History for ready reference, Volume 7
Volume VI. of this work.
See (in this Volume) SWEDEN AND NORWAY.
In 1902 a Swedish-Norwegian Consular Commission was appointed to investigate the practicability of separate consuls for each of the united kingdoms, with joint diplomatic representation. The Commission produced a report very favorable to the proposition. Prolonged negotiations followed, between representatives of the two governments, and the outlines of a system under which Norway should acquire a separate consular service were definitely settled and accepted formally by the King, on the 21st of December, 1903. When it came, however, to the definite framing of laws for carrying the plan into effect, irreconcilable disagreements arose. Several details of the arrangement which Sweden insisted on implied a precedence and superiority of standing for that kingdom in the union of crowns which offended Norwegian pride. The Norwegian Government objected to having its selection of consuls made subject to the approval of the Foreign Minister of the dual monarchy. It objected to having the King, in his commission to them, entitled "King of Sweden and Norway"; and it rejected the Swedish proposals on other points. When the Government of Sweden replied that, while it might be willing to consider some modifications of its proposals, it must maintain the important parts of them, the Norwegian Government announced that it had no further statements to make, indicating that negotiation in the matter was at an end. Thereupon, on the 7th of February, 1905, the King made public the following statement:
"Under the present circumstances I do not see that I can resolve otherwise than to approve of what the Foreign Minister has proposed; but I cannot refrain from expressing to both my peoples my hearty desire that the two kingdoms, which have now been united for nearly a century, will never let any difference of opinion be hurtful to the Union itself. This Union is in truth the safest guarantee for the independence, the security and the happiness of both my peoples."
Feeble health now compelled King Oscar to yield the functions of royalty to his son, and the Crown Prince visited Christiania, as Regent, to confer personally with the leaders in Norwegian affairs. The outcome of his visit was the resignation of the Ministry of M. Hagcrup on the 1st of March, the formation of a new Cabinet, under M. Michelsen, and the announcement by the latter that the Government would steadfastly maintain the sovereignty of Norway, as an independent kingdom, according to the words of its constitution, the realization of which must depend on the strength and will of the Norwegian people. All attempts in the next three months to overcome or much modify the attitude of Norway were unsuccessful. In May, the Storthing passed an independent Consular Bill and laid it before King Oscar, who had resumed his duties, and the King refused to sanction it, saying: "The Crown Prince, as Regent, in Joint Council of State of April 5, has already shown the only way in which this important question can be advanced and all difficulties most likely removed, viz., through negotiation. I entirely agree with this view, and do not for the time being find it expedient to sanction this law, which means an alteration of the existing joint consular service which cannot be severed except by mutual arrangement. … When I now refuse to sanction this law I do so in accordance with the right conferred upon the King."
See in Volume I. of this work Section 30, Title 3, of the CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
"… It is my equally great love to both nations which makes it my duty to exercise this right;"
On the 7th of June, M. Michelsen, the Prime Minister, and his colleagues, gave their resignations to the Storthing, whereupon that body, by unanimous vote, adopted the following resolution:
"As all the members of the Council of State have resigned their offices; as his Majesty the King has declared himself unable to give the country a new Government; and as the constitutional kingdom has thus ceased to function, the Storthing authorizes the members of the Ministry, to-day resigned, to exercise in the meantime, as the Government of Norway, the authority vested in the King, in accordance with Norway’s constitution and existing laws, with the alterations necessitated by the fact that the Union with Sweden under one King has ceased on account of the king having ceased to act as Norwegian King." This action was proclaimed to the people on the same day. On the 9th the Union flag was lowered from Norwegian forts and war ships and the Norwegian flag raised in its place. On the 28th of July with King Oscar’s consent, the Swedish Riksdag adopted a resolution assenting to the severance of the Union, on condition that it be approved by a vote of the people of Norway. Accordingly the question was submitted to the people on the 13th of August, and all but 184 out of 368,392 votes were given in favor of the separation. A conference at Karlstadt in September arranged the future relations of the two kingdoms with success, and the dissolution was complete. It was formally acknowledged by King Oscar on October 26th. {462} As he made it known that he did not wish any member of his family to accept the crown of Norway if offered, the Storthing authorized the Government to open negotiations with Prince Charles of Denmark, with a view to its acceptance by him, if its proffer should be sanctioned by a popular vote. Again a plebiscite was polled and a large majority given in favor of the proffer of the crown to Prince Charles. The Prince accepted, with the permission of his grandfather, the Danish King, and proposed to take the name of Haakon VII. The name was well chosen for its significance, Haakon VI. having been the last of the old royal line of Norway, which became extinct at his death in 1387. The King-elect and his wife entered Christiania on the 25th of November and took the oath of fidelity to the Norwegian Constitution on the 27th. In the following June King Haakon was anointed and crowned with solemn ceremonies, in the ancient cathedral of Trondhjem, the capital of the first King who reigned over the whole Norse realm.
NORWAY: A. D. 1903. Agreement for Settlement of Claims against Venezuela.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
NORWAY: A. D. 1907. Treaty with Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia guaranteeing the Integrity of the Kingdom.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908, and 1908.
NORWAY: A. D. 1908. Parliamentary Suffrage extended to Women. See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
NORWAY: A. D. 1909 (October). Arbitration of the Frontier Dispute with Sweden.
The maritime frontier dispute between Norway and Sweden, consequent on their separation, was referred to The Hague Tribunal, and decided in October, more favorably to Sweden than to Norway, but the decision was loyally accepted by the latter.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1901-1902. Census. Reduced Representation in Parliament.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.
O.
OBOLENSKI, PRINCE JOHN.
See (in this Volume) FINLAND: A. D. 1905.
O’CONOR, Sir N.: British Ambassador to Turkey.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904, and 1905-1908.
OCTOBRISTS.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905. and 1907.
ODESSA, Disturbances in.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
OGDEN, Robert C.: Promoter of the Annual Conference for Education in the South.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1898-1909.
OIL, PETROLEUM: The Supply and the Waste in the United States.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
OKLAHOMA: A. D. 1904. Marvelous Growth of Fifteen Years.
"Oklahoma is the Minerva of the States. With her there was no period of slow settlement. On the day that her borders were opened to the settler she sprang full-fledged, a vigorous young commonwealth, into the Union. And on the day that Congress admits her to Statehood she will take rank with the foremost of the Western States. Her population of a million and three hundred thousand—which is the combined population of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, according to the annual report of Governor Ferguson for the year ending June 30, 1904, it is probably somewhat more than that now [1905]—will place her in advance of at least twenty-one of her sister States, several of them among the original thirteen. Not counting Texas, only two States west of the Missouri will be her equal in number of people—Kansas and California. In old New England, three States—New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island—could be combined and still not contain as great a population as this new commonwealth in the West will have on the first day of its Statehood.
"No other State ever had such a remarkable growth and prosperity as Oklahoma. Sixteen years ago last March the prairie winds blew over wide expanses of plains with no signs of human habitation on them for miles at a stretch. A month later, on April 22, 1889, upward of one hundred thousand persons engaged in the most spectacular race in history--a race for homes.
See, in Volume V. of this work, UNITED STATES: A. D. 1889-1890].
That was the day when the first Oklahoma counties were opened for settlement. … At nightfall of that first day of its history Oklahoma had a larger population than the State of Nevada. Towns were surveyed, and sprung up in a night, and in a week a new empire had been created in the Southwest. A year later the Iowa, Pottawatomie, and Sac and Fox reservations were opened for settlement."
_Clarence H. Matson, Oklahoma (American Review of Reviews, September, 1905)_.
OKLAHOMA: A. D. 1906-1907. Joined in Statehood with Indian Territory and admitted to the Union.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906. See, also, (in this Volume) CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA.
OKU, GENERAL.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.
OLD AGE HOMES, in Vienna.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF.
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF.
"OLD BELIEVERS," RUSSIAN.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (APRIL-AUGUST.).
OLDENBURG: A. D. 1906. Committed to Universal Suffrage.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
OMAR JAN.
See (in this Volume) AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
ONTARIO: A. D. 1901-1902. Census. Reduced Representation in Parliament.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ONTARIO: A. D. 1906-1907. Political Experiments. The Salaried Leader of Opposition, etc.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1906-1907.
"OPEN DOOR," THE COMING OF THE EPOCH OF THE.
See (in this Volume) WORLD MOVEMENTS.
{463}
OPIUM PROBLEM: China: A. D. 1900-1906. Progressive Tariff and Internal Taxation measures to check the Consumption of the Drug.
The following is from a report on opium production and taxation in China prepared by Mr. Williams, Chinese secretary of the United States Legation at Peking, and sent to the State Department at Washington, in September, 1906:
[Transcriber's note: The following paragraph includes a variety of spellings and possibly defective type slugs. The tael was said to be worth 73 cents in gold in 1905. The weight of the picul is 133½ pounds.]
"Previous to 1900 native opium passing through the maritime customs at Ichaug had been paying a total charge of taels, 60 per picul exclusive of taxes at the place of production. In July, 1900, the viceroy, Chang Chih-tung, with a view to cheeking the consumption of opium in the territory under his jurisdiction, increased this charge to taels 72 per picul, and near the close of 1901 increased it again, making it taels 80 per picul. This, with the likin charged in Szechuen, made a total on the product coming from that province of taels 84.76. Opium designed for local consumption was still more heavily taxed, being required to pay taels 90 besides the likin of Szeehuen, or a total of 94.76 taels per picul. The immediate result of this action was to greatly increase smuggling and to drive legitimate traffic to the use of native junks or roundabout land routes controlled by the native customs or likin offices, and thus to reduce the receipts of the maritime customs. Another significant result was the importation of a small amount of foreign opium to a district where it had been unknown for many years. In view of these facts, in 1903 the authorities reduced the tax to a total of 76.75 taels per picul, including the Szcchuen likin.
"In February, 1904, the same tax was imposed in the province of Hunan, also in the jurisdiction of the Viceroy Chang Chih-tung, and in the summer of the same year an agreement was made with the provincial authorities of the provinces of Kiangse and Anhui that one consolidated tax, to include both likin and customs duties, should be levied at a uniform rate in the four provinces, and to prevent discrimination by the native customs as against the maritime service it was agreed that the collection of this consolidated tax should be intrusted to the imperial maritime customs at Ichang and to branch offices under its control. The port of Ichang was chosen because it is at the head of steam navigation on the Yangtze, for which reason most of the opium from Yunnan and Szechuen was sent thither for distribution. In 1905 this arrangement was extended to four other provinces, Kiangse, Fukien, Kuangtung, and Kuangsi, and the tax increased to taels 134.79 per picul for opium destined to the four inner provinces and taels 104 for that going to those on the seaboard. Previous to this latter arrangement, however, after the experience of 1902, it was seen that unless the tax on foreign opium should also be increased the effort to stamp out the vice by heavy taxation would fail, and therefore in 1903 representations were made to the British Government by the Chinese minister in London looking toward the increase of the duty upon Indian opium. The reply of the British Government, as quoted in the Peking Gazette, was that the tax on the native drug ought to be increased by the same amount as any addition made to the duty on the foreign article. Upon this a memorial was submitted to the Imperial Chinese Government, asking that the customs duty and likin on foreign and native opium be increased by an equal amount, and the matter was referred to the proper boards for consideration and report. No further report has as yet appeared relating to the negotiations respecting foreign opium. As to the native drug, the steps to increase the taxes upon it in eight of the provinces have been related above. The success of this arrangement has been so pronounced that on the 7th of May this year (1906) an imperial edict appeared directing that the system adopted in the eight provinces mentioned above should be at once extended to all the provinces of China proper and at a later date, to be hereafter determined, to Turkestan and Manchuria."
