my mind that where life is held to be of such little value there is even
less assurance that the laws will protect property. As I understand it
the States, not the national government, control in such matters, and
where those laws are strongest there is the best field for British
capital."

Probably the most bitter attack on the antilynching committee has come
from the _London Times_. Those Southern Governors who had their bombastic
letters published in the _Times_, with favorable editorial comment, may
have had their laugh at the antilynchers here too soon. A few days ago, in
commenting on an interesting communication from Richard H. Edmonds, editor
of the _Manufacturer's Record_, setting forth the industrial advantages of
the Southern States, which was published in its columns, the _Times_ says:

Without in any way countenancing the impertinence of "antilynching"
committee, we may say that a state of things in which the killing of
Negroes by bloodthirsty mobs is an incident of not unfrequent occurrence
is not conducive to success in industry. Its existence, however, is a
serious obstacle to the success of the South in industry; for even now
Negro labor, which means at best inefficient labor, must be largely
relied on there, and its efficiency must be still further diminished by
spasmodic terrorism.

Those interested in the development of the resources of the Southern
States, and no one in proportion to his means has shown more faith in
the progress of the South than the writer of this article, must take
hold of this matter earnestly and intelligently. Sneering at the
antilynching committee will do no good. Back of them, in fact, if not in
form, is the public opinion of Great Britain. Even the _Times_ cannot
deny this. It may not be generally known in the United States, but while