ill. The new regulation, therefore, extends the time of

exemption in such cases to 18 months, provided that satisfactory proof be furnished."

{530}

RACE PROBLEMS: In Jamaica: Between White and Black: The Problem Non-existent. Solved by Good Sense, Right Feeling, and Just Law.

In the _International Journal of Ethics_ for May, 1906, Professor Royce reports of several visits to Jamaica,—where 14,000 or 15,000 white inhabitants are living with about 650,000 black and mulatto people,—that he had found no race problem existing—no racial antagonism—no public discussion of race equality or superiority. He accounts for this untroubled relation between colored and uncolored fellow citizens and neighbors as follows:

"When once the sad period of emancipation and of subsequent occasional disorder was passed, the Englishman did in Jamaica what he has so often and so well done elsewhere. He organized his colony; he established good local courts, which gained by square treatment the confidence of the blacks. The judges of such courts were Englishmen. The English ruler also provided a good country constabulary, in which native blacks also found service, and in which they could exercise authority over other blacks. Black men, in other words, were trained,—under English management, of course,—to police black men. A sound civil service was also organized; and in that educated negroes found in due time their place, while the chiefs of each branch of the service were and are, in the main, Englishmen. The excise and the health services, both of which are very highly developed, have brought the law near to the life of the humblest negro, in ways which he sometimes finds, of course, restraining, but which he also frequently finds beneficent. Hence, he is accustomed to the law; he sees its ministers often, and often, too, as men of his own race; and in the main he is fond of order, and respectful toward the established ways of society. The Jamaica negro is described by those who know him as especially fond of bringing his petty quarrels and personal grievances into court. He is litigious just as he is vivacious. But this confidence in the law is just what the courts have encouraged. That is one way, in fact, to deal with the too forward and strident negro. Encourage him to air his grievances in court, listen to him patiently, and fine him when he deserves fines. That is a truly English type of social pedagogy. It works in the direction of making the negro a conscious helper toward good social order.

"Administration, I say, has done the larger half of the work of solving Jamaica’s race problem. Administration has filled the Island with good roads, has reduced to a minimum the tropical diseases by means of an excellent health service, has taught the population loyalty and order, has led them some steps already on the long road ‘up from slavery,’ has given them, in many cases, the true self-respect of those who themselves officially cooperate in the work of the law, and it has done this without any such result as our Southern friends nowadays conceive when they think of what is called ‘negro domination.’ Administration has allayed ancient irritations. It has gone far to offset the serious economic and tropical troubles from which Jamaica meanwhile suffers.

"Yes, the work has been done by administration,—and by reticence. For the Englishman, in his official and governmental dealings with backward peoples, has a great way of being superior without very often publicly saying that he is superior. You well know that in dealing, as an individual, with other individuals trouble is seldom made by the fact that you are actually the superior of another man in any respect.

The trouble comes when you tell the other man too stridently that you are his superior. Be my superior, quietly, simply showing your superiority in your deeds, and very likely I shall love you for the very fact of your superiority. For we all love our leaders. But tell me that I am your inferior, and then perhaps I may grow boyish, and may throw stones. Well, it is so with races. Grant, then, that yours is the superior race. Then you can afford to say little about that subject in your public dealings with the backward race. Superiority is best shown by good deeds and by few boasts."

RACE PROBLEMS: In South Africa: Between White and Black.

"The native population of Africa south of the Zambesi is ten millions. The white population is under one million. To-day the majority of the natives are in a semi-savage condition. But the day may come when they shall have emerged from that condition, and have attained the degree of civilisation which prevails amongst the negroes, their kindred, in the United States. The process of evolution has begun. When it is completed, the relative position of the black and white populations in South Africa will be—what? Look to the United States and you shall find some hint of the answer.

"The native population of Cape Colony, including the territories, is, in round numbers, 1,200,000, and the white population 377,000. Day by day the power of the native grows. The gate of the political arena stands wide open to him, and he is not slow to enter. With the exception of natives occupying lands under tribal tenure (an important exception, but one that is constantly diminishing), every male person, irrespective of colour, race, and creed, and above the age of twenty-one years, and born or naturalised a British subject, is entitled to the full franchise after one year’s residence in the Colony, provided he occupies property of the value of £75 or is in receipt of wages of not less than £50 annually, and is able to sign his name and state in writing his address and occupation. Such a franchise would horrify the average American in the South, and unquestionably it will have to be radically amended unless the colonists are prepared to endure political annihilation. At present neither Bondsman nor Progressive will face the situation. Neither wishes to alienate the substantial aid which his party gets from the natives. …

"Bitter as the feud between Englishman and Dutchman is to-day, it will pass when both realise, as they are bound sooner or later to realise, that only by presenting a solid front to the oncoming hordes of superficially civilised blacks can they escape complete annihilation. For generations, if not for all time, the natives in South Africa must enormously outnumber the whites. In the olden days, tribal wars and wars with the white man, to say nothing of famines, and pestilence, served to counterbalance the prolificness of the native. These checks are no more."