OPIUM PROBLEM: A. D. 1906. Imperial Edict against the use of Opium. Undertaking to suppress it in Ten Years.
By a formal edict from the throne, published in September, 1906, the imperial Government of China undertook to eradicate the use of opium in that empire, and to do so by heroic measures within ten years. A register was ordered to be made of every consumer of the drug (estimated at 40 per cent. of the vast population of the empire) and of the quantity that he consumes. Those who are under 60 years of age must thereafter diminish their consumption by not less than twenty per cent, each year, till they are free of the habit and the use is stopped. Meantime there would be a public provision of medicines to assist the cure. To those beyond 60 years in age, and to the princes, nobles, and magnates of the empire, a certain relaxation of these rules would be allowed. But all minor officials under 60 years must drop opium entirely, at once, and there would be no toleration of an acquirement of the opium habit thereafter. No further cultivation of the poppy would be allowed, and, of course, the importation would be controlled.
Tang Shao Yi, the special Chinese envoy who visited the United States and England early in 1909, had much to do with this measure on the part of his Government, and, in addressing a deputation which called on him in London, had this to say of the circumstances connected with it:
"He had always taken a deep interest in the anti-opium movement ever since he was a student in America in the early seventies. He had never realized, however, that they could attempt to make such a movement in China till he was sent by his Government to India in 1905 in connexion with the Lhasa Convention. While there he had opportunities of studying the opium question, and he was fortunate enough to make the acquaintance of the finance secretary, Mr. Baker. From him he learnt that the Government of India could dispense with the revenue derived from opium. Nothing was more surprising to him and nothing gave him greater joy than to hear that. In that year the question was brought up in England, and when he returned to China in the winter of 1905 he informed his Government that the British public was very ‘anti-opium’ and also that the Indian Government was not at all anxious for the revenue derived from opium. Therefore, he told his Government that it was for the Chinese themselves to put a stop to the opium trade, and that they must not rely upon others. He had already got regulations in his head and the Government asked him to draw up certain rules to put a stop to the opium curse. {464} In order not to be too radical, he suggested that three years should be allowed for putting an end to it, but the Cabinet said that was too radical, and, although he suggested six years, the final decision of the Government was to make it ten years. He said that unless they put a stop to it in two or three years they might as well let this generation die out. They fully appreciated the co-operation of gentlemen in England, and he begged that they would keep up the agitation not only for their own sakes but for the sake of the Chinese people. The Chinese people wanted to be reminded that they were opium smokers and that they must give up the practice. Some scepticism had been expressed as to the genuineness of the movement in China, but he was sure that the people there were in earnest, and he trusted that his Government and people would not disappoint Great Britain."
OPIUM PROBLEM: A. D. 1909. Progress in the Opium Reform.
An official report on the progress of the opium reform in China, by Mr. Max Müller, Councillor of the British Legation at Peking, was published as a Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 4967), early in January, 1910. In communicating the report to the Foreign Office, Sir N. Jordan wrote:
"This report shows that considerable progress continues to be made in the task which the Chinese Government undertook three years ago. There has undoubtedly been a very sensible diminution in the consumption and cultivation of opium, and a public opinion has been formed which will greatly strengthen the hands of the Government and the provincial authorities in the drastic measures which they contemplate taking in the near future. … That the end, however, is so near as many of the official pronouncements would seem to indicate is, I venture to think, very doubtful. We have full and reliable information about only two of the provinces—Shansi and Yunnan—and the annexes to Mr. Max Müller’s report furnish eloquent testimony of the good work that has been done in both. At the opposite extreme stand Shensi, Kansu, Hupei, and Szeehuan, in all of which comparatively little has been accomplished to check either the consumption or cultivation of the drug. The last-named province, which is by far the largest producing area in the Empire, will furnish the supreme test of the success or failure of the programme of total prohibition, and as the order has gone forth that no poppy is to be sown this autumn the issue on which so much depends is doubtless being fought out as this report is being written."
OPIUM PROBLEM: International Opium Commission, in Session at Shanghai, February, 1909.
On the suggestion of Bishop Brent, of the Philippines, the Government of the United States took the initiative in bringing about the appointment of an International Commission to investigate matters connected with the use of and traffic in opium. The Commission, composed of delegates from China, Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Turkey, and the United States, met at Shanghai on the 1st of February, 1909, and was in session until the 26th of that month, under the presidency of Bishop Brent. Its study of the subject appears to have been made difficult and definite conclusions prevented by the lack of trustworthy Chinese statistics of the production of opium in the Empire itself, and of other important facts. The results of four weeks of investigation and discussion were embodied in nine resolutions, the first of which recognized the sincerity of the endeavor of the Chinese Government to eradicate the great evil from its dominion, in these words: "The Commission recognizes the unswerving sincerity of the Government of China in its efforts to eradicate the production and consumption of opium throughout the Empire, the increasing body of public opinion among the Chinese by whom these efforts are supported, and the real, though unequal, progress already made in a task of the greatest magnitude."
Of the further resolutions, one urged upon all governments the importance of drastic measures to control the manufacture, sale, and distribution of morphia and other noxious derivatives of opium; another recommended scientific investigation of so-called opium remedies; a third said all countries should adopt reasonable measures to prevent the shipment of opium or its derivatives to any country which prohibits their entry. By the terms of the remaining resolutions the delegates were urged to influence as far as possible their own governments to take steps for the gradual suppression of opium smoking in their own territories respectively; to further examine into their systems for the regulation of the traffic, in the light of the experience of other countries; to enter into negotiations with China to insure the adoption of effective and prompt measures to prohibit opium traffic in those concessions and settlements. Finally, the conference recommended that each government apply its pharmacy laws to its subjects in consular districts, concessions, and settlements in China.
In some quarters the outcome of the meeting was sharply criticised as being empty of any practical fruit, and England was accused of having rendered it so, under the influence of the Indian opium trade. But the State Department at Washington gave expression to a very different view. There it was pointed out that the Commission had been one of inquiry, only; that its instructions had been "to study the opium problem and report as to the best and most feasible means of solving it," and that this programme was executed "to the entire satisfaction of the Governments concerned." Bishop Brent, who presided over the Shanghai meeting, declared in his inaugural address:
"It devolves upon me to pronounce with emphasis that this is a commission, and as those who are informed—as all of you must be in matters that pertain to international affairs of this kind—a commission is not a conference. The idea of a conference was suggested, but it seemed wise to choose this particular form of action rather than a conference, because, for the present at any rate, we are not sufficiently well informed and sufficiently unanimous in our attitude to have a conference with any great hope of immediate success."
{465}
As between China and Great Britain there is an opium problem which does not affect other parties. An important part of British Indian revenue is derived from the opium trade, and the Government of India can hardly be expected to throw it carelessly away, not knowing with certainty that it will not be picked up as gain for somebody else. In 1906, when China opened her campaign against opium, she entered into an agreement with England that her own production of opium should be reduced to extinction within ten years, and that the importation from India (under former commercial treaties), then amounting to 51,000 chests annually, should be reduced at the rate of 5100 chests per year. It seems to have been the lack of definite evidence as to the effective fulfilment of this agreement which made the British attitude at Shanghai a halting one.
The United States Government has not suffered the movement against opium to rest where it was left by the Shanghai Commission, but has asked the governments represented in that Commission to send delegates to a formal International Conference at The Hague.
OPIUM PROBLEM: The Philippine Islands, taking Instruction from the Japanese in Formosa.
A committee appointed by the Philippine Commission, to investigate methods of dealing with the sale and use of opium, included an American army officer, Major Carter, a Filipino physician, Dr. Albert, and the missionary bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Bishop Brent. The following is from a summary of the committee’s report, published in _The Outlook_ of March 4, 1905:
"Although the Committee visited and studied Java, Cochin China, the Straits Settlements, and various places in China, including Hong-kong, it really found the solution of the question in the Japanese administration of Formosa. …
"It is not surprising that the Committee recommend what is practically an adaptation of the Formosan system for the Philippines. For the maintenance of this system it is indispensable that the ‘opium and the traffic therein be made a strict Government monopoly immediately.’ That is the first provision. ‘Second, prohibition, except for medicinal purposes, after three years. Third, only licensees, who shall be males and over twenty-one years of age, shall be allowed to use opium until prohibition goes into effect. Fourth, all venders or dispensers of opium, except for medical purposes, shall be salaried officials of the Government. Fifth, every effort shall be made (a) to deter the young from contracting the habit by pointing out its evil effects and by legislation, (b) to aid in caring for and curing those who manifest a desire to give up the habit, and (c) to punish and, if necessary, to remove from the islands incorrigible offenders.’"
OPIUM PROBLEM: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909. Act to Prohibit the Importation and Smoking of Opium.
A stringent Act prohibitory of the importation and use of opium for any other than medicinal purposes passed the Senate of the United States on the 2d of February, 1909, having already been adopted by the other House. Smoking opium is positively forbidden; no one can bring it into the country without facing a fine of from fifty to five thousand dollars and imprisonment for two years; the mere possession of opium, a preparation of, or derivative therefrom, is to be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction. For medicinal purposes, opium may be brought in under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
OPSONINS.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: OPSONINS.
ORANGE FREE STATE: End of the Republic.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES.
ORGANIC STATUTES, The.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ORMANIAN: Armenian Patriarch.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
OSAKA, The Burning of.
A large part of the city of Osaka, in Japan, was destroyed by fire in August, 1909. "Had it not been for the canals the region of destruction would have been even more extensive. Citizens by the thousand fled into the surrounding country, leaving the city to its fate. By the time the flames had spent their force more than 12,000 houses had gone up in smoke, leaving more than 100,000 people homeless. Most of the municipal, government, and other important buildings of the city were destroyed. Great numbers of people are ruined, as the Japanese carry no insurance, as a rule. The amount of insurance involved, however, is about 5,000,000 yen. Fortunately, the number of casualties was not great. About a dozen were killed by falling timbers, and several were more or less injured."
OSCAR II., King of Sweden and Norway: Surrender of the Crown of Norway.
See (in this Volume) NORWAY: A. D. 1902-1905.
OSMEÑA, SERGIO: President of the Philippine Assembly.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
OSTWALD, W.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES (CHEMISTRY)
OXFORD UNIVERSITY: Rhodes Scholarships.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY: Tutorial Classes organized for Working People.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
P.
PACKING-HOUSE INVESTIGATION.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: PURE FOOD LAWS: UNITED STATES.
PALMA, TOMAS ESTRADA: President of Cuba.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1901-1902 and 1902.
PALMA, TOMAS ESTRADA: Resignation of the Presidency of Cuba.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
PAN-AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES.
PAN-ANGLICAN CONGRESS, 1909.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1903. Secession from Colombia. Recognized Independence. Treaty with the United States for the Building of the Panama Canal.
