« AnkstesnisTęsti »
to others; who sometimes worked, and sometimes sold again. That is what I call treating us shabbily.
Our post-office management was kept out of our hands in order that the “Mother Country" might make a profit out of us of tens of thousands of dollars a year, and in order that some favored officials might pocket huge salaries. After years of fighting, we ascertained that Mr. Stayner's income for one year was $15,977; and that his perquisites from one source alone (newspapers) ran to over $10,000 a year; and we got him reduced to a salary of £2500 per annum! Over $12,000 a year for a deputy Postmaster-General! All that is what I call treating us meanly.
Space fails me. Please refer to volume one of the Kingdom Papers, pp. 323-7. It is summed up (although in my judgment put somewhat too strongly) by that great Imperialist Mr. Chamberlain:
“We began to be, and we ultimately became, a great Imperial Power in the eighteenth century, but, during the greater part of the time, the col nies were regarded, not only by us but by every European Power that possessed them, as possessions valuable in proportion to the pecuniary advantage which they brought to the mother country, which, under that order of ideas, was not truly a mother at all, but appeared rather in the light of a grasping and absentee landlord, desiring to take from the tenants the utmost rents he could exact. The colonies were valued and maintained because it was thought that they would be a source of profit—of direct profit—to the
mother country." 5 Ought we really to be grateful for that?
The Professor complains that I am "really over-touchy." I don't know how touchy over-touchy is, exactly, but I am quite sure that I am not much worse than very many good Imperialists. I ask, for example, some quotations from my writings which equal the following:
“Canadians had the feeling very strongly that they were of the imperial race. The average Englishman regarded Canadians as something less, a cross between English and something foreign, not a thorough Briton. ... That was why the Canadian boast of loyalty was so often met in England with cynicism.”
Foreign and Colonial Speeches, p. 242.
That was written by that ill-tempered, over-touchy individual Sir Edmund Walker. Professor, I appeal to you, is it not possible, under proper circumstances, to speak the unpalatable truth, without laying one's self open to the suggestion of illtemper?
I have now dealt with every one of the Professor's points, but I must not overlook the necessity of correcting some mistakes into which he has fallen. It is absolutely wrong to attribute to me the statement that
“the history of the relations between Great Britain and Canada is one on which no Englishman can look without humiliation.”
I do say that there is nothing in it calling for pæans of gratitude. I do say that, in many things, we were treated badly. But I have never made sweeping condemnation; and on various pages of my Papers may be found reiterated the statement that, for the treatment which we received, we ought to make no complaint—that it was most natural. I frequently refer to it, but only in the course of controversy, and merely in answer to the baseless statement that we owe to the United Kingdom a debt of gratitude. I am not making out a case against the United Kingdom. I am defending Canada against those who libel her people as ingrates. It is true that I said, in debate, that some day
"Canada will separate, not from a mother, but from an
owner who has always used her for his own selfish purposes”; but I followed those words with these:
“I do not blame the United Kingdom. I merely state the fact. Other owners treated their colonies (on the whole) with still less generosity. I confess, nevertheless, to a little of the sentiment of my friend. I inherited it, and, probably, it will
always actuate me.”
“support with vigor and rigor the thesis, once epigrammati-
forgiveness.'” What I said the Professor extracted from the following sentences :
“To assert that the motives of the United Kingdom in her dealings with Canada have been philanthropic, is foolish. They were not. We may, indeed, be thankful that they were less sordidly rapacious than those of some other metropolitan countries; but they were necessarily and unavoidably selfish rather than altruistic. Count up what our connection with the United Kingdom has cost us—in wars and raids, as well as in obstruction and retardation of our natural development and we might almost subscribe to the generalization of Sir Richard Cartwright that we owe her nothing but a great deal of Christian forgiveness.
