ARGENTINE POLITICS
Writing about a country, with no dogmatic intention, but drawing at
haphazard from memory impressions received, has this advantage, that
instead of setting down general theories that are always open to
argument, certain living traits may be seized upon which, by the very
fact that they are open to more than one interpretation, demand the
constant collaboration of writer and reader. The method--if one may
apply so big a word to so small a result--gives me an opportunity of
making a few observations about the organisation and working of the
Argentine Government.
It seemed quite natural to the intellectuals of a democratic Republic
that a democrat should come out to talk to them about democracy, to
discuss the serious problems it presents and the solutions that
time is more or less rapidly working out for them. Nevertheless, it
is not without some legitimate trepidation that one faces a public
completely unknown, proud probably of its achievements, ardently
hopeful certainly for the future, and inclined, no doubt, thanks to
the very sincerity of its labours, to be carried away by an excess of
jealous susceptibility. I was quickly reassured. The consciousness of
a great work accomplished, a keen appreciation of the finely organised
effort whose astounding results are revealed anew each day, give to the
Argentine people too just a confidence in the value of their activity
for them to see more in any courteous criticism than a good opportunity
of improving on their past--on condition, naturally, that the criticism
appear to be well founded. The critic is thus disarmed, and lets fall
his weapons for fear lest a shaft intended only to graze the skin
should penetrate deeper and inspire a weakening doubt in the mind of
men who are engaged, body and soul, in a tremendous struggle after
social progress.
In matters of government the Argentinos are neither better nor worse
off than any people of Europe where freedom of speech has begun its
work. But, notwithstanding the astonishing rapidity of assimilation
that distinguishes this land, there is as yet too little homogeneity
in the masses for the possibility of any influence from below, on the
problems of the day, apart, of course, from matters that make appeal to
patriotism, which inevitably provoke unanimity. There are many other
countries of which, in spite of appearances to the contrary, the same
might be said.
Here, as elsewhere, politicians, who are the more or less official
mouthpieces of that vague concourse of general opinions which we call
the mind of the public, may very easily mistake the ephemeral demands
of a party for the permanent interest of the country.
A point to be noticed is that faction fights, which have for so long
brought bloodshed into the cities and villages of South America, are
now disappearing. It is scarcely possible, none the less, for all
traces of violence to depart, leaving no reminder of movements which
have made of political changes one long series of hysterics. Autocracy
and sudden upheavals are inseparable. This is the lesson that the
races of the Iberian Peninsula have best learnt from their governors.
In Brazil, where an admirable economic movement goes hand in hand with
a remarkable development of orderly progress and civic peace, recent
events have shown what fires are smouldering beneath the molten streams
of a dying volcano. It is to be hoped that our friends will not be
found lacking either in the patience or the courage necessary to impose
on the public a salutary respect for law! In Uruguay, a land of Latin
amiability, the rage of revolution has frequently broken out; and if,
to all appearances, there is calm to-day, Whites and Reds still exhibit
mutual hostility without troubling to find reasons that might explain,
if not justify, recourse to arms. The Argentinos appear farther
removed from the danger of revolutionary shocks. "Wealth has quieted
us," said a politician. This is no new thing. All activities profit
by undisturbed work and lose by deeds of violence. Lucrative labour
and the fear of losing what has been acquired go to make up a fund of
prudence.
But while, happily, in the Argentine there is no present menace of
revolution, I cannot deny that in the provinces I often heard rumours
of it. Insurrection seemed imminent. Precautions were taken to protect
arsenals. And when I inquired the reason for such a movement, I
was invariably told that no one knew, but that no doubt there were
malcontents. One need not go as far as the Argentine to seek for
them. As all these alarms ended in nothing, I must put them down as a
verbal echo of a vanished epoch. I can but admire the profound peace
that has succeeded to the fury of the past, for the Argentino who, in
revolution, exposed his person so light-heartedly did not fear to take
the life of his enemy.
But can it be affirmed that in no department of the Administration
there has survived some trace of the cavalier methods of former
days? Is it true that some officials do as they like with the people
committed to their charge, and inflict treatment that is passively
borne for the moment, but may lead to terrible reprisals later? It was
often stated in my hearing, but I could never obtain any proof. I shall
not make myself the echo of slanders and calumny, which, in all lands,
are the weapons used by public men against each other. I will only take
the liberty of reminding my Argentine friends that one never need fear
excess on the side of a watchful control over Government offices.