See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1904. Constitution of the Republic. First Election.
The Constitution of the new Republic was promulgated on the 16th of February, 1904, and the election of President and three Vice-Presidents took place, resulting in the choice of the following: President, Dr. Manuel Amador; first vice-president, Dr. Pablo Arosemena; second vice-president, Don Domingo de Obaldia; third vice-president, Dr. Carlos Mendoza.
{466}
The third article of the Constitution declares: "The territory of the Republic is composed of all the territory from which the State of Panama was formed by the amendment to the Granada constitution of 1853, on February 27, 1855, and which was transformed in 1886 into the Department of Panama, together with its islands, and of the continental and insular territory, which was adjudged to the Republic of Colombia in the award made by the President of the French Republic on September 11, 1900. The territory of the Republic remains subject to the jurisdictional limitations stipulated or which may be stipulated in public treaties concluded with the United States of North America for the construction, maintenance, or sanitation of any means of interoceanic transit.
"The boundaries with the Republic of Colombia shall be determined by public treaties."
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1906. Visit of President Roosevelt.
"For the first time in the history of the United States," said President Roosevelt, when he landed at Colon, November 14, 1906, preliminary to a visit and inspection of the Panama Canal, "it has become advisable for a President of the United States to step on territory not beneath the flag of the United States." He received a most hospitable welcome and entertainment in the young republic.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1906. Participation in Third International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1909. Pending Tripartite Treaty with Colombia and the United States.
See (in this Volume) COLOMBIA: A. D. 1906-1909.
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1901-1902. The Second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between the United States and Great Britain. Its Ratification.
After the rejection by the British Government of the Amendments made by the Senate of the United States to the Interoceanic Canal Treaty negotiated in February, 1900, by Mr. John Hay, United States Secretary of State, with the British Ambassador at Washington, Lord Pauncefote negotiations on the subject were renewed, with results of success in removing objections on both sides.
See, in Volume VI. of this work, CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
The new Treaty was signed by Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote at Washington on the 18th of November, 1901, and ratifications were exchanged on the 21st of February, 1902. In the preamble of the Treaty its purpose is declared to be "to facilitate the construction of a ship-canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, by whatever route may be considered expedient, and to that end to remove any objection which may arise out of the Convention of the 19th April, 1850, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the Government of the United States, without impairing the ‘general principle’ of neutralization established in Article VIII of that Convention." The agreements and stipulations to this end are as follows:
"Article I. The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Treaty shall supersede the afore mentioned Convention of the 19th April, 1850.
"Article II. It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to individuals or Corporations, or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal.
"Article III. The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralization of such ship canal, the following Rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that is to say:
"1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.
"2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.
"3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the Regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service. Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same Rules as vessels of war of the belligerents.
"4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch.
"5. The provisions of this Article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal, within 3 marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time, except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent.
"6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes of this Treaty, and in time of war, as in time of peace, shall enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents, and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of the canal.
"Article IV. It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before mentioned canal shall affect the genera principle of neutralization or the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under the present Treaty.
{467}
"Article V. The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty: and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at London at the earliest possible time within six mouths from the date hereof."
_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, transmitted to Congress, December, 1902._
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1902. Undertaking of the United States endorsed by the Second Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1903. Purchase of the Franchises and Property of the Bankrupt French Company. Treaty with Colombia for the Building of the Canal rejected by the Colombian Senate. Secession of Panama. Recognition of the Independence of Panama. Treaty with the new Republic for the Building and Control of the Canal. President Roosevelt’s narrative of events.
The transactions that were preliminary to the undertaking of the construction of an interoceanic canal through the Isthmus of Panama, by the Government of the United States, are narrated down to March, 1901.
See (in Volume VI. of this work) CANAL, INTEROCEANIC.
At that time the proposed Nicaragua route was principally contemplated, for the reason that the rights in Panama held by the bankrupt French Company of Lesseps (see, in Volume IV., PANAMA CANAL) seemed unobtainable, on any terms which the American Government could accept. A commission appointed by President McKinley to investigate the situation had reported to that effect in November, 1900, and had recommended the building of a canal on the Nicaragua route. The effect of this report, and of the manifest disposition of the American Congress to authorize the building of a Nicaragua ship canal, was to draw from the French company an offer of its Panama franchises and entire property for the sum of $40,000,000. After long debate this offer was accepted, and negotiations were opened with the Republic of Colombia for the necessary treaty rights. Meantime the Hay-Pauncefote treaty with Great Britain, which the American Senate had amended in a manner objectionable to the British Government, was modified to the satisfaction of the latter, and the enterprise was cleared of questions except those between Colombia and the United States. The next ensuing events can be told in the words of President Roosevelt’s report of them to Congress, in his Message at the opening of the session convened on the 7th of December, 1903:
"By the act of June 28, 1902," wrote the President, "the Congress authorized the President to enter into treaty with Colombia for the building of the canal across the Isthmus of Panama; it being provided that in the event of failure to secure such treaty, after the lapse of a reasonable time, recourse should be had to the building of a canal through Nicaragua. It has not been necessary to consider this alternative, as I am enabled to lay before the Senate a treaty providing for the building of the canal across the Isthmus of Panama. This was the route which commended itself to the deliberate judgment of the Congress, and we can now acquire by Treaty the right to construct the canal over this route. The question now, therefore, is not by which route the isthmian canal shall be built, for that question has been definitely and irrevocably decided. The question is simply whether or not we shall have an isthmian canal.
"When the Congress directed that we should take the Panama route under treaty with Colombia, the essence of the condition, of course, referred not to the Government which controlled that route, but to the route itself; to the territory across which the route lay, not to the name which for the moment the territory bore on the map. The purpose of the law was to authorize the President to make a treaty with the power in actual control of the Isthmus of Panama. This purpose has been fulfilled.
"In the year 1846 this Government entered into a treaty with New Granada, the predecessor upon the Isthmus of the Republic of Colombia and of the present Republic of Panama, by which treaty it was provided that the Government and citizens of the United States should always have free and open right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama by any modes of communication that might be constructed, while in return our Government guaranteed the perfect neutrality of the above-mentioned Isthmus with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea might not be interrupted or embarrassed. The treaty vested in the United States a substantial property right carved out of the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada then had and possessed over the said territory. The name of New Granada has passed away and its territory has been divided. Its successor, the Government of Colombia, has ceased to own any property in the Isthmus. A new Republic, that of Panama, which was at one time a sovereign state, and at another time a mere department of the successive confederations known as New Granada and Colombia, has now succeeded to the rights which first one and then the other formerly exercised over the Isthmus. But as long as the Isthmus endures, the mere geographical fact of its existence, and the peculiar interest therein which is required by our position, perpetuate the solemn contract which binds the holders of the territory to respect our right to freedom of transit across it, and binds us in return to safeguard for the Isthmus and the world the exercise of that inestimable privilege. The true interpretation of the obligations upon which the United States entered in this treaty of 1846 has been given repeatedly in the utterances of Presidents and Secretaries of State. …
"Attorney-General Speed, under date of November 7, 1865, advised Secretary Seward as follows: ‘From this treaty it can not be supposed that New Granada invited the United States to become a party to the intestine troubles of that Government, nor did the United States become bound to take sides in the domestic broils of New Granada. The United States did guarantee New Granada in the sovereignty and property over the territory. This was as against other and foreign governments.’
{468}
"For four hundred years, ever since shortly after the discovery of this hemisphere, the canal across the Isthmus has been planned. For two score years it has been worked at. When made it is to last for the ages. It is to alter the geography of a continent and the trade routes of the world. We have shown by every treaty we have negotiated or attempted to negotiate with the peoples in control of the Isthmus and with foreign nations in reference thereto our consistent good faith in observing our obligations; on the one hand to the peoples of the Isthmus, and on the other hand to the civilized world whose commercial rights we are safeguarding and guaranteeing by our action. We have done our duty to others in letter and in spirit, and we have shown the utmost forbearance in exacting our own rights.
"Last spring, under the act above referred to, a treaty concluded between the representatives of the Republic of Colombia and of our Government was ratified by the Senate. This treaty was entered into at the urgent solicitation of the people of Colombia and after a body of experts appointed by our Government especially to go into the matter of the routes across the Isthmus had pronounced unanimously in favor of the Panama route. In drawing up this treaty every concession was made to the people and to the Government of Colombia. We were more than just in dealing with them. Our generosity was such as to make it a serious question whether we had not gone too far in their interest at the expense of our own; for in our scrupulous desire to pay all possible heed, not merely to the real but even to the fancied rights of our weaker neighbor, who already owed so much to our protection and forbearance, we yielded in all possible ways to her desires in drawing up the treaty. Nevertheless the Government of Colombia not merely repudiated the treaty, but repudiated it in such a manner as to make it evident by the time the Colombian Congress adjourned that not the scantiest hope remained of ever getting a satisfactory treaty from them. The Government of Colombia made the treaty, and yet when the Colombian Congress was called to ratify it the vote against ratification was unanimous. It does not appear that the Government made any real effort to secure ratification.
"Immediately after the adjournment of the Congress a revolution broke out in Panama. The people of Panama had long been discontented with the Republic of Colombia, and they had been kept quiet only by the prospect of the conclusion of the treaty, which was to them a matter of vital concern. When it became evident that the treaty was hopelessly lost, the people of Panama rose literally as one man. Not a shot was fired by a single man on the Isthmus in the interest of the Colombian Government. Not a life was lost in the accomplishment of the revolution. The Colombian troops stationed on the Isthmus, who had long been unpaid, made common cause with the people of Panama, and with astonishing unanimity the new Republic was started. The duty of the United States in the premises was clear. In strict accordance with the principles laid down by Secretaries Cass and Seward … the United States gave notice that it would permit the landing of no expeditionary force, the arrival of which would mean chaos and destruction along the line of the railroad and of the proposed canal, and an interruption of transit as an inevitable consequence. The de facto Government of Panama was recognized in the following telegram to Mr. Ehrman:
"‘The people of Panama have, by apparently unanimous movement, dissolved their political connection with the Republic of Colombia and resumed their independence. When you are satisfied that a de facto government, republican in form and without substantial opposition from its own people, has been established in the State of Panama, you will enter into relations with it as the responsible government of the territory and look to it for all due action to protect the persons and property of citizens of the United States and to keep open the isthmian transit, in accordance with the obligations of existing treaties governing the relations of the United States to that territory.’
"The Government of Colombia was notified of our action by the following telegram to Mr. Beaupré:
"‘The people of Panama having, by an apparently unanimous movement, dissolved their political connection with the Republic of Colombia and resumed their independence, and having adopted a Government of their own, republican in form, with which the Government of the United States of America has entered into relations, the President of the United States, in accordance with the ties of friendship which have so long and so happily existed between the respective nations, most earnestly commends to the Governments of Colombia and of Panama the peaceful and equitable settlement of all questions at issue between them. He holds that he is bound not merely by treaty obligations, but by the interests of civilization, to see that the peaceful traffic of the world across the Isthmus of Panama shall not longer be disturbed by a constant succession of unnecessary and wasteful civil wars.’
