the railways of the world in 1895, no less than 800,000,000 were carried in the United States.  Even if we add the 140,000,000 carried by sea-going ships, there remains a balance of 60,000,000 tons in favor of the United States as against the rest of the world.  It is, perhaps, impossible to ascertain whether or not the actual value of the goods carried would be in the same proportion; but it seems probable that the value of the 800,000,000 tons of the home trade of America must considerably exceed that of the free portion of the trade of the British Empire, i.e., practically the whole of its import trade and that portion of its export trade carried on with free-trade countries or colonies.  The internal commerce of the United States makes it the most wonderful market on the globe; and Brother Jonathan, the rampant Protectionist, stands convicted as the greatest Cobdenite of them all!

We are all, it is said, apt to “slip up” on our strongest points.  Perhaps this is why one of the leading writers of the American democracy is able to assert that “there is no country in the world where the separation of the classes is so absolute as ours,” and to quote a Russian revolutionist, who lived in exile all over Europe and nowhere found such want of sympathy between the rich and poor as in America.  If this were true it would certainly form a startling contrast to the general kind-heartedness of the American.  But I fancy it rather points to the condition of greater relative equality.  Our Russian friend was accustomed to the patronising kindness of the superior to the inferior, of the master to the servant.  It is easy, on an empyrean rock, to be “kind” to the mortals toiling helplessly down below.  It costs little, to use Mr. Bellamy’s parable, for those securely seated on the top of the coach to subscribe for salve to alleviate the chafed wounds of those who drag it.  In America there is less need and less use of this patronising kindness; there is less kindness from class to class simply because the conscious realisation of “class” is non-existent in thousands of cases where it would be to the fore in Europe.  As for the first statement quoted at the head of this paragraph, I find it very hard of belief.  It is true that there are exclusive circles, to which, for instance, Buffalo Bill would not have the entree, but the principle of exclusion is on the whole analogous to that by which we select our intimate personal friends.  No man in America, who is personally fitted to adorn it, need feel that he is automatically shut out (as he might well be in England) from a really congenial social sphere.