_Roderick Jones, The Black Peril in South Africa (Nineteenth Century, May, 1904)._

On the suffrage question for natives, connected with the Union of South African States.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1908-1909.

{531}

RACE PROBLEMS: A. D. 1903-1908. Between Boers and British Indians.

The British Government has many troublesome problems to deal with, as the consequence of its having drawn the reins of its sovereignty over the necks of a motley multitude of races; but none among them, perhaps, has been more delicately difficult than one which arose between its native subjects in India, who pressed with eagerness into South African fields of trade, and its Boer subjects in South Africa, who have been stubbornly opposed to their doing so. Great Britain has had the most pressing reasons for avoiding offence to either of these peoples, and no controversy could have arisen more unfortunately in its circumstances and time.

Before the Boer-British War, there had been Indian complaints of ill-treatment in the Transvaal, which added something to the controversies of Great Britain with the South African Republic. After the war, when British authority had become supreme at Pretoria, it found a legacy of existing law which was embarrassing at once. The situation was described in a despatch of May 11, 1903, from Viscount Milner, the British High Commissioner, to the Colonial Secretary at London, Mr. Chamberlain, in which he attempted to exhibit, as he said, "the difficulty which besets any kind of action on this thorny question." The Government, he wrote, is "between two fires. On the one hand, it is accused of not enforcing the present law with sufficient strictness and is called upon to legislate in the direction of a complete exclusion of Asiatics, except as indentured labourers. Even in that capacity, their introduction meets with strenuous opposition. On the other hand, the Asiatics, of whom British Indians form by far the most numerous section, not only protest against any fresh legislation but demand the repeal of the existing law.

"The position which the Government of the Transvaal have taken up in the matter is one of which I entirely approve. They are unwilling, without the previous approval of His Majesty’s Government, to embark on any legislation on this subject, to the difficulties of which they are fully alive, and have accordingly decided that, pending fresh legislation, they have no option but to carry out the existing law. They are anxious, however, to do so in the manner most considerate to the Indians already settled in the country, and with the greatest respect for vested interests, even where these have been allowed to spring up contrary to law. This is in accordance with the principle on which they have proceeded throughout, namely, that the laws of the late Republic, imperfect as they are in many respects, and contrary, very often, to British ideas, must, nevertheless, be enforced until they can be replaced by more satisfactory legislation."

The desired new legislation on this "thorny question" does not seem to have been attempted during the period in which local self-government in the Transvaal was entirely suspended; but in 1906, after the first step toward its restoration had been taken, the semi-autonomous authority then organized there adopted an ordinance on the subject of Asiatic residence in the Colony which Lord Elgin, who had succeeded Mr. Chamberlain in the Colonial Office, disapproved. In the next year, however, when the full measure of colonial autonomy had been conferred by the Imperial Government (see, in this Volume, SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907), essentially the same provisions were embodied in an enactment by the new Transvaal Legislature, entitled "The Asiatic Law Amendment Act, 1907," and Lord Elgin could not venture to disapprove them again, for the reasons which he stated thus to the Colonial Governor:

"The Act which is now submitted has behind it a very different weight of authority. It has been introduced by the first responsible Ministry of the Colony, and has been passed unanimously by both Houses of the new Legislature. I consider it my duty to place it on record that His Majesty’s Government do not consider the position of Asiatics lawfully resident in the Transvaal, as settled by this Act, to be satisfactory; that they adhere to the opinions which have been expressed by successive Secretaries of State as to the desirability of relaxing the restrictions to which Asiatics are at present subject; and that they commend this view to the Transvaal Government in the hope that it may be carefully considered how far practical effect can be given to it. But they feel that they would not be justified in offering resistance to the general will of the Colony clearly expressed by its first elected representatives; and I have accordingly to inform you that His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance with respect to the Act." This measure was followed presently by an "Immigrants’ Restriction Act, 1907," which accentuated still further the inhospitality of Transvaal legislation, and made more serious trouble for the British Government, not only with its Indian subjects, but with the Chinese. On the effect of the two acts upon British Indians Lord Elgin wrote to Mr. Morley, Secretary of State for India (October 10, 1907):

