For over a century Finland has been an absolutely autonomous part of the Russian empire. The czar was her constitutional grand duke; she has had her parliament, her suffrage system-a most democratic one, without sex or other restrictions for some time-her own tariff system, her railroad system, her postage, her banking laws, her educational policy. Attempts to Russify her were possibly made prior to the war with Japan and the revolution, but those events brought the attempts to sudden termination and even led to an extension of Finnish rights and privileges. The counter-revolution in Russia, the illegal revision of the suffrage laws, the trials and wholesale executions, were accompanied by a revival of the anti-Finnish movement. The Russian reactionaries hate Finland because she has a higher culture, free institutions, western sympathies and connections. The Russian "nationalists," or many of them, also condemn Finland's pretensions and independence. They wish to get rid of all alien and separatist tendencies in the empire. They strive to Russify Poland and other annexed but unassimilated territories and peoples by artificial and tyrannical means. Premier Stolypin has welcomed the support of these nationalists and has gradually alienated even the mild Octobrist liberals.

Exactly what will happen to Finland now that the governmental bill modifying her fundamental laws and violating her constitutional rights has been enacted, time will tell. It may be that the czar and his advisers will be prudent and careful; it is possible that they will attempt sweeping and numerous changes in a high-handed manner. The Finns, so far, have remained calm, though they are deeply offended and chagrined. They may bow to superior physical force, knowing that the world cannot help them. But their feelings for Russia will not be made warmer and friendlier by the anti-Finnish steps that have been taken recently in the name of imperial interests and imperial unity.

Human Conquest of the Air

It is remarkable what our "airmen"-to use a word recommended by good writers as preferable to the word "aviators," and as having better backing in analogy and practice have accomplished in a short time. Not many months back we were wondering at the first successful flights of the Wrights and congratulating them on extraordinary achievements. Since then a whole race of airmen has made its appearance, with several types of aeroplanes-mono, biplanes, what not-while the Zepplin dirigible balloon, in spite of fresh tragedies and disasters, has made some marvelous records and has probably "come to stay." "Aerial express trains," air lines, will not be abandoned in consequence of a few wrecks; there is too much appeal to the popular imagination in that, too much thrill and excitement and sport, to permit the advocates of the dirigible balloon to acknowledge defeat at the hands of any element. Walter Wellman is even now planning a flight across the Atlantic in an airship, and there are experts who predict his success. As to the aeroplane, which, it appears safe to say, has the more assured future for certain purposes--especially in time of war-its recent operations have been amazing enough to justify the boldest projects. Men have flown across the English channel and back; from London to Manchester; from New York to Philadelphia and back. The breaking of records for speed, height, distance, endurance, weight is a matter of such frequent occurrence that it has ceased to attract notice. The next "event" in aeroplane sport scheduled is a race from New York to Chicago.

One of the demonstrations of the daring airmen had to do with the possibility of the throwing of dynamite bombs from aeroplanes on battle-ships in a way to inflict fatal injury. Nothing very conclusive resulted, but there are those who already see the end of the Dreadnaughts and other huge men of war, and the "scrapping" of the modern navies, as a certain and not very distant effect of air navigation.

One enthusiastic editor thinks a Nobel peace prize will before long be presented to an airman for destroying the destroyers and saving all the hundreds of millions that are now annually spent on naval programs. A modern war ship costs about $15,000,000, while an aeroplane costs only a few thousand dollars. If a few of the latter craft can drive from the seas and cripple or sink the most formidable and terrifying of the former, what sense will there be in building them either for attack or defence?

The progress of invention is so rapid that what is sheer and idle speculation today may be familiar and even tame fact within a year or two. War, peace, commerce, pleasure -everything will be profoundly affected by the solution of the problem of what is erroneously called human "flight," being in reality "motoring in the air," as one periodical happily describes it. Motoring in the air, however, calls for new manifestations of human genius and human courage and perseverance, and the race is not found wanting. Every country, every race, every class, every walk of life may be found represented in the remarkable group of men now engaged in perfecting the various types of air craft. But alas! we also pay the price of our achievements. In eighteen months accidents, wrecks and falls have taken a score of lives, and some noted aeronauts, after many triumphs, thus tragically and suddenly ended their careers.

The Open Door and the Russo-Japanese Treaty

A new treaty which is regarded as highly important, if not as big with serious and perilous issues, has been concluded and signed by Russia and Japan. It relates to Manchuria, to the respective railroad rights and other interests of the contracting powers, in that province. It indirectly affects the interests of other great powers, and especially those of China and the United States. There are competent students of far eastern politics who assert that the treaty is really directed against the United States and the "open

door" principle, and newspaper comment-some of it supposed to be "inspired" or quasi-official-tends to sustain this view.

It is certain that Secretary Knox's proposal for the neutralization and purely commercial operation of the Manchurian railroads surprised and alarmed Russia and Japan. Sinister and selfish designs were ascribed to the United States-the desire to "grab" and reap where it had not sown or labored, the hope of gaining advantage at the expense of Russia and Japan. It is said, therefore, that that proposal "threw Russia and Japan into each other's arms" and gave them a realizing sense of danger from a new quarter. The new treaty is thus supposed to be a safeguard against such danger. There are rumors that it contains secret clauses or a secret postscript which, if published, would show that it is undoubtedly "anti-American" and anti-Chinese, contemplating, in other words, a monopoly of trade in Manchuria and a violation of Chinese sovereignty and integrity. It hardly needs adding that the contracting powers deny these reports and reaffirm their loyal adherence to the open door policy and to the principles of the Portsmouth treaty. Such protestations are never taken seriously by free-lance critics and prophets, but governments must treat them with respect and limit their criticism and objections-"if any❞— to the text of the published treaty.

When the text of the new treaty is examined, no ground for protest is discoverable in any one of the articles, although the third article is somewhat indefinite and ambiguous. In view of possible developments and controversies, we give the short articles herewith:

"Article 1. With the object of facilitating communication and developing the commerce of nations, the two high contracting parties mutually engage to lend each other their friendly coöperation with a view to the amelioration of their respective railway lines in Manchuria and the improvement of the connecting service of the said railways and to abstain from all competition prejudicial to the realization of this object.

"Article 2. Each of the high contracting parties engages to maintain and respect the status quo in Manchuria resulting from the treaties, conventions, and other arrangements concluded up to this day between Japan and Russia, or between either of these two powers and China. Copies of the aforesaid arrangements have been exchanged between Japan and Russia.

"Article 3. In case that any event arises of a nature to menace the status quo heretofore mentioned the two high contracting parties shall in each case enter into communication with each other in order to arrive at an understanding as to the measures they may judge it necessary to take for the maintenance of the said status quo."

The third article may be interpreted in various ways. It will continue to stimulate gossip and speculation. But on the face of things nothing the United States has done or ever proposed to do either in Manchuria or in the far East generally has had the appearance of a "menace" to existing Russian or Japanese interests. We want trade and equal opportunity in that quarter; we have secured participation in a Chinese railroad loan; we have championed the integrity of China, to whom the Manchurian railroads must eventually pass. But all this threatens no legitimate interest of Japan or Russia. Even if, as some think, these two powers, enemies a few years ago, good friends now, should become fast allies-which is not an improbable consummation-their alliance would not necessarily cause uneasiness in the United States, unless they should meantime manifest a disposition to assume an offensive, arrogant attitude and seek special privileges or resort to coercive tactics in dealing with China.