"When these events happened, fifty-seven years had elapsed since the United States had entered into its treaty with New Granada. During that time the Governments of New Granada and of its successor, Colombia, have been in a constant state of flux.
[The President then gives a list, by date, of 53 more or less serious disturbances of the public peace on the Isthmus which United States consuls had reported to the Government at Washington between May, 1850, and July, 1902. From this he proceeds:]
"The above is only a partial list of the revolutions, rebellions, insurrections, riots, and other outbreaks that have occurred during the period in question; yet they number 53 for the 57 years. It will be noted that one of them lasted for nearly three years before it was quelled; another for nearly a year. In short, the experience of over half a century has shown Colombia to be utterly incapable of keeping order on the Isthmus. Only the active interference of the United States has enabled her to preserve so much as a semblance of sovereignty. Had it not been for the exercise by the United States of the police power in her interest, her connection with the Isthmus would have been sundered long ago. In 1856, in 1860, in 1873, in 1885, in 1901, and again in 1902, sailors and marines from United States war-ships were forced to land in order to patrol the Isthmus, to protect life and property, and to see that the transit across the Isthmus was kept open. In 1861, in 1862, in 1885, and in 1900, the Colombian Government asked that the United States Government would land troops to protect its interests and maintain order on the Isthmus. …
{469}
"The control, in the interest of the commerce and traffic of the whole civilized world, of the means of undisturbed transit across the Isthmus of Panama has become of transcendent importance to the United States. We have repeatedly exercised this control by intervening in the course of domestic dissension, and by protecting the territory from foreign invasion. In 1853 Mr. Everett assured the Peruvian minister that we should not hesitate to maintain the neutrality of the Isthmus in the case of war between Peru and Colombia. In 1864 Colombia, which has always been vigilant to avail itself of its privileges conferred by the treaty, expressed its expectation that in the event of war between Peru and Spain the United States would carry into effect the guaranty of neutrality. There have been few administrations of the State Department in which this treaty has not, either by the one side or the other, been used as a basis of more or less important demands. It was said by Mr. Fish in 1871 that the Department of State had reason to believe that an attack upon Colombian sovereignty on the Isthmus had, on several occasions, been averted by warning from this Government. In 1886, when Colombia was under the menace of hostilities from Italy in the Cerruti case, Mr. Bayard expressed the serious concern that the United States could not but feel, that a European power should resort to force against a sister republic of this hemisphere, as to the sovereign and uninterrupted use of a part of whose territory we are guarantors under the solemn faith of a treaty.
"The above recital of facts establishes beyond question: First, that the United States has for over half a century patiently and in good faith carried out its obligations under the treaty of 1846; second, that when for the first time it became possible for Colombia to do anything in requital of the services thus repeatedly rendered to it for fifty-seven years by the United States, the Colombian Government peremptorily and offensively refused thus to do its part, even though to do so would have been to its advantage and immeasurably to the advantage of the State of Panama, at that time under its jurisdiction; third, that throughout this period revolutions, riots, and factional disturbances of every kind have occurred one after the other in almost uninterrupted succession, some of them lasting for months and even for years, while the central government was unable to put them down or to make peace with the rebels; fourth, that these disturbances instead of showing any sign of abating have tended to grow more numerous and more serious in the immediate past; fifth, that the control of Colombia over the Isthmus of Panama could not be maintained without the armed intervention and assistance of the United States. In other words, the Government of Colombia, though wholly unable to maintain order on the Isthmus, has nevertheless declined to ratify a treaty the conclusion of which opened the only chance to secure its own stability and to guarantee permanent peace on, and the construction of a canal across the Isthmus.
"Under such circumstances the Government of the United States would have been guilty of folly and weakness, amounting in their sum to a crime against the Nation, had it acted otherwise than it did when the revolution of November 3 last took place in Panama. This great enterprise of building the interoceanic canal can not be held up to gratify the whims, or out of respect to the governmental impotence, or to the even more sinister and evil political peculiarities, of people who, though they dwell afar off, yet, against the wish of the actual dwellers on the Isthmus, assert an unreal supremacy over the territory. The possession of a territory fraught with such peculiar capacities as the Isthmus in question carries with it obligations to mankind. The course of events has shown that this canal can not be built by private enterprise, or by any other nation than our own; therefore it must be built by the United States.
"Every effort has been made by the Government of the United States to persuade Colombia to follow a course which was essentially not only to our interests and to the interests of the world, but to the interests of Colombia itself. These efforts have failed; and Colombia, by her persistence in repulsing the advances that have been made, has forced us, for the sake of our own honor, and of the interest and well-being, not merely of our own people, but of the people of the Isthmus of Panama and the people of the civilized countries of the world, to take decisive steps to bring to an end a condition of affairs which had become intolerable. The new Republic of Panama immediately offered to negotiate a treaty with us. This treaty I herewith submit. By it our interests are better safeguarded than in the treaty with Colombia which was ratified by the Senate at its last session. It is better in its terms than the treaties offered to us by the Republics of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. At last the right to begin this great undertaking is made available. Panama has done her part. All that remains is for the American Congress to do its part and forthwith this Republic will enter upon the execution of a project colossal in its size and of well-nigh incalculable possibilities for the good of this country and the nations of mankind.
"By the provisions of the treaty the United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama. There is granted to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a strip ten miles wide and extending three nautical miles into the sea at either terminal, with all lands lying outside of the zone necessary for the construction of the canal or for its auxiliary works, and with the islands in the Bay of Panama. The cities of Panama and Colon are not embraced in the canal zone, but the United States assumes their sanitation and, in case of need, the maintenance of order therein; the United States enjoys within the granted limits all the rights, power, and authority which it would possess were it the sovereign of the territory to the exclusion of the exercise of sovereign rights by the Republic. All railway and canal property rights belonging to Panama and needed for the canal pass to the United States, including any property of the respective companies in the cities of Panama and Colon; the works, property, and personnel of the canal and railways are exempted from taxation as well in the cities of Panama and Colon as in the canal zone and its dependencies. Free immigration of the personnel and importation of supplies for the construction and operation of the canal are granted. Provision is made for the use of military force and the building of fortifications by the United States for the protection of the transit. {470} In other details, particularly as to the acquisition of the interests of the New Panama Canal Company and the Panama Railway by the United States and the condemnation of private property for the uses of the canal, the stipulations of the Hay-Herran treaty are closely followed, while the compensation to be given for these enlarged grants remains the same, being ten millions of dollars payable on exchange of ratifications; and, beginning nine years from that date, an annual payment of $250,000 during the life of the convention."
_President's Message, December 7, 1903._
The text of the Treaty with Panama may be found in the Volume of "Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States" for 1904, pp. 543-551.
In the view of a good many critics who are not of a captious disposition, the conduct of the Government of the United States in these transactions was not as unquestionable as it appeared to President Roosevelt. Professor Coolidge, of Harvard University, in his candid and broadly studied work on "The United States as a World Power" (prepared originally in the form of lectures delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris), remarks that "to forbid the landing of Colombian troops was to stretch the meaning of the old American right to maintain order along the line of the railway to an extent hardly justifiable in dealing with a friendly nation, and the haste with which the administration at Washington recognized the independence of the new republic and concluded a treaty with it appeared to many people indecent. The truth was the Americans did not feel that they were dealing with a friendly nation."
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1904-1905. Beginning and Organization of the Work of Construction.
"The treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama, under which the construction of the Panama Canal was made possible, went into effect with its ratification by the United States Senate on February 23, 1904. The canal properties of the French Canal Company were transferred to the United States on April 23, 1904, on payment of $40,000,000 to that company. On April 1, 1905, the Commission was reorganized, and it now consists of Theodore P. Shonts, chairman, Charles E. Magoon, Benjamin M. Harrod, Rear-Admiral Mordecai T. Endicott, Brigadier General Peter C. Hains, and Colonel Oswald H. Ernst. John F. Stevens was appointed chief engineer on July 1 last. Active work in canal construction, mainly preparatory, has been in progress for less than a year and a half. During that period two points about the canal have ceased to be open to debate. First, the question of route; the canal will be built on the Isthmus of Panama. Second, the question of feasibility; there are no physical obstacles on this route that American engineering skill will not be able to overcome without serious difficulty, or that will prevent the completion of the canal within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. This is virtually the unanimous testimony of the engineers who have investigated the matter for the Government. The point which remains unsettled is the question of type, whether the canal shall be one of several locks above sea level, or at sea level with a single tide lock. On this point I hope to lay before the Congress at an early day the findings of the Advisory Board of American and European Engineers, that at my invitation have been considering the subject, together with the report of the Commission thereon; and such comments thereon or recommendations in reference thereto as may seem necessary.
"The American people is pledged to the speediest possible construction of a canal, adequate to meet the demands which the commerce of the world will make upon it, and I appeal most earnestly to the Congress to aid in the fulfillment of the pledge. Gratifying progress has been made during the past year and especially during the past four months. The greater part of the necessary preliminary work has been done. Actual work of excavation could be begun only on a limited scale till the Canal Zone was made a healthful place to live in and to work in. The isthmus had to be sanitated first.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: PANAMA CANAL.
This task has been so thoroughly accomplished that yellow fever has been virtually extirpated from the Isthmus and general health conditions vastly improved. The same methods which converted the island of Cuba from a pest hole, which menaced the health of the world, into a healthful place of abode, have been applied on the Isthmus with satisfactory results. There is no reason to doubt that when the plans for water supply, paving, and sewerage of Panama and Colon and the large labor camps have been fully carried out, the Isthmus will be, for the Tropics, an unusually healthy place of abode. The work is so far advanced now that the health of all those employed in canal work is as well guarded as it is on similar work in this country and elsewhere.
"In addition to sanitating the Isthmus, satisfactory quarters are being provided for employees and an adequate system of supplying them with wholesome food at reasonable prices has been created. Hospitals have been established and equipped that are without superiors of their kind anywhere. The country has thus been made fit to work in, and provision has been made for the welfare and comfort of those who are to do the work. During the past year a large portion of the plant with which the work is to be done has been ordered. It is confidently believed that by the middle of the approaching year a sufficient proportion of this plant will have been installed to enable us to resume the work of excavation on a large scale."
_President's Message to Congress, December 5, 1905._
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909. Prosecution and progress of the work.
Mr. John L. Stevens was in charge of the work on the Canal, as Chief Engineer, until April 1, 1907, when he resigned, and it was then determined by the Government to place it under the direction of an army engineer. The officer chosen for the service was Lieutenant-Colonel George W. Goethals, of the Engineer Corps, with Major Gaillard and Major Siebert as assistant engineers, and this arrangement has been justified amply by results. At the same time a final determination was arrived at, against the placing of any part of the work under contract; and this, too, has been approved by experience in the undertaking since. Shortly before the occurrence of these changes Mr. Shonts had resigned the chairmanship of the Canal Commission, to take the presidency of the Interborough Co. of New York, and Colonel Goethals became Chairman of the Commission as well as Chief Engineer.