"The practical effect of Section 2 (4) will be to prevent the further immigration into the Transvaal of British Indians or other Asiatics. As Mr. Morley is aware, throughout the correspondence which has passed on this subject, His Majesty’s Government have practically limited themselves to endeavouring to secure more favourable treatment for those Asiatics who have already acquired a right to reside in the Colony, and the competence of the Colonial Legislature and Government to restrict further immigration by means of legislation similar to that already adopted in other self-governing Colonies has not been disputed. … Moreover, in the interests of British Indians themselves, it is probably desirable, in view of the state of Colonial feeling, that further immigration should be restricted. Lord Elgin does not, therefore, propose to raise any objection to this provision.

"Section 6 (c) must be considered in connection with the recent Asiatic Law Amendment Act. Under that Act, Asiatics failing to register may be ordered to leave the Colony; and failure to comply with such an order is punishable by imprisonment. The object of this section, as explained by the Attorney-General in his report is to enable the Government to deport, in lieu of imprisoning, Asiatics who fail to register under the Asiatic Law Amendment Act. {532} While Lord Elgin feels that the free exercise of so drastic a power would be greatly to be deprecated, he doubts whether His Majesty’s Government can consistently object to a provision the object of which is to enable the Colonial Government to enforce the observance of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, which His Majesty’s Government have allowed to become law, and to which the British Indian community appears at present to be disposed to offer an organised resistance. He therefore proposes, subject to any representation which Mr. Morley may wish to make, to accept this provision also."

The India Office could only say in reply:

"Since the Asiatic Law Amendment Act, 1907, has received His Majesty’s sanction, Mr. Morley recognizes that it would be inconsistent to object to a clause framed merely in order to ensure the efficient administration of that Act so far as it affects persons already in the Transvaal. … It is true that under the Asiatic Law Amendment Act of 1907, the Colonial Government may grant temporary permits. Mr. Morley presumes that this power will, if the occasion arise, be used to prevent such a gross scandal as the exclusion from the Colony of ruling chiefs, Indians of distinguished position, and high officials of Asiatic descent on the ground that they are ‘undesirable immigrants.’ But he thinks that it would be satisfactory to obtain a definite assurance that in framing the present Bill the Colonial Government had no intention of refusing access to Asiatics of this type, and he trusts that such an assurance will be obtained and placed on record before the Royal Assent is given to the measure.

"It is unnecessary to point out to Lord Elgin the unfortunate effect upon public opinion in India which must be produced by the present Bill. The very peculiar circumstances of the Transvaal have been held to justify, during the period of administrative reconstruction, exceptional measures for dealing with the influx of immigrants; but Mr. Morley did not understand, when the provisions of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act were under discussion, that the forthcoming Immigration Restriction Bill would be so framed as to perpetuate the exclusion from the Colony of all future Asiatic immigrants without distinction.

"For these reasons I am to say that Mr. Morley trusts that Lord Elgin will find it possible to impress upon the Government of the Transvaal the very strong objections, from an Imperial point of view, which stand in the way of the acceptance of Section 2 (4) of the Bill."

The most obnoxious features of the two offensive acts were an educational qualification, which required applications for admission to the colony and for trading licenses in it, and other connected documents, to be written by the applicants in a European language, Yiddish being recognized as European, and a prescribed registration which required finger-prints as a means of identification. Both of these provisions of law were felt to be insulting and degrading by the Hindus of the better class, who organized a refusal of submission to them, and tested them without avail in the courts. Their language was treated contemptuously in the educational qualification, while, personally, they were classed with criminals by the fingerprint identification. The agitators of disaffection in India made much of these indignities, and the matter was extremely embarrassing to the British administration there. For months there seemed no prospect of a solution of the difficulty; but patient persuasion and tactful pressure brought, at last, what appeared to be a successful compromise, announced to the rejoicing Colonial Office at London by the following telegram from the Governor, January 30, 1908:

"Gandhi and other leaders of Indian and Chinese communities have offered voluntary registration in a body within three months, provided signatures only are taken of educated, propertied, or well-known Asiatics, and finger-prints of the rest, and that no question against which Asiatics have religious objection be pressed. Government have accepted this offer and undertaken pending registration not to enforce the penalties under Act against all those who register. Sentences of all Asiatics in prison will be remitted to-morrow. This course agreed to by both political parties."

