The question of cable-cutting has never come up before as a means of offensive warfare, as it is only in recent years that there has been any extensive laying of cables. Dewey's example has been followed by the blockading fleet off Cuba; this fact establishes beyond all peradventure the position that this Government has assumed. The British Government evidently believes that in the time of war the right to cut cables connecting the opposing nation with other countries is one which may be assumed without violation of international law. In a speech on this matter, Mr. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury, quoting in Parliament a few days ago an agreement made in Paris in 1884, in reference to the protection of cables by different nations, said: "By Article XV. of this convention, in time of war a belligerent signatory to the convention (that is, a county signing this agreement) is as free to act with respect to submarine cables as if the convention did not exist. I am not prepared, therefore, to say that a belligerent, on the ground of military exigency, would under no circumstances be justified in interfering with cables between the territory of the opposing power and any other part of the world."
Our State Department considers that this statement on the part of Great Britain commits that country to the policy regarding cables which we have recently put into practice; her approval of our action virtually establishes this right as a principle of international law.
Very serious trouble is anticipated in Italy because of the hopeless poverty of much of the peasantry, and the apparent inefficiency of the present system of government. The Italian peasant barely succeeds under the most advantageous circumstances in obtaining food enough for himself and family; consequently every change in the price of bread is a serious matter to him; under the present Government the taxes have become heavier, and this is sure at no distant date to bring about a crisis; that this crisis is near is shown by the recent bread riots. The only hope of averting trouble is a change in the policy of the Italian Government.
Many people in Europe are asking why the price of wheat continues to advance, as there is apparently no reason, for the Spanish-American war has created no increased demand, nor has it seriously interfered with the shipment of grain. The increase in price is accounted for, by those who are familiar with these subjects, on the ground that there seems to be a general conspiracy to hold back supplies from Europe in the hope of obtaining higher prices, and in consequence scarcity is created in certain markets, thus causing the rise in price both there and elsewhere, and with each rise in price comes additional reason for the holding back of supplies on the part of the speculators who are manipulating the market.
It is rather interesting to turn from the account of the riots in Italy to a brief history of Joseph Leiter's famous wheat deal. This wheat deal, which has just been closed, is the most remarkable that has ever been known in the history of the grain markets. Leiter has not only made himself rich, but has added to the wealth of the farmers in the West enormously. Every effort on the part of other speculators to force Leiter to the wall has been unsuccessful. Last fall when he was buying, they turned over enormous quantities of wheat, but he seemed to have untold millions at his command, for he met every offer with cash, and demonstrated that he had more money if they could furnish more wheat: the result was that wheat went up, up, up, until it reached nearly $2 a bushel, and Leiter has made, it is estimated, over $4,000,000, or nearly $500 an hour since April of last year.
The account of the troubles in Italy, and the great prosperity resulting from Leiter's success here, simply demonstrate what has been called attention to before—that what affects one part of the world has its influence upon the rest. A contribution from the prospered wheat farmers (and Leiter) to the suffering poor in Italy would not be amiss under the circumstances.
In our recent numbers we mentioned the trouble in the Sierra Leone Protectorate. This trouble has been ascribed to the hut tax; this tax is practically the only tax levied upon the natives, and it is for the purpose of raising sufficient revenue to prevent slave-trading. The trouble in this colony has arisen indirectly, not directly, as a result of this tax, as the slave-traders have used it as a pretext for stirring up the rebellion among the natives. England for many years has been doing her best to suppress slave-trading, and the slave-traders make use of any grievance, imaginary or otherwise, in their attempts to overthrow the power of the white men, in order that their barbarous man-hunting may not be interfered with. Several men-of-war have been sent by England to Sierra Leone, and are to be reinforced by others; troops have also been sent to the assistance of the missionaries and others whose lives are endangered by the uprising of the natives.