{471}
In June, 1906, the original design of a sea-level canal throughout, with no locks, was dropped, after much consideration and under weighty engineering advice. As described very tersely and clearly by an English writer on the subject, the new plan for locks is worked out as follows:
"Beginning at deep water in Limon Bay, on the Caribbean coast, there will be a tide-water channel 500 ft. wide and 6.70 miles long to Gatun. At Gatun there will be the vast dam, the ascent of which will be effected by means of two flights of locks. In each flight there will be three locks, each 1,000 ft. long, 110 ft. wide, and 41.3 ft. deep on the sills. These will give access to a lake formed by the impounded waters of the Chagres river, with a surface level 85 ft. above mean tide level. Through this lake will extend a channel from 500 ft. to 1,000 ft. wide for 23.59 miles to Bas Obispo, the entrance to the Culebra cut. Thence through that cut there will be a channel 300 ft. wide for 8.11 miles to Pedro Miguel, the surface level being the same as that of the lake. At Pedro Miguel there will be a dam with twin locks, side by side, by which descent of 30 ft. will be made to a smaller lake 55 ft. above tide-water. This lake, only 0.97 of a mile long, will be traversed by a channel 500 ft. wide to Miraflores, where there will be another dam, with twin flights of locks, two locks in each flight, bringing the canal down to tide level; and from Miraflores a channel 500 ft. wide will extend 8.31 miles to deep water in the Bay of Panama. The channel will nowhere, save on the lock sills, be less than 45 ft. deep, and the locks at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores will be of the same dimensions as those at Gatun."
This altered plan received much persistent criticism,—so persistent that, in January, 1909, after the election of Mr. Taft to the Presidency of the United States, but before his assumption of the office, the President-elect, who, as Secretary of War, had been the responsible administrator of the undertaking, went to the Isthmus with a selected committee of engineers, who were asked to examine and report on the plans and methods of the work. Their reports, made in February, endorsed both. In communicating them to Congress the President characterized them as showing that "the only criticism that can be made of the work on the isthmus is that there has sometimes been almost an excess of caution in providing against possible trouble. As to the Gatun dam itself, they show that not only is the dam safe, but on the whole the plan already adopted would make it needlessly high and strong, and accordingly they recommend that the height be reduced by twenty feet, which change in the plans I have accordingly directed." Of the engineers who made the report he remarked that they "are of all the men in their profession, within or without the United States, the men who are on the whole best qualified to pass on these very questions which they examined." The membership of the committee or board was as follows: Frederic P. Stearns, James D. Schuyler, Arthur P. Davis, Isham Randolph, Henry D. Allen, John R. Freeman, and Allen Hazen.
The engineers reported that "as the Gatun earth dam was the central point of discussion, they gave it under instructions from Mr. Taft first consideration in the light of all new evidences," and they added "that the type of dam under consideration is one which meets with our unanimous approval." Dams and locks, lock gates and all other engineering structures involved in the lock-canal project, are "feasible and safe," according to the engineers, "and can be depended upon to perform with certainty their respective functions."
Considering the cost and time of construction of a sea-level canal as compared with the lock type, they held that "most of the factors which have operated to increase the cost of the lock canal would operate with similar effect to increase the cost of the sea-level canal, and at the present time there are additional factors of even greater importance to be considered as affecting the time of completion and cost of a sea-level canal." One of these they found in the Gamboa dam. If work on this were to be started as soon as possible, they asserted it "could not be completed until after the time required for the completion of the lock-canal." Further than this, they said that "a change in the type would result in abandoning work which represents large expenditure." They claimed that by the change the river Chagres and the rivers on the Isthmus tributary thereto, "instead of being allies, would be enemies of the canal, and floods in them would greatly interfere with the work."
Replying to the criticism that "the canal region is liable to earthquake shocks, and that a sea-level canal would be less subject to injury by earthquakes than a lock canal," they asserted that "dams and locks are structures of great stability and little subject to damage by earthquake shocks," but that even if they could regard earthquakes as a source of serious damage to any type of canal on the Isthmus, "their effect upon the dams, locks and regulating works proposed for the sea-level canal would be much the same as upon similar structures of the lock canal."
Finally, they said: " We see no reason why the canal should not be completed, as estimated by the chief engineer, by January 1, 1915; in fact, it seems that a somewhat earlier date is probable, if all goes well."
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1909. Prohibition in the Canal Zone.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: CASUAL OCCURRENCES OF SALOON SUPPRESSION.
PAN-AMERICAN EXPOSITION.
See (in this Volume) BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.
PAN-AMERICAN RAILWAY: Resolution of Third International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PANICS, Monetary, of 1903 and 1907.
See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.
PAN ISLAMISM.
See (in this Volume) SENUSSIA; also _Egypt_: A. D. 1905-1906.
PANKHURST, MRS. EMELINE.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
PANLUNG, THE CAPTURE OF.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
PAN-LUN-SHAN REDOUBT, CAPTURE OF.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
{472}
----------PAPACY: Start--------
PAPACY: A. D. 1902. Secession of the Independent Filipino Church.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.
PAPACY: A. D. 1903 (July-August). Death of Pope Leo XIII. Election of Pius X.
The Papal seat became vacant by the death of Pope Leo XIII. on the 20th of July, 1903. The Conclave of Cardinals for the election of his successor assembled on the 31st of the month, and its choice of Cardinal Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, was made known on August 3d. The new Pope assumed the name of Pius X.
PAPACY: A. D. 1904. Papal Prohibition of Civil Interference with the Election of the Roman Pontiff. The Civil Veto, in all forms, denounced.
In the first year of his pontificate, on the 20th of January, 1904, Pope Pius X. pronounced the following denunciation and prohibition of every kind of intrusion of civil authority or influence in the election of a Roman pontiff: "When first, all unworthy as we are, we ascended this chair of Peter, we deemed it a most urgent duty of our apostolic office to provide that the life of the Church should manifest itself with absolute freedom, by the removal of all extraneous interference, as her divine Founder willed that it should manifest itself, and as her lofty mission imperatively requires.
"Now if there is one function above all others in the life of the Church which demands this liberty it is certainly that which is concerned with the election of the Roman pontiff; _for when the head is in question, the health not of one member alone but of the whole body is involved_ (Gregory XV. Constit. Aeterni Patris in proem).
"To this full liberty in the election of the Supreme Pastor is opposed first of all that civil _Veto_ which has been more than once brought forward by the rulers of some states, and by which it is sought to exclude somebody from the supreme pontificate. If this has happened sometimes, it has never been approved by the apostolic see. On the contrary the Roman pontiffs, in their enactments on the conclave, have been in nothing perhaps more emphatic or more earnest than in their efforts to exclude the interference of all extraneous powers from the sacred senate of the Cardinals summoned to elect the pontiff. …
"But, and experience has shown it, the measures hitherto taken for preventing the civil _Veto_, or _Exclusive_, have not served their purpose, and on account of the changed circumstances of the times the intrusion of the civil power in our day is more clearly than ever before destitute of all foundation in reason or equity, therefore we, by virtue of the apostolic charge entrusted to us, and following in the footsteps of our predecessors, after having maturely deliberated, with certain knowledge and by our own motion, do absolutely condemn the civil _Veto_, or _Exclusive_ as it is also called, even when expressed under the form of a mere desire, and all interventions and intercessions whatsoever, decreeing that it is not lawful for anybody, not even the supreme rulers of states, under any pretext, to interpose or interfere in the grave matter of the election of the Roman pontiff.
"Wherefore, in virtue of holy obedience, under threat of divine judgment and pain of excommunication _latae sententiae_ reserved in a special manner to the future pontiff, we prohibit all and single the Cardinals of holy Roman Church, and likewise the secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals and all others who take part in the conclave to receive, even under the form of a simple desire, the office of proposing the _Veto_ or _Exclusive_, or to make known this _Veto_ in whatever manner it may have come to their knowledge, to the Sacred College of Cardinals either taken as a whole or to the individual fathers Cardinals, either by writing, by word of mouth, whether directly and proximately, or indirectly and through others. And it is our will that this prohibition be extended to all the interventions above mentioned, and to all other intercessions whatsoever, by which the lay powers, of whatsoever grade and order, endeavor to intrude themselves in the election of the pontiff.
"Finally we vehemently exhort, in the same words as those used by our predecessors, that in the election of the pontiff, _they pay no attention whatever to the appeals of secular princes or other worldly considerations_ … but solely with the glory of God and the good of the Church before their eyes, give their votes to him whom they judge in the Lord better fitted than the others to rule the Universal Church fruitfully and usefully. It is our will also that these our letters, together with the other constitutions of the same kind, be read in the presence of all in the first of the congregations wont to be held after the death of the pontiff; again after entrance into the conclave; also when anybody is raised to the dignity of the purple, with the addition of an oath binding to the religious observance of what is decreed in the present constitution."
PAPACY: A. D. 1904. Amenities between the Vatican and the Quirinal.
See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1904.
PAPACY: A. D. 1904. Increased Participation of Catholics in the Italian Elections.
See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1904 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
PAPACY: A. D. 1905. Relaxation of the Withdrawal of Italian Catholics from Political Action.
See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906 .
PAPACY: A. D. 1905-1906. The Separation of Church and State in France.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906. Anti-Clerical Movement in Spain. Proposed Associations Law.
See (in this Volume) SPAIN: A. D. 1905-1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February). Encyclical "Vehementer Nos," to the Prelates, Clergy, and People of France, concerning the Separation Law.
The following are passages from the Encyclical known, from its opening words in the Latin text as "Vehementer Nos," which Pope Pius X. addressed to the French nation on the 19th of February, 1906, after the adoption of the Law separating the Church from the State:
"To the Archbishops, Bishops, Clergy and People of France. … Venerable Brethren, Well-Beloved Sons, Health and Apostolic Benediction.
{473}
"Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and our heart overflows with grief when our thoughts dwell upon you. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all right-minded men, for it is as disastrous to society as it is to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren, it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to time at religion by the public authority. You have seen the sanctity and inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the schools and hospitals laicised; clerics torn from their studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to military service; the religious congregations dispersed and despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all know have followed—the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each Parliamentary session and of the assizes has been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy, and, in a word, from all public establishments. These measures and others still which, one after another, really separated the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.