Fresh discontents arose subsequently, when amendatory legislation was brought out, which did not open the colony to any fresh immigration of Asiatics, even if they could pass an educational test in a European language; but this has not appeared to have any of the seriousness of the former agitation, so far as India is concerned.

Of the intensity of feeling in India, a newspaper correspondent, writing from Bombay, December 29, 1909, said:

"There is no mistaking the depth of feeling regarding the protest against the treatment of Indians in the Transvaal. Every Indian, no matter what may be his politics, feels that his self-respect is insulted, and demands retaliation by refusing indentured labour to Natal. Extraordinary scenes followed Mr. Surendranath Banerjee’s appeal for funds for the Transvaal sufferers; jewels and money were thrown at his feet and rupees were poured into his hat. A thousand pounds was collected. The question is creating profound feeling among all classes."

RACE PROBLEMS: The Labor Question as a Race Question.

At a meeting of the Native Labor Association at Johannesburg, in April, 1909, the President of the Association stated that the present labor supply was entirely adequate, and that the mines were not likely to be faced with serious difficulty in this respect in the immediate future. In the course of 1908 the number of Chinese laborers had decreased in the natural course by repatriation by 23,303. On the other hand, the native complement had increased in the same period by 47,766, giving a net gain of 24,373, which had been further increased during the first three mouths of the present year. In explanation of the sudden expansion of the native labor supply, Mr. Perry pointed, first, to the collapse of the diamond market; secondly, to the emigration of Kaffirs from the Cape owing to failure of employment there. The De Beers Mines, as he was able to show, were actually employing 50,000 fewer hands than before, which, allowing for the difference in the periods of contract, probably meant a gain to the Rand of at least 25,000. Similarly, the native statistics published by the Cape Government indicated an enormous diversion of labourers to the Rand.

In January, 1909, the London _Times_, reporting the output of gold from the Transvaal in 1908 as having been £29,957,610,—an increase of £2,553,872 over 1907, gave the following statement of labor conditions at that time:

{533}

"The increase has been gradual and quite regular, and may be expected to continue. The expansion in the gold production has resulted in the employment of nearly 1,800 more whites than were at work in January, but coloured labourers are some 4,000 less. The increase in the number of natives employed in gold mines has been 24,000, while the complement of Chinese coolies has been depleted by 20,000. At the beginning of the year some 17,500 whites, 133,500 coloured, and 33,800 Chinese were employed by gold mines; for October the figures read:—Whites 18,300, coloured 157,500, and Chinese 14,300. Native labour is perhaps the one serious problem which will place limitations on further expansion. Few of the Chinese will be left by the end of next year, and they will all have left before the expiry of 1910. Natives, however, are showing more tendency to work regularly, and the habit doubtless will grow. It is due to the Chinese to recognize that they have been useful workmen, for the improved efficiency of the coloured workman all round is largely due to the example which they set the native."

In March, 1909, Colonel Seely, Under Secretary for the Colonies, in reply to questions in the British House of Commons, gave the following figures: January, 1907, Chinese employed, 53,856; whites employed on gold mines, 17,874; December, 1908, Chinese employed, 12,275; whites employed on gold mines, 19,605. For 'Witwatersrand, taking natives and Chinese together the numbers were:—January, 1907, 148,077; December, 1908, 166,405. The corresponding figures for whites are:—January, 1907, 17,198; December, 1908, 18,687.

A Johannesburg letter of July 26 to the London _Times_ reported a change in the situation, saying:

"For the half-year upon which we have just entered it requires no prophet to foretell a more rapid rate of progress, which, however, may to some extent be limited by a scarcity of native labour, signs of which have begun to loom on the horizon. After 18 months or more of steady increase in the number of native labourers available for work in mines, an increase which more than counterbalanced the outflow of Chinese labour through repatriation, the pendulum has begun to swing the other way, and already the pinch is beginning to make itself felt in certain mines. During the last two months the excess of time-expired natives and wastage over the number recruited has been more than 8000, and repatriated Chinese brings the total up to 10,000. Considering that the total coloured labour force employed on the Witwatersrand was over 180,000 in April, this comparatively small decline under normal conditions should hardly make itself felt at all. But the conditions are not normal. An era of expansion set in some 18 months ago which has been steadily growing, and which has called for an ever-increasing labour force and in the near future must require still more and more. How that demand is to be met is by no means clear."

RACE PROBLEMS: In the United States: Between its White and Black Citizens: Booker T. Washington’s solution in progress at Tuskegee.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906.

RACE PROBLEMS: The "Niagara Movement." A National Committee for the Advancement of the Negro Race.