M. Thiébaud, the Minister of France, presented me to M. Figueroa
Alcorta, the President of the Republic.[23] He gave me the most
cordially courteous of receptions, prompted, of course, by the
respect and friendship that Argentine statesmen have for France.
The President's first words were an inquiry as to whether I was as
comfortable at the Palace Hotel as at the _Hôtel du Mouton_, in
Chantonnay (Vendée). This showed me that the President of the Argentine
Republic was a reader of the _Illustration_, for a photograph of that
more than modest establishment was recently published in the columns
of the review on the occasion of an expedition I made to my native
country, when I put up at the little inn. I assured him that the
resources of Buenos Ayres were infinitely superior, and from this we
wandered off into a very interesting talk about our two countries.
M. Figueroa Alcorta was Vice-President of the Republic when the death
of President Quintana called him to the supreme _magistratere_. I
fancied that a good many people found it hard to forgive him this
unlooked-for good fortune. Some journalists thought it funny to create
for him the reputation of a "Jettatore," an inexhaustible subject
for spiteful tales in the Opposition sheets. They say the story has
not been without influence on the feminine world, specially prone
to superstition. M. Figueroa Alcorta appears to bear the misfortune
with calm courage. He talks of the Argentine with a modesty that does
not exclude a just pride, and for France he had only sympathetic
admiration. Let me say also that President Saënz Peña, whom I twice
saw in Buenos Ayres, is a devoted friend to France and French culture.
It is my duty to add that M. Saënz Peña's attention has been called to
certain lapses in the administration, and he is firmly resolved to put
an end to them.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. de la Plaza, has, since my
journey, become Vice-President of the Republic. He is rather heavy
and cold in appearance--with the silent gravity of the _cacique_, it
is said--but he is a man of profound culture and keen mind, and it is
not impossible that his taciturnity and slowness of speech are merely
diplomatic. He enjoys the reputation of being a thorough Anglomaniac,
but this, fortunately, does not preclude him from being also a
Francophil.[24]
I must mention the Minister of Public Works, M. Ramos Mexia, who was
continued in his important office by President Saënz Peña when the
Cabinet was new-formed. In a country where great public works are
constantly being undertaken, an upright mind and an iron will, united
to a spotless reputation, are all needed to resist the overtures of
the large European firms that are clamouring for contracts. A vast
field for quarrels, more or less veiled personal attacks, and unending
recriminations. I do not want to recriminate myself, or, indeed, to
touch on any delicate questions; yet I must regret the preference that
has been shown for Krupp cannon, when innumerable experiments have
demonstrated the infinite superiority of French guns.
I have already pointed out that England, by our wilful negligence,
managed to obtain the right of building practically the whole of the
railway system. She has done the work to the satisfaction of the
public, and the same may be said of the way Germany has installed the
electric systems. France triumphs in the ports of Rosario, Montevideo,
Pernambuco, Bahia-Blanca, and Rio Grande do Sul. That is all I can say,
for at the moment there exists the keenest European competition in the
harbour works of Mar del Plata and Buenos Ayres. Some complain that
Ramos Mexia has been too favourable to England. He is, however, first
and foremost an Argentino, and he uses his right to take the best from
each country.
If there has been in the past some little friction, I fancy it is
now over; it hardly could be otherwise, for M. Ramos Mexia is a warm
admirer of French culture, and as well acquainted with our classics as
our contemporaries, beside being a regular attendant at the lectures at
the Sorbonne and Collège de France whenever he is able to take a little
recreation in Paris. Need I add that Mme. Ramos Mexia is the most
French of all the Argentinos whom I met--French in the graciousness of
her welcome and French in charm of conversation.
We know that in the Argentine (and perhaps in all South American
republics, with the exception of Chili) Ministers are not responsible
to Parliament. In Chili, Parliamentary coalitions amuse themselves
by knocking over Ministers like ninepins. In the Argentine it is the
rule--to which there are exceptions--for Ministers to follow the
President, whose agents they are, having the sole function of obtaining
from the Chambers the funds required to carry on the administration.