"On the other hand, the Holy See has spared absolutely no means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It had then reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain—the attentions, good offices and efforts of our predecessor and ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all who think rightly. …
"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, it is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object, which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. …
"When the State broke the bonds of the Concordat and separated itself from the Church it ought, as a natural consequence, to have left her her independence and allowed her to enjoy peacefully that liberty granted by the common law which it pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done. We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the Church under the domination of the civil power. …
"With the existence of the association of worship, the Law of Separation hinders the pastors from exercising the plenitude of their authority and of their office over the faithful, when it attributes to the Council of State supreme jurisdiction over these associations and submits them to a whole series of prescriptions not contained in common law, rendering their formation difficult and their continued existence more difficult still; when, after proclaiming the liberty of public worship, it proceeds to restrict its exercise by numerous exceptions; when it despoils the Church of the internal regulation of the churches in order to invest the State with this function; when it thwarts the preaching of Catholic faith and morals and sets up a severe and exceptional penal code for clerics—when it sanctions all these provisions and many others of the same kind in which wide scope is left to arbitrary ruling, does it not place the Church in a position of humiliating subjection and, under the pretext of protecting public order, deprive peaceable citizens, who still constitute the vast majority in France, of the sacred right of practising their religion? …
"In addition to the wrongs and injuries to which we have so far referred, the Law of Separation also violates and tramples under foot the rights of property of the Church. In defiance of all justice, it despoils the Church of a great portion of a patrimony which belongs to her by titles as numerous as they are sacred; it suppresses and annuls all the pious foundations consecrated, with perfect legality, to divine worship and to suffrages for the dead. The resources furnished by Catholic liberality for the maintenance of Catholic schools, and the working of various charitable associations connected with religion, have been transferred to lay associations in which it would be idle to seek for a vestige of religion. In this it violates not only the rights of the Church, but the formal and explicit purpose of the donors and testators. It is also a subject of keen grief to us that the law, in contempt of all right, proclaims as property of the State, departments or communes, the ecclesiastical edifices dating from before the Concordat. True, the law concedes the gratuitous use of them for an indefinite period, to the associations of worship, but it surrounds the concession with so many and so serious reserves that in reality it leaves to the public powers the full disposition of them. Moreover, we entertain the gravest fears for the sanctity of those temples, the august refuges of the Divine Majesty and endeared by a thousand memories to the piety of the French people. …
{474}
"Hence, mindful of our Apostolic charge and conscious of the imperious duty incumbent upon us of defending and preserving against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, we do, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has confided to us, and on the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted in France for the separation of Church and State as deeply unjust to God, whom it denies, and as laying down the principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her liberty; as destroying justice and trampling under foot the rights of property which the Church has acquired by many titles, and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to our own person, to the Episcopacy and to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, we protest solemnly and with all our strength against the introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law, declaring that it can never be alleged against the imprescriptible rights of the Church."
_Pope Pius X., Encyclical Letter (American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1906)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1906. Commands forbidding French Catholics to conform to the Separation Law or the Associations Law.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906. Pacific Relations between State and Church in Mexico.
See (in this Volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (March). Declaration of the new French Ministry on the Church Separation Law.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (JANUARY-MARCH).
PAPACY: A. D. 1906-1907. The Separation of Church and State in France. Further Measures and Proceedings. The Encyclical Gravissimo.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
PAPACY: A. D. 1907. Effects of the Separation Law in France. The Catholics lose all Legal Organization.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
PAPACY: A. D. 1907 (September). Mandates of the Encyclical on Modernism.
The following passages contain the essential mandates of the Encyclical on Modernism, issued on the 8th of September, 1907:
"The office divinely committed to us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking ‘men speaking perverse things’ (Acts xx., 30), ‘vain talkers and seducers’ (Tit. i., 10), ‘erring and driving into error’ (II. Tim. iii., 13). Still, it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore we may no longer be silent, lest we should seem to fail in our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, we have hitherto shown them should be attributed to forgetfulness of our office.
"That we may make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, venerable brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay, more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers, … not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.
"Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that we number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor, indeed, will He err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as we have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without, but from within; hence the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover, they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root; that is, to the faith and its deepest fibres. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and, relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
{475}
"Once, indeed, we had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last we have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But, you know, venerable brethren, how fruitless has been our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, we might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime, we must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colors those men who have assumed this bad disguise.
"But since the modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, venerable brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connection between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil. …
"Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open advance, our predecessor, Leo XIII., of happy memory, worked strenuously, especially as regards the Bible, both in his words and his acts. But, as we have seen, the modernists are not easily deterred by such weapons; with an affectation of submission and respect they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff to their own sense, and his acts they described as directed against others than themselves. And the evil has gone on increasing from day to day. We therefore, venerable brethren, have determined to adopt at once the most efficacious measure in our power, and we beg and conjure you to see to it that in this most grave matter nobody will ever be able to say that you have been in the slightest degree wanting in vigilance, zeal or firmness. And what we ask of you and expect of you we ask and expect also of all other pastors of souls, of all educators and professors of clerics, and in a very special way of the superiors of religious institutions.
"I. In the first place, with regard to studies, we will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences, it goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, we have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. ‘Aeterni Patris’). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy we prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and we, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of our predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, we do decree anew and confirm and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the superiors of religious institutions. Further, let professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment.
"On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is to be solidly raised. Promote the study of theology, venerable brethren, by all means in your power, so that your clerics on leaving the seminaries may admire and love it, and always find their delight in it. For in the vast and varied abundance of studies opening before the mind desirous of truth everybody knows how the old maxim describes theology as so far in front of all others that every science and art should serve it and be to it as handmaidens. …
"With regard to profane studies, suffice it to recall here what our predecessor has admirably said: ‘Apply yourselves energetically to the study of natural sciences: the brilliant discoveries and the bold and useful applications of them made in our times, which have won such applause by our contemporaries, will be an object of perpetual praise for those that come after us’ (Leo XIII. Alloc., March 7, 1880). But this do without interference with sacred studies, as our predecessor in these most grave words prescribed: ‘If you carefully search for the cause of these errors, you will find that it lies in the fact that in these days, when the natural sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty studies have been proportionately neglected; some of them have almost passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that they are fallen from their old estate, they have been disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors (_loco cit_.). We ordain, therefore, that the study of natural science in the seminaries be carried on under this law.’
"II. All these prescriptions and those of our predecessor are to be borne in mind whenever there is question of choosing directors and professors for seminaries and Catholic Universities. Anybody who in any way is found to be imbued with modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, and those who already occupy them are to be withdrawn. The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favor modernism, either by extolling the modernists, or excusing their culpable conduct, by criticizing scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositories; and towards those who show a love of novelty in history, archaeology, Biblical exegesis, and finally towards those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer them to the profane. In all this question of studies, venerable brethren, you cannot be too watchful or too constant, but most of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule the students are modeled after the pattern of their masters. Strong in the consciousness of your duty, act always prudently, but vigorously.
"Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for holy orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty. God hates the proud and the obstinate. For the future the doctorate of theology and canon law must never be conferred on anybody who has not made the regular course of scholastic philosophy, if conferred, it shall be held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics, both secular and regular, of Italy, concerning the frequenting of the universities, we now decree to be extended to all nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic institute or university must not in the future follow in civil universities those courses for which there are chairs in the Catholic institutes to which they belong. If this has been permitted anywhere in the past, we ordain that it be not allowed for the future. Let the Bishops who form the governing board of such Catholic institutes or universities watch with all care that these our commands be constantly observed.
{476}
"III. It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings infected with modernism or favorable to it from being read when they have been published, and to hinder their publication when they have not. No book or paper or periodical of this kind must ever be permitted to seminarists or university students. The injury to them would be equal to that caused by immoral reading—nay, it would be greater, for such writings poison Christian life at its very fount. The same decision is to be taken concerning the writings of some Catholics, who, though not badly disposed themselves, but ill instructed in theological studies and imbued with modern philosophy, strive to make this harmonize with the faith, and, as they say, to turn it to the account of the faith. The name and reputation of these authors cause them to be read without suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the more dangerous in preparing the way for modernism.
"To give you some more general directions, venerable brethren, in a matter of such moment, we bid you do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. …
"IV. But it is not enough to hinder the reading and the sale of bad books: it is also necessary to prevent them from being printed. Hence, let the Bishops use the utmost severity in granting permission to print. Under the rules of the Constitution ‘Officiorum,’ many publications require the authorization of the ordinary, and in some dioceses it has been made the custom to have a suitable number of official censors for the examination of writings. We have the highest praise for this institution, and we not only exhort, but we order that it be extended to all dioceses."
_Pope Pius X., The Doctrines of the Modernists (American Catholic Quarterly Review, October, 1907)._
See (in this Volume) TYRREL, FATHER GEORGE.
PAPACY: A. D. 1907-1909. Revision of St. Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Bible, known as "the Vulgate."
"In May, 1907, an announcement was made of the Pope's intention to revise the Latin Bible, and the work has already made such progress that the time has come to record not only the main lines upon which the revision is being carried out but also the actual completion of its preliminary preparations. … Pius X. … offered the honourable though costly and arduous task to the learned Order of the Benedictines, by whom it was accepted. A commission of revision was appointed, with Abbot Gasquet, the President of the English Benedictines, as its head, and the International College of the Order at San Anselmo in Rome was chosen as the headquarters of their work. It is here that Abbot Gasquet and his fellow-workers have already made a good start upon the vast labour which their Order has undertaken.
"The object of the Commission, according to the Pope’s definite instructions, is to determine and restore as far as possible the original text of St. Jerome’s Latin translation made in the fourth century. How far St. Jerome’s translation represents the Hebrew or Greek is another question which may be the subject some day for future criticism and another commission. … Pius X. has made it clear to the Commission that he desires their work of revision to be conducted on the most modern and scientific lines, and that neither money nor labour should be spared to make it as thorough as possible. An exhaustive search will be made through all the libraries of Europe in the hope of finding hitherto unrecognized manuscripts of the Vulgate. Already there are 15 collaborators at work in different centres, collating the best-known and most important manuscripts with the Clementine text, while another commission, with its assistants, is making a thorough examination of the libraries and cathedral archives of Spain in search of fresh material. …
"The method of work is as follows. For the purpose of collation copies of the Clementine text have been printed; each page being left blank for two-thirds of its surface, the text being printed on the remaining third with no capital letters, no stops, no word divided, so as to resemble manuscript as far as possible. When a reviser wishes to collate any manuscript he has only to correct this print like an ordinary proof-sheet and so reproduce every difference of the manuscript before him.
"The printing of these copies of the Vulgate, which are to form the basis of the collations, with the preparation of the texts and correction of proofs—no light matter—has been the work of the first year. Three hundred and sixty copies have been printed in all, one hundred upon the best hand-made paper, two hundred upon ordinary book paper, and sixty upon thin paper for the purpose of postage abroad. The Pope himself has defrayed the rather heavy cost of this production. Besides the printing of this Bible considerable progress has been made during the past year with the preparation of a hand list of all the Latin Biblical MSS. in the libraries of Europe, which, when completed, will be of great use to the revisers. As the collators finish their work in the various libraries or archives where Biblical manuscripts are found, they send their annotated copies to San Anselmo, where they are bound up and added to a collection which, when complete, will form a vast library of all the different versions of the Bible. Seven important collations have already been made, and at the present rate of work the number of these Volumes will increase very rapidly."
_Rome Correspondence of the London Times, July 21, 1909._
PAPACY: A. D. 1908. The new Apostolic Constitution of the Curia.
A change of far-reaching and great importance in the ecclesiastical constitution of the Roman Church was decreed by Pope Pius X. this year, by the promulgation of a new Apostolic Constitution of the Curia. It reorganized the numerous Congregations or departments of the Vatican Government which had exercised the judicial functions of the Curia for some generations past. The Pope now restores these functions to an ancient ecclesiastical court, the Rota, which had fallen out of use. The Rota is constituted as an international court, before which questions between priest and bishop, bishop and diocese, and the like, will have their hearing, and from which there is appeal to a tribunal of last resort, the Segnatura, composed of Cardinals alone.
{477}
The reorganization of the Congregation of the Propaganda by this new Constitution removes from that body the ecclesiastical jurisdiction it has exercised heretofore over the Church in Great Britain, Holland, the United States, Canada, and some other countries, thus taking them out of the Roman category of missionary lands.
