| Show THE anarchists OF INDIA where Is the dividing line between nn anarchist and a patriot tho butto inter mountain robin hood is held up to us as a patriot yet while robin did not throw dynamite his methods were purely the methods we ascribe sometimes to anarchists ts in our modern conceptions for robin lay in wait for tho tyrants and slow them with ball hoak sword javelin or arrow as happened to bo most convenient robin would have rejoiced af dynamite since it Is such an improvement over cold steel oak aarts and bowstrings bow strings general marion Is held up to us as a patriot ho lay in wait for ho tory and slew bilm marion used no dynamite tardy science having only a flash in the pan rifle or an absurd horse pistol to offer marion liko robin hood would have screamed with joy at the uses and merits of dynamite in the hands afan patriot bushwhacker arnold van wil bolm of orange in his days of adversity all of those wore classed as anarchists ts although that was not always the term employed chero does the patriot cease and the anarchist it Is interesting to know take a caso in point the of india ara weary of british rule with what justice it Is impossible to judge at this distance they cry out that they are not ruled at all but only robbed honce they have begun to throw bombs now it robin hood arnold van olred and general marion were patriots aro the hindmo bomb patriots or anarchists ts A man who might know came back from india last week he la tho rev dr david dowdle seven years a missionary in madras A reporter for the boston transcript met the good man upon landing and began to interrogate him regarding the re volt said the while there la considerable social un india it is my firm conviction that great britain will give the nation self government just as fast as it Is capable of governing itself and while I 1 do not sympathize with the methods of agitators I 1 am in sympathy with their alms the agitation Js confined almost solely to the high caste brahmins Brah mins they are intelligent enough to resent the british rule but not enough so to govern country themselves they are the people whose secular education has apse their traditional beliefs but who are still unwilling to take up caso is tho greatest obstacle with chrls has to contend to embrace christianity means utter ostracism and for a woman unless she has someone to inott herlt often means a violent death the great mass of the people know nothing and care nothing about the political troubles of tho country what they do not like about christianity Is the notion of a salvation which is not obtained by personal effort humanity wants to save itself for ail that it Is christianity that will finally the country into one organic whole |