Before I weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of this system,
which was imported ready-made by South America from the north, let me
record the surprise I felt when I discovered that, notwithstanding
the absurd stories told of the lack of measure in "hot countries," a
South American assembly could give a lesson in dignity to more than
one European Parliament. In England, as we know, measures have been
taken to prevent personal questions from being introduced into debates,
where the interests of the public alone occupy members' attention. Here
the chivalrous temperament of Castile suffices as a guarantee against
excesses of language or abuses at the hands of the majority. For
instance, in some cases a speaker is granted only ten minutes in which
to give the merest sketch of his Bill. If the orator be a member of the
minority, however, Speaker and Chamber make it a point of honour to let
him take as long as he likes. If he goes too far the rule is applied;
but this, I was assured, never happens. Finally, "it is our constant
rule," said a member well qualified to make the statement, "not to let
slip allusions in the course of a debate that might hurt the feelings
of a colleague. This requires no effort. It is just a habit one can
acquire." May the "habit" be shortly acquired in all lands!
Now that the tide of free civilisation is setting towards a dissolution
of all autocratic Powers, from Russia to Persia, and even to China,
instituting the parliamentary system which we have come to regard as
the best instrument for controlling and liberating the democracy, it
is a remarkable fact that, in practice, Parliament is much criticised,
more particularly in countries where it was only obtained after long
and painful struggles. The reason, to my mind, must be sought in the
unpardonable waste of time in debates, where free rein is given to a
puerile love of theatrical display. In the absence of any salutary
check on the humours of orators, too little attention is given to
bringing the discussions to a practical conclusion. A good reformer
should be able first to reform himself.
It is less the Parliament than the executive that attracts the European
observer of American institutions. This is because Parliament is
dominated by the executive, instead of being itself the dominating
power. The South American republics hastened to copy the Constitution
of the United States of the North, which is the original creation of
the revolution of 1776, and adapted, in a marvellous degree, to the
needs, idea, and sentiment of the country. Adopting its text, if not
its spirit, the South Americans fell into the same error as Europe has
done in copying the English Constitution in the letter, but not in the
spirit and sense given to it by the people whom it justly claims to
express.
Without entering on a discussion that would lead me too far, I
could not refrain from remarking that in actual working the North
American institutions have become distorted in South America, a
change rendered inevitable by the different level of public education
and the geographical distribution of the population. It was in the
nature of things that the earliest civilisation should partake of
the constitution of states or provinces destined later to form a
federation, but as long as the Motherland imported the sovereign
authority from outside, the struggles between a budding liberty and
an unchecked autocracy were unceasing. Once self-government had
been proclaimed, it became obligatory to constitute such elements
of public life as should make its exercise possible. Now, for this,
it is not enough to draw up a code of principles. We cannot, then,
be surprised if the South American races, fondly attached to their
own institutions, which maintain the principle of an autonomy of
federated States and provide for their idealism a verbal satisfaction,
inestimable, as they think, are yet (just like other nations now
undergoing democratic evolution) far enough from an adequate
realisation of their idea. We can scarcely expect any concerted
political action from men (often of foreign birth) who are scattered
all across the Pampas and separated by enormous distances. And, as
regards the cities, great or small, a political _élite_ will more
easily organise itself--especially where an absence of public opinion
facilitates the abuse of power--than will the "sovereign people" be
brought to exercise their sovereignty (and this we see even in Europe).
Hence the evils often made public, which are but striking examples
of what we see elsewhere; notably, the indifference of the electoral
body, evidenced by the contemptibly small number of voters who answer
the summons to the ballot--and of these few some have been brought
thither by who knows what means! To this public apathy must be added
the abstention of the middle classes, always difficult to incite to a
common political action, who thus leave a wider field than is desirable
to the machinations of the professional politician, with his methods,
direct or indirect, of bringing pressure upon the elector.
I have no hesitation in speaking of the evil. But at the same time I
must point out that if the mind of the public--such as the intellectual
_élite_ of the nation have made it--experiences some difficulty in
getting used to the slow methods of organised political action,
the independent spirit and personal dignity of the citizens are so
strong[25] that a force of public opinion is gradually evolving which,
in spite of some backsliding, will soon be powerful enough to impose
its decisions on the world of political intrigue. For instance, it is
frequently said that the President of the Republic does, in effect,
nominate his successor by reason of his authority with the State
Legislature, and there is a grain of truth in the assertion. Yet if
it were strictly true, the same party would remain in perpetuity in
power, and this we know is not the case. Thus public opinion, when
it pronounces itself with sufficient decision, can, with the help of
a wholesome fear of revolt, vanquish all resistance and bring in its
candidate. In this way any eventual abuse of personal influence is, in
effect, prevented, and this is precisely what happened in the case of
the election of M. Saënz Peña. I fear that nowhere are institutions
worked according to rule. Before throwing stones at the Argentine, let
us look at our own deficiencies.