PAPACY: A. D. 1908. The situation of the Church in France. No Organization that can hold Property.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
PAPACY: A. D. 1909. Increased Participation by Catholics in the Italian Elections. Their Gain of Seats in Parliament.
See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
PAPACY: A. D. 1909. Church Movement of Agricultural Labor Organization.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.
PAPACY: A. D. 1909. Demonstration against the Religious Orders in Portugal.
See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1909.
PAPACY: A. D. 1909 (April). The Beatification of Joan of Arc.
The ceremony of the Beatification of Joan of Arc was performed at St. Peter’s, in Rome, on the 18th of April, 1909. Proceedings which began about ten years before were brought by this ceremony to the end of their first stage, beyond which they must still be continued for possibly many years, before the Canonization of "the Maid" as a Saint becomes complete. The question of the Beatification had been under consideration in the Congregation of Rites for several years. The grounds on which that question is decided, in every case, were explained by _The Catholic Union and Times_, in connection with its account of the ceremony now referred to, as follows: The Congregation of Rites "may decide that the life of the person was a very worthy and very holy one, but they require much more than that. It must be proved to their satisfaction that ‘miracles’ have been performed. The Congregation of Rites requires evidence of not fewer than three miracles. In the case of ‘miraculous cures’ it must be shown that doctors have pronounced the cases hopeless, or that diseases have been cured which doctors call incurable. Usually the report contains particulars of a number of ‘miracles,’ from which the Congregation of Rites may make a selection. The three chosen among those attributed to Joan of Arc relate to the curing of nuns belonging to different communities, who are said to have obtained relief from their diseases by her intercession. One of these nuns had suffered for years from cancer and was on the point of death when, it was claimed, she was instantly cured by a prayer of Joan of Arc. When the Congregation of Rites has been satisfied as to the authenticity of three miracles they prepare their report, which is submitted to the Pope, who considers it. There is then a gathering at the Vatican, to which the public is admitted. Cardinals and bishops are present, and a lawyer of the papal court reads out the decision. After this, the ceremony of beatification generally takes place within a few months."
In January, 1910, it was announced in Paris that the ecclesiastical process for the Canonization would begin on February 9.
PAPACY: A. D. 1909 (May). Vote in British House of Commons for removal of remaining Catholic Disabilities.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D). 1909 (MAY).
----------PAPACY: End--------
PAPER TRUST.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906, and 1909.
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1901-1906. Participation in Second and Third International Conferences of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1902. A nearly bloodless Revolution. Deposition of President Aceval. Elevation of the Vice-President.
The following, translated from the Montevideo (Uruguay) _Dia_, of January 10, 1902, appears in the annual report of "Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States," 1902, as transmitted by the United States Minister to Uruguay, and is probably an authentic account of the revolution described:
"Yesterday, at 10 o'clock in the morning, a revolutionary movement occurred in Asuncion del Paraguay, without bloodshed, without noise of arms, which immediately resulted in the imprisonment of the President of the Republic, Dr. Emilio Aceval, in the artillery barracks. A strange case—the chief magistrate of Paraguay has fallen, at least for the moment, on account of a revolution, inspired and carried into practice by two of his own ministers, Colonel Juan Antonio Escurra and Señor Fulgencio Moreno, who, although belonging to the same Colorado party as the President, differ in opinion at present, the former considering that a radical policy should be adopted against the liberals or civic accordists, Dr. Aceval not sharing this opinion, but being in favor of conciliatory measures, although this did not win for him the help of his traditional adversaries, who looked unfavorably on him, as is usually the way with those belonging to an opposite party."
In his note transmitting Montevideo newspaper reports, Minister Finch wrote of the occurrence: "It was, as will be seen, a bloodless affair; but out of it grew a discussion in the Paraguay Congress which was followed by shooting, one person being killed and several wounded."
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904. Successful Revolution.
The beginning of a successful revolution was reported to Washington by the American Consul at Asuncion, in a despatch dated August 11, 1904, as follows: "I beg to confirm my telegram of to-day, stating that a revolution has broken out in this republic. … Revolutionary forces on the river and those of the Government have fought. … The Government forces were defeated, the Minister of the Interior, who led the forces, being taken prisoner. The state of siege as declared … places the entire country under military laws, and the Government, is amassing a large number of troops to suppress the revolution. It is impossible at present to say whether it will be of long or short duration. The revolutionary forces are proceeding up the river in boats, and the Government has placed or erected defenses along the river near the capital.
{478}
"Upon inquiries as to the cause of this revolution I am informed that the opposition to the Government is that the party in power is endeavoring to exclude entirely the liberal element from participation in the administration of affairs, assigning that said party, which is in power, which is denominated ‘Colorados,’ have not sufficient persons prepared for the administration of the Government. On the other hand, the ‘Colorados’ assign that the revolution is due to ambitious persons who form an opposition and are classed under the name ‘Azul,’ colorados meaning ‘reds’ and azul ‘blues.’"
It was not until four months later that the Consul could announce the return of peace, secured by the triumph of the revolution. The president, Colonel Ezcurra, was compelled to resign, and Señor Juan Gauna was elected in his place; the army was reorganized; a general amnesty was proclaimed.
PARDO, PRESIDENT JOSE.
See (in this Volume) PERU.
PARKER, Alton B.: Nominated for President of the United States.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
PARKER, Edward Wheeler: On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.
PAROLE SYSTEM.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
PARSONS, CHARLES A.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: TURBINE ENGINE.
PARTIES: Agrarian Socialists.
See (in this Volume) FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
PARTIES: Anti-Revolutionnaire.
See (in this Volume) NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.
PARTIES: Azul.
See (in this Volume) PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
PARTIES: Blues (Conservatives).
See (in this Volume) COLOMBIA: A. D. 1898-1902.
PARTIES: Boshin Club.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
PARTIES: Cadets.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
PARTIES: Catholic Peoples’ Party.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904.
PARTIES: Center, or Centrum.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
PARTIES: Centro Catolico.
SEE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
PARTIES: Christian Workmen.
See (in this Volume) FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
PARTIES: Christlijk.
See (in this Volume) NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.
PARTIES: Civilistas.
See (in this Volume) PERU.
PARTIES: Clerical.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1903, and 1906; BELGIUM: A. D. 1904; GERMANY: A. D. 1906, and 1908-1909.
PARTIES: Colorados.
See (in this Volume) PARAGUAY: A. D. 1902, and 1904.
PARTIES: Confederates.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (January-May).
PARTIES: Conservatives.
See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1906, and 1908-1909.
PARTIES: Conservative-Unionist.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906, 1909 (April-December), and 1910.
PARTIES: Continental.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER), AND 1908 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES: Constitutional Democrats.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
PARTIES: Daido Club.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
PARTIES: Democratas.
See (in this Volume) PERU.
PARTIES: Democratic.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES; A. D. 1904 (MAY-NOVEMBER), and 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES: Democristiana.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.
PARTIES: Democratique and Gauche Democratique.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
PARTIES: Doshi-shukai.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).
PARTIES: Fabian Society.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
PARTIES: Fedakiarans.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
PARTIES: Federal Party, Filipino.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901, and 1907.
PARTIES: Free Traders.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1905-1906.
PARTIES: Independents.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
PARTIES: Independent Labor.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
PARTIES: Independistas.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
PARTIES: Inmediatistas.
See (in this Volume) Philippine Islands: A. D. 1907.
PARTIES: Intransigentes.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
PARTIES: Kossuth Party, or Independence Party.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903.
PARTIES: Labor Party.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1903-1904, and after; ENGLAND: A. D. 1903, and 1905-1906; also SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
PARTIES: League of Liberation.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
PARTIES: Liberal-Conservative Separatist.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904.
PARTIES: Liberals.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906, and after; ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906, 1909 (APRIL-DECEMBER), and 1910; TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (January-May).
PARTIES: Miguelistas.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906-1909.
PARTIES: Moderates.
See (in this Volume) LONDON: A. D. 1909 (March); DENMARK: A. D. 1901, and CUBA: A. D. 1906, and after.
PARTIES: Moderate Republicans.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
PARTIES: Nacionalistas.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
PARTIES: National Liberty.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER ).
PARTIES: Nationalists.
See (in this Volume) France: A. D. 1906.
PARTIES: Octobrists.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
PARTIES: Old Finns.
See (in this Volume) FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
PARTIES: Peoples, or Populist.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER), UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES: Progresistas.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
PARTIES: Progressists.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906; JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
PARTIES: Progressives.
See (in this Volume) LONDON: A. D. 1909 (MARCH); SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1904.
PARTIES: Prohibition.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER), and 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES: Protectionists.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1903-1904, and after.
PARTIES: Radicals and Radical Socialists.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
PARTIES: Ralliés.
See (in this Volume) RALLIÉS.
PARTIES: Regeneradors.
See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
PARTIES: Republican.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MAY-NOVEMBER), and 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES: Rikken Seiyu-kai, or Seiyu-kai.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1902 (AUGUST); 1903 (JUNE), and 1909;
See in Volume VI., JAPAN: A. D. 1900.
PARTIES: Sinn Fein.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D 1905.
{479}
PARTIES: Social Democrats.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA A. D. 1905-1907; GERMANY: A. D. 1903; DENMARK: A. D. 1906; SOCIALISM: GERMANY, SOCIALISM: FRANCE, SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
PARTIES: Social Revolutionists.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
PARTIES: Socialist, and Socialist Labor.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER), and 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES: Socialists, Radical. Socialists, Independent. Socialists Unified.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
PARTIES: Sons of Liberal Ottomans.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
PARTIES: Union Republicaine.
See (in this Volume) France: A. D. 1906.
PARTIES: Yellows (Liberals).
See (in this Volume) COLOMBIA: A. D. 1898-1902.
PARTIES: Young Egypt.
See (in this Volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
PARTIES: Young Finns.
See (in this Volume) FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
PARTIES: Young Turks.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
PARTIES: Yushin-kai.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
PARTIES: Zayistas.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906-1909.
PARTY REFORMS, Political.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.
PASSAY, FREDERIC.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
PASSIONISTS: Forbidden to Teach in France.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1903.
"PASSIVE RESISTANCE," OF ENGLISH NONCONFORMISTS TO THE EDUCATION ACT OF 1902.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902, AND 1909 (MAY).
PASTEUR, Louis: Pronounced by Popular Vote to be the Greatest Frenchman of the Nineteenth Century.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.
PATENTS OF INVENTION: GREAT BRITAIN: A. D. 1907. Patents and Designs Act.
A requirement of the manufacture of patented articles in the United Kingdom, introduced in an Act of the British Parliament passed and approved in August, 1907, which came into force August 28, 1908, seriously changed the operation of patents issued to foreigners. It is contained in the following sections:
"27.—(1) At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent and not less than one year after the passing of this Act, any person may apply to the comptroller for the revocation of the patent on the ground that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom.