But we owe her more than that. I believe that it is something to have had our parentage in the British isles. The people there are far from perfect, but they have an aggregate of qualities that has given them, in many respects, the leadership of the world. We are grateful for such of those qualities as we may have retained. We are grateful for the maintenance, in the old land, of such of them as we have failed to continue. And we are grateful to our ancestors chiefly for their splendid struggle for self-government. Without that example and inspiration, those of us who have made Canada what it is might still be the 'colonials' of those who stayed at home.”
That may be ill-tempered, but it is the way I feel, and, but for attacks on my country and foolish endeavors to turn her aside into Imperialistic confederations, embroglios and embarrassments, is the way in which I should always delight to speak of the old land.
And now, Professor, we have had our little bout. We have discussed me and my methods, and, incidentally, you and yours. I have a suspicion that we might have been better engaged. However, we have done it decently. And we part, as we met, the best of friends.
JOHN S. EWART.
THE NATURE OF LIGHT EMISSION.
T would be difficult to find a man on the street who has not
heard of wireless telegraphy and electric waves. Few men, however, realize that their own eyes are constantly receiving wireless messages, that light waves are electrical in nature. When electric waves are sufficiently small the eye becomes their detector, and we have the sensation of light. The long waves sent out by the wireless operator on board ship are but the big brothers of the light waves emitted by a luminous body. It is only within the last fifty years, however, that this fact has been brought to light. In 1865, J. Clerk Maxwell as a result of brilliant mathematical analysis was led to enunciate his "Electromagnetic Theory of Light.”
Thirteen years later the theory received striking experimental confirmation. Hertz, experimenting on electric waves in his laboratory, showed that these waves could be reflected, refracted, polarized and in other respects conducted themselves exactly like light waves. The brilliant work of Hertz left little doubt of the truth of Maxwell's theory, and since his time investigation has but confirmed it. At the present time the theory is universally accepted.
The physicist of the twentieth century is directing his attention to what is going on at the source of light. Just what is the nature of light emission? Of what nature is the vibrating body sending out the minute electric waves ? Are its vibrations subject to mathematical analysis? These and other questions he is seeking to answer. In this note a short outline of the present position is given.
It will be noted first of all that if we accept the theory that light waves are electrical in nature, we must have an electrical source. This has been supplied for us by work in other fields of Physics. In another article in this number of the Quarterly, it is pointed out that atoms of all substances contain definite numbers of electrons, negatively charged particles of very small mass. It is in the vibrations of these electrons that we find our source of light waves. Sometimes
the atoms of substances are not allowed to pursue the even tenour of their way,—a little common salt is put in a gas flame, or an electric discharge is sent through a tube containing a rarefied gas-a commotion takes place among the electrons, they are set vibrating and short electric waves are sent out. These, falling on our eyes, give us the sensation of light.
We must refer next to the question of the analysis of the light emitted by any luminous body. If we pass ordinary sunlight through a glass prism (a spectroscope) we find an emergent "rain-bow" of light with colors running from red to violet. If, however, we examine the light emitted when an electric spark passes between, say, two pieces of iron, we now find a spectrum consisting of a great many coloured lines, each distinct from the other. The same result is obtained when we analyze with our prism the light emitted by a gas made luminous by an electric discharge. It has been shown, further, that these spectral lines occur in series, that a definite mathematical relation obtains with reference to the positions they occupy in the spectrum. In other words, if we know the position of one line, from a general mathematical expression we can calculate the position of the others. The explanation of this realm of law concerning spectral lines is evident if we remember that the prism simply analyzes into simple components the very complex vibrations within the atom. Each spectral line corresponds to a simple vibration, a great number of which make up the actual resultant vibration at the source.
We have referred to work on spectral series because it is closely related to one of the outstanding problems concerning the minds of physicists at the present day. This problem is just the converse to the above. Is it possible to take the atom with its electrons and mathematically predict what spectral lines should be emitted ? Can we analyze mathematically the vibrations sent out by a disturbed electron and show that the components bear the same ratio to each other as that obtaining among spectral lines? This is the problem now demanding solution at the hands of mathematical phisicists.. Already considerable advance has been made. Within the last year papers have appeared in several of the leading physical journals, in which it has been shown that for simple atoms, at any