The weak place in South American constitutions, as organised on the
theory of Jefferson, appears to us Europeans to lie in the fact that
too much power is vested in the individual. In our continent this would
open the door to the danger of a reconstitution of the forces of the
past, whose only hope now lies in the possibility of a surprise. In
America a federation of divided Powers offers so many different centres
of resistance (providing always that each State Government enjoys a
real autonomy) to any attempt at usurpation. The American of the South
is no less attached than his brother of the North to the principle of
autonomy of States. It only remains for him to make it a reality.
As a matter of fact, moreover, the theoretic independence of Ministers
and Parliament does not hold together, in view of the omnipotence of
the representative assemblies in matters of finance. This system has
the advantage of making a series of crises impossible, but a Minister
must, and always does, disappear when a succession of votes proves that
he no longer possesses the confidence of Parliament.
In America, as in Europe, the Press is the highest power after the
Government. I say "after," because we must believe the Constitution. It
is, however, only too true that the moral paralysis that distinguishes
certain "popular leaders," whose chief anxiety is to trim their course
to every wind that blows, leaves to any one who claims to speak in
the name of public opinion a degree of authority before which the
individuality of the pretended governing body, in spite of its pomp of
speeches, is apt to disappear.
But although the Press plays unquestionably a very important _rôle_ in
the Argentine, it did not appear to me that the evil went as far as
this. Not but what, perhaps, the man who owns a newspaper is as much
inclined here as anywhere to make the most use he can of its influence.
But in a land that calls out the best in any man, even the Latin,
usually so easy a prey to the designs of the political revolutionary,
manages to preserve enough independence of character to offer an
effective resistance to projects that are too flagrantly opposed to his
own calmer views.
Argentine statesmen, worthy the name, are not content to hold opinions
of their own; they are perfectly capable of the tenacity necessary
to put a scheme into execution and carry it through. Clearly the
advantages that go to make up the success of the Argentine Republic
would count for nothing were there no strong minds to grasp the higher
principles of public interest and no strong hearts to enforce their
practice. The Argentine is a battlefield where every kind of moral
force, including politics and sociology, is now in the full heat of
action, and exposed to all the chances and changes common to weak
humanity.
Public activity is here, as in all countries, manifested chiefly by
means of parties, a necessity, practically, which has at least as
many advantages as disadvantages. Casuists have argued much about
the relative qualities of "human" parties and those of any given
intellectual symbol. The Argentine Government is not based upon a
traditional or historic fact, but on a theory of right in which
originates an organisation of justice and liberty that can only pass
from principle to practice when the citizens are capable of clothing
its bare bones with the living sinews of action; but this fact in no
sense changes the problem, since man without the intellectual symbol or
idea can be only a disturbing force, and the idea in politics has no
value apart from the man who can give it life.
The old-fashioned Press of ideas has made prodigious strides since the
days of Armand Carrel, and the modern reader is more especially greedy
for facts. With these before him he forms his own opinions, and the
most the writer can do is to prepare the way towards a given deduction,
without being able to discount its acceptance with any certainty. In
reality, the Argentine Press is no better and no worse than that of any
free countries; and, whether as regards news or party politics, the
newspapers are extremely well conducted.[26] Not but that you may find
occasional violence of language, as happens everywhere, but there are
extremes which the public will not tolerate. There are no pornographic
Press and no pictures of a kind to defile the eyes of every passer-by.
On this we may congratulate a race whose healthy energies find too
continuous employment in the sunshine for them to develop any tendency
towards the excesses of "civilised" corruption.
The _Prensa_ is, as we all know, the leading newspaper of the South
American continent. Under the skilful control of its founder, M. Paz,
the _Prensa_ has reached a state of prosperity which, within the
limits of its field of action, makes it the equal of any advertising
agency in the world. It is a paper that has to be reckoned with by
every party, for although not officially attached to any group of
politicians, it obviously seeks--while maintaining the principles
of democratic evolution--to hold the balance between all parties,
ready if necessary to intervene at the critical moment. Just now its
general editor is M. Ezequiel Paz, who seems in every way capable of
carrying on his father's work. M. Zeballos is credited with being the
fount of inspiration of the paper. The ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs
is at the same time a literary man, a legal expert, and a historian.