"(2) The comptroller shall consider the application, and, if after enquiry he is satisfied that the allegations contained therein are correct, then, subject to the provisions of this section, and unless the patentee proves that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on to an adequate extent in the United Kingdom, or gives satisfactory reasons why the article or process is not so manufactured or carried on, the comptroller may make an order revoking the patent either—(a) forthwith; or (b) after such reasonable interval as may be specified in the order, unless in the meantime it is shown to his satisfaction that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on within the United Kingdom to an adequate extent: Provided that no such order shall be made which is at variance with any treaty, convention, arrangement, or engagement with any foreign country or British possession.
"(3) If within the time limited in the order the patented article or process is not manufactured or carried on within the United Kingdom to an adequate extent, but the patentee gives satisfactory reasons why it is not so manufactured or carried on, the comptroller may extend the period mentioned in the previous order for such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the subsequent order.
"(4) Any decision of the comptroller under this section shall be subject to appeal to the court, and on any such appeal the law officer or such other counsel as he may appoint shall be entitled to appear and be heard."
Twelve months after the Act became effective the London _Times_ gave the following account of its working:
"During the year which has elapsed since Section 27 came into force, 69 applications for revocation of foreign patents have been made to the Comptroller-General. In 10 cases only were patents revoked by that official. In four of these cases the patentees appealed to the High Court, and in two cases relating to improvements in electric arc lamps, the decision of the Comptroller-General was reversed, evidence having been adduced which was not placed before the Comptroller-General, the effect of which was to show that the patented process was being adequately carried on in this country. The two other appeals to the High Court were unsuccessful, so that the number of patents finally revoked was eight. Those revoked related to the following articles or processes:—Artificial stone slabs and tiles (two patents), sewing-machines, umbrellas, adhesive stays or fastening straps used in box-making, the lubrication of gig-mills, a steam motor-car, and locks. In another case, that of a patent connected with the manufacture of china clay, the Comptroller-General made a conditional order of revocation.
"It is too early, as yet, to say whether this new power of revocation conferred by the Act of 1907 is likely to have any appreciable effect in reducing the number of foreign patents taken out in this country. In the first seven months of this year there were 17,869 such patents applied for—an increase of 1566 as compared with the corresponding period of 1908, though only an increase of 319 upon the larger figures for the first seven months of 1907. Sixteen fewer patents were taken out in 1909 by American subjects than in 1908, and 331 fewer than in 1907. The decrease in German patents has been consistent—2000 in 1907, 1822 in 1908, and 1735 in 1909, and the same may be said of Austrian patents—253, 234, and 192 respectively. French patents, which were 620 in 1907 and 670 in 1908, decreased to 560 in 1909.
PATENTS: Pan-American Convention.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PAULHAN, M.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: AERONAUTICS.
PAUPERISM.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY.
PAWLOW, Ivan PETROVIE.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
PAYNE, HENRY C.: Postmaster-General.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
{480}
PAYNE-ALDRICH TARIFF.
See (in this Volume) TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.
PEACE.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST.
PEACE, International: Awards for the Promotion of.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE, The Second International.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
PEACE TREATY, BOER-BRITISH.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
PEACE TREATY OF PORTSMOUTH.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
PEARY, Robert E.: Exploration and Discovery of the North Pole.
See (in this Volume) POLAR EXPLORATION: ARCTIC.
PEASANT INSURRECTION IN THE BALTIC PROVINCES.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
PEASANTRY, CONDITION OF RUSSIAN.
See (in this Volume) Russia: A. D. 1901-1904, 1902, 1904-1905, 1905, and 1906.
PECANHA, Nilo: President of Brazil.
See (in this Volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
PEKING: A. D. 1902. Return of the Imperial Court.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1902.
PEKING-KALGAN RAILWAY.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: CHINA.
PELLAGRA.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: PELLAGRA.
PENNA, DR. ALFONSO MOREIRA: President of Brazil.
See (in this Volume ) BRAZIL: A. D. 1906.
PENNA, DR. ALFONSO MOREIRA: Sudden death.
See (in this Volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1906. Reform Legislation.
The popular revolt of 1905 in Philadelphia against the intolerable rottenness of municipal government under the dominant party "machine" had prompt effects in the State.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
"When the election, last November, and still more the reports made by working politicians in the best organized and informed machine in the land, showed that these classes wanted a change, the machine and its leaders changed instantly. A pliant governor was as prompt to call the Legislature in extra session as he had been to find reasons for the vilest excess of the political plunderers of the State. The same Legislature as before met, and in a brief session passed every measure for which reformers had been asking in vain for twenty-five years,—two of them in more drastic form than any one had yet proposed. Save that the Corrupt Practices Act is more precise and severe than any yet passed, except in Connecticut, and the separation and protection of the civil service of Philadelphia more complete than has yet been enacted for an American city, the new legislation follows the general trend of such measures in other States."
_Review of Reviews, April, 1906_.
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1906-1908. Frauds in the Construction of the new State Capitol.
On the 4th of October, 1906, the new State House at Harrisburg was dedicated with imposing ceremonies, honored by the President of the United States as the principal speaker of the occasion. The State of Pennsylvania was then indulging more pride in the supposed honesty and economy with which it had been built than in the splendor it displayed; for announcement was made that the Commission charged with the work had saved about 10 per cent of the $4,000,000 appropriated for it. Very quickly, however, there came an humiliation of that honorable pride. Complete accountings showed that, while the naked structure of the building had cost but $3,600,000, a monstrous expenditure of more than $9,000,000 for alleged decoration and furnishing had been added to that sum, by the most audacious "graft," perhaps, that is recorded, even in the national history which included the exploits of the Tweed Ring. The arts of sculpture and painting in the decoration were dealt with most frugally; but royal emoluments went to gas-fitters and cabinet makers and their kind,—$2,000,000 for example, for the equipment of the building with chandeliers. For woodwork in one suite of rooms, which cost the contractor $16,089 the State had paid $94,208. For another, he had received $62,486, on an expenditure by himself of but $6,145.
The investigation of these monstrous frauds, in the fruits of which many people must have shared, resulted in the arrest of fourteen men. The arrests were made in September, 1907, and the accused were released on bail. In the following March four were convicted of defrauding the State, namely J. H. Sanderson, a contractor, W. P. Snyder, former Auditor-General of the State, W. L. Mathues, former State Treasurer, and J. M. Shumaker, former Superintendent of Public Grounds and Buildings. The execution of the sentence was suspended pending an appeal.
Sanderson and Mathues died (of nervous breakdown, it was said), while the appeal was pending. The conviction of Snyder and Shumaker was confirmed finally on the 7th of March, 1910, and their sentence to two years of imprisonment went into effect. At the same time suits were instituted by the State against all parties connected with the frauds, to recover some $5,000,000, estimated to be the amount of plunder taken. Meantime, seven in all of the alleged participants in the conspiracy of fraud had died.
PENOLOGY.
See (in this Volume) CRIME.
PENSIONS, FOR OLD AGE AND INFIRMITY.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF.
PENSIONS: Military.
See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1902.
PENSIONS: United States: For Teachers.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
PENSIONS: For Railway Employees.
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: PENSIONS.
PEONAGE: In the United States.
The following extracts are from three reports of an official investigation of practices of peonage, conducted by the Assistant Attorney-General of the United States, Mr. Charles W. Russell, in 1906-1907:
"Under the criminal law as now in force the offense of peonage may be defined as causing compulsory service to be rendered by one man to another on the pretext of having him work out the amount of a debt, real or claimed. That is Mexican peonage proper, as defined by our highest court in the Clyatt case (197 U. S., p. 207). But, as fully explained in my report of October, 1907, and January, 1908, where there is no indebtedness either real or claimed, a _conspiracy_ to cause compulsory service of _citizens_ of the United States is punishable; and so, also, according to the only court that has directly passed upon the question, is the carrying or enticing any person from one place to another in order that he may be held in compulsory service.
{481}
"I use the words ‘compulsory service’ as equivalent to the constitutional phrase ‘involuntary servitude’ because the Supreme Court so treats them in the Clyatt case, and I say that a mere claim of debt is sufficient because several inferior courts have so decided, and because in the Clyatt case the indictment, to which no objection seems to have been made, alleged a mere claim of indebtedness."
For an illustration of peonage, Mr. Russell cites the following from evidence produced at the trial of a case occurring in Alabama which he took part in:
"It was proven that Harlan, the manager, had headquarters at Lockhart, where the mill was; that in his back yard were kept what were called bloodhounds—man-trailing dogs; that the object of keeping these was to send after escaping men; that they were so used, and men chased and brought back, one of them tied on the hind part of a buggy; that one of the men, the Bulgarian Jordmans, was unmercifully kicked and beaten by Gallagher for wandering off a few yards, his sore shins being exhibited to the jury as part of the evidence; that by means of telegraph, railroad, and telephone, a justice of the peace, and a deputy sheriff, the force of men were hemmed in so that escape was almost impossible; that the foremen constantly carried pistols and often made threats; that a rope was placed around the neck of one foreigner and thrown over a beam as an object-lesson to others and to frighten him, and that all this went on systematically'. …
"I have no doubt, from my investigations and experiences, that the chief support of peonage is the peculiar system of State laws prevailing in the South, intended evidently to compel service on the part of the workingman.
"It is hoped that an enlightened self-interest and the demand for labor made necessary by the expansion of old industries and the introduction of new will lead to the amendment or repeal of the State laws which are the chief support of peonage practices.
"These State laws take various forms and are used in various ways to uphold peonage and other kinds of involuntary servitude. Some of them are vagrancy laws, some contract labor or employment laws, some fraudulent pretense or false promise laws, and there are divers others. Some few of those in question, such as absconding debtor laws, labor enticing, and board-bill laws, were not originally passed to enslave workmen; but in view of the use to which they are put, need amendment in order that they cannot be so abused.
"These laws are used to threaten workmen who, having been defrauded into going to an employer by false reports as to the conditions of employment and the surroundings, naturally become dissatisfied as soon as they find how they have been defrauded. They are used before juries and the local public to hold the peons up as law-breakers and dishonest persons seeking to avoid their ‘just obligations’ and to convince patriotic juries that the defendants accused of peonage should not be convicted for enforcing, still less for threatening to enforce, the laws of their State.
"Until we began our work in October, 1906, the chief supply of peons came from the slums—i. e., foreign quarters of New York, and from Ellis Island, through the operations of licensed labor agents of New York. These were reaping a rich harvest from the price per head for laborers supplied to employers at a distance, and the temptations to fill all orders and outdo rival agents by a total disregard of truth and honesty in dealing with both laborer and employer was too great for a number of these brokers."
PEPPER, CHARLES M.: Delegate to Second International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PERDICARIS, ION: Ransomed from a Moorish Brigand.
See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.
PEREIRA, JOSE HYGINO DUARTE: Vice-President of Second International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PERRY, COMMODORE MATTHEW CALBRAITH: Monument in Japan to commemorate his Advent there in 1853.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901 (JULY).
----------PERSIA: Start--------
PERSIA: A. D. 1905-1907. Beginnings of the Revolutionary Movement, in the Life of Shah Muzaffer-ed-Din. The Taking of "Bast," and its effect. he Extortion of a Constitution and Election of a Representative Assembly. Death of the Shah.
The following account of conditions and events which opened, attended and followed the late constitutional revolution in Persia have been derived, partly from official correspondence of the period, between the British Legation at Teheran (or Tehran) and the Foreign Office at London, as published in Blue