THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1906. A GERMANOPHILE AMERICAN.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8320, 28 December 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1906. A GERMANOPHILE AMERICAN.

Professor Burgess, the first occupant of the "Roosevelt Chair" at Berlin University, gave a truly amazing inaugural address. He described the Monroe doctrine and the protective tariff—two of the corner-stones of American policy as "antiquated and almost senseless," he intimated that the United States welcomed German colonisation in South America, and he advised Germans not to be n]i.sled by what American diplomats said on such subjects, but to trust to the assurances of such "ambassadors of peace, culture, and civilisation" as himself and his successors. Of course, plenty of Aber k icans hold these views but it is amazing that one of them should have been selected for such a post. With a similar courage, if, indeed, it should n6t be called rashness, Professor Burgess, stated that when in Berlin in 1871 he himself learnt the lesson which the outside world has apparently yet to learn, namely, "that the greatest guarantee for the peace and well-being o ; f Europe consists not in coquetries between the Atlantic Powers, not' even in agreements and alliances between them, but in the German Empire and the German Army." According to the London Daily Mail's Berlin correspondent, the entire American element in Germany was scandalised and angered at the Professor's remarks, and despatches were sent to Washington declaring that his address had done American policy irreparable damage,.and urging his recall. However, this drastic step does not seem to have been taken, and the Professor's punishment has been confined to being struck off the list of speakers at the American thanksgiving festivities in Berlin, under the auspices of the United States

Embassy. The gravity of the incident may be gauged from the fact that the Prussian Ministry of Education circulated thousands of copies of the address through the country, emphasising its official character and the august auspices under which it was delivered. A rather curious point is noted by another Berlin correspondent. Following Professor Burgess's address, the Emperor rose and said (according to the reports): —"Fellow students, let us give expression to the thanks which have just been uttered in such eloquent language, by seizing the hand stretched out to us from America, and by giving three cheers for the man who is the incarnation of all the good qualities of his people, President Roosevelt. Hurrah! Hurrah!" But what the Kaiser really said was "all the good qualities of his race," that is, the Germanic race. But the censor thought the other would be more judicious.

The activity of the promoters of the English Channel tunnel has not caused the advocates of the Channel train-ferry to abandon their scheme. On the contrary, it is being contended that the ferry scheme gives all the advantages of the tunnel, and' is ever so much cheaper, and quite unobjectionable from a political point of view. The scheme was explained a recent gathering of . the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris by the President of that body. It involved, he said, the bodily transportation of trains across the channel in boats built specially for the purpose, and their transference from rail to boat and from boat to rail by a system of lifts easily adaptable to the varying level of the tides. Thepowest estimate of the cost of the tunnel was £8,000,000 and it would probably cost more like £16,000,000 or £20,000,000, whereas the train ferry could be started for less than £1,000,003. The ferry could be set working in two years; and the return would be immediate. The company in charge of the scheme estimated the expenditure at £847,686, and the 1 annual profit at £145,000. But the chief advantage of the ferry was that there could be no possible objection to it on the ground of public policy, such as the alleged military danger, which proved a fatal objection to the tunnel scheme of 1883. Unless the tunnel could be neutralised, a third Power might at any moment destroy it with a handful of dynamite. It was difficult to see upon what grounds a third Power would consent to the neutralisation of an undertaking devised primarily for the sole benefit of the two countries whose territory it connected, and possibly to enable them the more effectually to carry on commercial competition • I to the detriment of that third Power. The President pointed out that train ferries were being . worked successfully and remuneratively in various parts of the world, and that the Channel did not present conditions more difficult than those under which most of these ferries were operated. A well-known engineer told the gathering that it would be at least eighteen years before the tunnel could be completed, . and it was unanimously agreed that the ferry scheme would prove remunerative. It is proposed to carry the trains on steamers with a speed of twenty-three knots.