

The State is the father and mother of all, is the wife of the husband
and the husband of the wife. The family is good, and good is the joy

of the man in wife and in son. But greater is the State, which is
the protector of all, without which the home would be ravaged and destroyed.

Dear to the good man is the honor of the woman who bore him,
dear the honor of the wife whose children cling to his knees;

but dearer should be the honor of the State that keeps safe
the wife and the child. It is the State from which comes all

that makes your life prosperous, and gives you beauty and safety.
Within the State are built up the arts, which make the difference

between the barbarian and the man. If the brave man dies gladly
for the hearthstone, far more gladly should he die for the State."

But only when the State seeks the good of the governed,
for said Pythagoras on another occasion: "Organized society exists for

the happiness and welfare of its members; and where it fails to secure these
it stands ipso facto condemned."

But to-day should the State be at war with another,
and any citizen or section of citizens believe their own country wrong

and the opposing nation wronged, they dare not say so,
or if they do they run great risk of being punished for treason.

Men and women though no longer bought and sold in the market place
are subjected to subtler forms of serfdom. In most European countries

they are obliged to fight whether they will or not, and irrespective
of their private convictions about the dispute; even though, as is the case

in some European countries, they may be citizens from compulsion
rather than choice, they are not free to abstain from active participation

in the quarrel. Chinese rebellions are said to "live on loot",
i.e., on the forcible confiscation of private property, but is that worse

than winning battles on the forcible deprivation of personal liberty?
This is nationalism gone mad! It fosters the desire for territory grabbing

and illustrates a fundamental difference between the Orient and the Occident.
With us government is based on the consent of the governed

in a way that the Westerner can hardly understand, for his passion to expand
is chronic. Small nations which are over-populated want territory

for their surplus population; great nations desire territory to extend
their trade, and when there are several great powers to divide the spoil

they distribute it among themselves and call it "spheres of influence",
and all in honor of the god Commerce. In China the fundamentals

of our social system are brotherhood and the dignity of labor.
What, I ask, is the advantage of adding to national territory?

Let us examine the question calmly. If a town or a province is seized
the conqueror has to keep a large army to maintain peace and order,

and unless the people are well disposed to the new authority
there will be constant trouble and friction. All this, I may say, in passing,

is opposed to our Confucian code which bases everything on reason
and abhors violence. We would rather argue with a mob and find out,

if possible, its point of view, than fire on it. We have yet to be convinced
that good results flow from the use of the sword and the cannon.

Western nations know no other compulsion.
If, however, the acquisition of new territory arises from a desire

to develop the country and to introduce the most modern and improved
systems of government, without ulterior intentions, then it is beyond praise,

but I fear that such disinterested actions are rare.
The nearest approach to such high principle is the purchase

of the Philippine Islands by the United States. I call it "purchase"
because the United States Government paid a good price for the Islands

after having seized the territory. The intentions of the Government
were well known at the time. Since her acquisition of those Islands,

America has been doing her best to develop their resources
and expand their trade. Administrative and judicial reforms

have been introduced, liberal education has been given to the natives,
who are being trained for self-government. It has been repeatedly

and authoritatively declared by the United States that as soon as
they are competent to govern themselves without danger of disturbances,

and are able to establish a stablegovernment, America will grant
independence to those islands. I believe that when the proper time comes

she will fulfill her word, and thus set a noble example to the world.
The British in Hongkong afford an illustration of a different order,

proving the truth of my contention that, excepting as a sphere
for the exercise of altruism, the acquisition of new territories

is an illusive gain. When Hongkong was ceded to Great Britain
at the conclusion of a war in which China was defeated,

it was a bare island containing only a few fishermen's huts.
In order to make it a trading port and encourage people to live there,

the British Government spent large sums of money year after year
for its improvement and development, and through the wise administration

of the local Government every facility was afforded for free trade.
It is now a prosperous British colony with a population of nearly

half a million. But what have been the advantages to Great Britain?
Financially she has been a great loser, for the Island which she received

at the close of her war with China was for many years a great drain
on her national treasury. Now Hongkong is a self-supporting colony,

but what benefits do the British enjoy there that do not belong
to everyone else? The colony is open to all foreigners, and every right

which a British merchant has is equally shared with everyone else.
According to the census of 1911, out of a population of 456,739

only 12,075 were non-Chinese, of whom a small portion were British;
the rest were Chinese. Thus the prosperity of that colony

depends upon the Chinese who, it is needless to say, are in possession
of all the privileges that are enjoyed by British residents.

It should be noticed that the number of foreign firms and stores
(i.e., non-British) have been and are increasing, while big British hongs

are less numerous than before. Financially, the British people
have certainly not been gainers by the acquisition of that colony.

Of course I shall be told that it adds to the prestige of Great Britain,
but this is an empty, bumptious boast dearly paid for

by the British tax-payer.
From an economic and moral point of view, however, I must admit

that a great deal of good has been done by the British Government in Hongkong.
It has provided the Chinese with an actualworking model

of a Western system of government which, notwithstanding many difficulties,
has succeeded in transforming a barren island into a prosperous town,

which is now the largest shipping port in China. The impartial
administration of law and the humanetreatment of criminals

cannot but exciteadmiration and gain the confidence of the natives.
If the British Government, in acquiring the desert island, had for its purpose

the instruction of the natives in a modern system of government,
she is to be sincerely congratulated, but it is feared that her motives

were less altruistic.
These remarks apply equally, if not with greater force, to the other colonies

or possessions in China under the control of European Powers,
as well as to the other colonies of the British Empire, such as Australia,

New Zealand, Canada, and others which are called "self-governing dominions".
The Imperial Government feels very tender toward these colonists,

and practically they are allowed to manage their affairs as they like.
Since they are so generously treated and enjoy the protection

of so great a power, there is no fear that these self-governing dominions
will ever become independent of their mother country; but if they ever

should do so, it is most probable" target="_blank" title="a.未必有的">improbable that she would declare war against them,
as the British people have grown wiser since their experience with

the American colonists. British statesmen have been awakened to the necessity
of winning the good-will of their colonists, and within recent years

have adopted the policy of inviting the Colonial premiers to London