His writings on questions of law are highly esteemed in Europe. An
untimely dispute with Brazil drove him out of office, and gave him the
leisure he is turning to account now. M. Paz is enjoying a well-earned
rest in Europe, but he retains supreme control of the sheet; and a
gorgeous palace that he is building in the best part of Buenos Ayres
would appear to point to an intention of returning to the country
before long. If he does I cannot help pitying him, for he will require
nothing less than the Court of Louis XIV., or perhaps of Xerxes, to
fill this showy dwelling. The business quarters of the _Prensa_ are
in the Avenue of May, and if smaller in dimensions, they are no less
magnificent. The building is one of the sights of the city. How shall
I describe it? It would fill a volume. Every department of the paper
is lodged in a way that unites the most perfect of means to the end in
view. Simplicity of background, a scrupulous cleanliness, comfort for
every worker therein, with a highly specialised method that gathers
together all the varied workers on the staff to direct them towards
their final end and aim, namely, promptness and accuracy of news.
With all this there are outside services, such as a dispensary, so
complete it would need a specialist to catalogue it, and suites of
apartments that are placed at the disposal of persons whom the _Prensa_
considers worthy the honour. I confess that I thought less luxury in
this part of the building would have been more to the taste of the poor
distinguished men who are lodged there, since a comparison with their
own modest homes would be wholly to the disadvantage of the latter.
The _Nacion_ is a party organ in the best sense of the word, following
the exalted traditions of Bartolome Mitre. It has been compared with
our _Temps_. My friend Antonio Piñero exercises considerable influence
here over the descendants of the great statesman. But for the quiet and
invaluable help given by the _Nacion_, all of whose interests lay in
the opposite direction,[27] we should never have succeeded in getting
the law establishing literary proprietorship through Parliament. It is
my duty as well as my pleasure to take this opportunity of offering my
grateful thanks in the quarter where they are due.
The _Diario_, in its turn, deserves special mention on account of
its editor, M. Manuel Lainez, senator, who has a rare command of the
most refined of Parisian critical talent, the sting of which does
not exclude mirth. M. Lainez is one of those journalists who excel
in detecting the weak spot in men and things and take a delight in
driving home the shaft of a caustic phrase. He dissects with ease, and
disguises the depth of his own knowledge under a thin veil of irony. I
know of no more charming talker. Whether or no his wit has injured his
political prospects is a point I am not able to decide.
Then I must mention the _Argentina_, which seemed to me an honest news
organ; and finally, I must not neglect the photographic papers, the _P.
B. T._ and the _Caras y Carietas_, in which the spoken word gives place
to the picture, according to the formula lately invented amongst us.
Both have a large circulation.
We all remember the words that Ibsen has placed in the mouth of his
"Enemy of the People" about papers being edited by their readers. No
doubt the gazette, nowadays, seeks less to establish an idea than to
conform to the supposed feelings of the masses in whose hands is the
key of success. Its educational influence has, of course, been in
consequence greatly reduced; still, a remnant exists. The culture,
slow but inevitable, of the masses must in time have a good influence
on the Press that caters for them. Photography, when genuine, and the
cinematograph, which vitalises it, have a real educational value. The
trouble is that nothing is sacred to the Argentine photographer. He
is omnipresent and enjoys the execrable privilege of being at home in
all homes. You give a dinner-party to friends or relations. With the
dessert there appear some pale persons, draped in black, who disturb
servants and guests to set up their complicated lenses on the spot that
strikes their fancy. Then comes the blinding flash and a poisonous puff
of smoke, and the master of the house hastens to thank the intruders
for the outrage. The _diable boiteux_, who lifted the roofs of houses,
has been surpassed. When an unfortunate Argentino wants to offer his
heart (always accompanied by his hand) to the lady of his choice, let
him begin by doubly locking all the doors and hermetically closing the
shutters, if he wishes to be safe from intrusion!
I alluded just now to the voting of the Law of Literary Property.[28]
As may be supposed, such an excellent Act was not carried through
without long preparation. I could give a list of men who, on both sides
of the ocean, worked in favour of this act of justice and literary
honesty. From the moment that Argentine statesmen realised that purely
intellectual labour had proprietary rights in the same way as every
other kind, and that to defraud its owners of the proceeds was to place
themselves outside the pale of civilisation, they made it a point of
honour to yield to the representations made to them from all parts of
the world. Is it not extraordinary that a law which was diametrically
opposed to the interests of persons particularly well placed to defend
them should have been voted unanimously without a single protest? All
honour to the Argentine Republic, not only for the act itself, but for
the nobility with which it was performed.
It would be an affectation on my part to pass over in silence the
public which did me the honour to come to listen to my lectures
on democratic evolution as it manifests itself in history and in
contemporary events. The subject is not wildly amusing. It is, however,
one of those that are of surpassing importance to-day, and none can
ignore it. Unfortunately, the general public cannot acquire any
trustworthy knowledge of it by scrappy reading indulged in between
the hours of the day's work; and if in the tumult of party passion the
public are to be of any real service to their Government in solving it,
the problem calls for more than a hasty and summary judgment founded
on insufficient data. And yet was it not too much to expect of people
who are engrossed all day by their own affairs to come to listen to
the statements of a public man, against whom there must necessarily
be some prejudices on a question of pure doctrine? The majority of
workers are not free of an afternoon, and the "upper classes," even the
most cultured--in Europe, at least,--are too distrustful of democratic
movements in general to waste an hour on a subject that worries them.
Happily, the history of American peoples has never been embittered by
race hatred engendered by centuries of oppression, and revolts of which
it is to be hoped that we have now seen the end. In the North, as in
the South, a formula frightens nobody. Society has been built up on a
new idea embodied in language that was once the terror and scandal of
the Old World. When put in practice, however, these ideas and their
verbal expression have stood the test of a century of trial; and the
"practical" men of the new continent, while no less alive to social
needs than any others, are, perhaps, more ready than the rest of us
to make an experiment that can be recommended by right and by reason.
There is here neither middle class nor aristocracy in the sense that
we attach to those terms in the Old World. All are workers who, having
reached the top rung of the ladder, are ready to hold it steady for
other feet to climb, rather than to overturn it and retard the advance
of those behind.
Thus, beside the small aristocracy formed of the last vestiges of the
original Spanish colony, I had the pleasure and honour of finding a
large public of European culture and wide intelligence, eager to hear
what any European might have to say about an idea whose course he was
honestly seeking to trace, whether bearing on the political and social
experiences of Europe or on the more or less rational experiments of
which their own land is the theatre. Their unbiassed criticism and
independent opinions are all one could hope to find in an audience one
is trying to influence. The very best public possible, prepared to
surrender or resist according to the intrinsic value of the arguments
presented. The element of resistance came, perhaps, from the feminine
section, slightly actuated by snobbishness, and either holding itself
aloof by way of protest against the possible utterance of ideas too
bold to be acceptable, or attending the lectures in order to get some
understanding of the subject so as to discuss it afterwards.
As regards language, there was no difficulty. Every one here
understands French, reading and speaking it like the speaker himself,
and showing by their gestures that no shade of meaning was lost on
them. What better could one wish? By the grace of winged words the mind
of France has flown across the ocean, and we may rejoice in the fact
and found great hopes for the future on it. It is therefore with the
greatest pleasure that I offer my heartfelt gratitude to this admirable
audience for their constant kindliness and for the encouragement that I
found in their remarkable idealism and determination.
FOOTNOTES:
[23] I take this opportunity of thanking M. and Mme. Thiébaud for the
friendly welcome I found at the French Legation.
[24] If to Argentine diplomacy the rigidity of our famous chapel on the
Quai d'Orsay be unknown, they have none the less given us first-class
men--such, for instance as the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, M.
Ernesto Bosch, who is much esteemed in the French political world, and
his worthy successor in Paris, M. Enrique Rodriguez Larreta.
[25] It pleases me to note the triumph of pride over vanity shown in
the fact that the Argentinos have deliberately renounced the childish
folly of orders.
[26] Thanks to the difference in the clocks, the Buenos Ayres
newspapers are able to publish in their morning editions news appearing
at the same time in London and Paris.
[27] The _Nacion_ publishes a Library of translations of the best works
in French (fifty per cent. of the whole), English, Russian, German,
Italian, to say nothing of Spanish and Argentine works in the original.
[28] I regret to say that Brazil is backward in this respect. Let us
hope she will not let Russia get ahead of her!