In July, 1905, a conference of colored men from North and South, among whom Professor W. E. Burghardt Du Bois, of Atlanta, appeared to be the leading spirit, was held at Buffalo, New York. Its outcome was an organization which has taken the name of "The Niagara Movement," and which has had some growth. At the latest annual meeting of the organization, in Sea Isle City, New Jersey, in August, 1909, ten States were reported to be represented, and the total membership of the "Movement" was said to be three hundred, distributed in forty States. Its objects are indicated in the following passages from an Address which this meeting adopted:

"For four years the Niagara Movement has struggled to make ten million Americans of negro descent cease from mere apology and weak surrender to aggression, and take a firm, unfaltering stand for justice, manhood, and self-assertion. We are accumulating property at a constantly accelerating rate; we are rapidly lowering our rate of illiteracy; but property and intelligence are of little use unless guided by the great ideals of freedom, justice, and human brotherhood.

"As a partial result of our effort we are glad to note among us increasing spiritual unrest, sterner impatience with cowardice, and deeper determination to be men at any cost. …

"That black men are inherently inferior to whites is a wide-spread lie which science flatly contradicts, and the attempt to submerge the colored races is one with world-old efforts of the wily to exploit the weak. We must, therefore, make common cause with the oppressed and down-trodden of all races and peoples; with our kindred of South Africa and the West Indies, with our fellows in Mexico, India, and Russia, and with the cause of the working classes everywhere.

"On us rests to no little degree the burden of the cause of individual freedom, human brotherhood, and universal peace in a day when America is forgetting her promise and destiny. Let us work on and never despair because pigmy voices are loudly praising ill-gotten wealth, big guns, and human degradation. They but represent back eddies in the tide of time."

Programme of future work adopted included the publication of a series of small tracts and an almanac, the founding of a monthly publication, and the purchase of a permanent place of meeting where an annual Chautauqua will be held.

A Conference of people of both races who are desirous of organizing more effective endeavors to better the status of the negro citizens of the United States was held in New York in May, 1909. It adopted a resolution providing for the "incorporation of a national committee to be known as a committee for the advancement of the negro race, to bring that race from slavery to full citizenship with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto," and another resolution for a Committee of Forty charged with the organization of the national committee, with power to call the convention in 1910.

{534}

Among other resolutions discussed and adopted were the following:

"As first and immediate steps toward remedying … national wrongs, so full of perils for the whites as well as the blacks of all sections, we demand of Congress and the Executive:

"(1.) That the Constitution be strictly enforced and the civil rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment be secured impartially to all.

"(2.) That there be equal educational opportunities for all and in all the States, and that public school expenditure be the same for the negro and white child.

"(3.) That in accordance with the Fifteenth Amendment the right of the negro to the ballot on the same terms as other citizens be recognized in every part of the country."

RACE PROBLEMS: Anti-Negro Riot at Atlanta.

"On the 22d and 23d of September [1906] anti-negro riots broke out in Atlanta, resulting in the death of twelve or more negroes and the injury of a great many. There had been an unusual number of reports of attacks upon white women and girls by brutal and criminal negroes in the vicinity of Atlanta during the previous days and weeks. Every report of this kind had been flaunted with great headlines in a sensational afternoon newspaper of Atlanta, as if to arouse the less orderly and thoughtful element of the white population not merely to the lynching of offenders but to an attack upon innocent and law-abiding colored people. For a time the riot was furious and negroes were indiscriminately assailed. It would seem that most of those who were killed were absolutely innocent of any offense whatsoever. Their crime consisted merely in belonging to the negro race. It would be the height of silliness for criticism to take on a geographical character. White people in the North are no more considerate of people against whom they may have a grievance or a prejudice than are white people in the South. The problem of adjusting the relations of two races so totally different as the white race and the negro race where they have to live together in the same communities is difficult under any circumstances, and it becomes increasingly so where the inferior race is present in large numbers and where many of its members are ill-disciplined, idle, and of criminal instincts."

_American Review of Reviews, November, 1906._

"Wherever a colored man was seen he was attacked. The mobs closed in upon the trolley-cars and dragged the colored passengers, unprepared for the onslaught, from their seats. A riotous crowd broke into a shop where there were two negro barbers, beat them to death and mangled their bodies. One negro was killed in the shadow of a monument; another was stabbed to death on the post-office steps. The Governor mobilized the militia, but the mobs, taking it for granted that the militiamen were in sympathy with them, showed little fear of the soldiers. The Mayor of the city remonstrated with the rioters, but with little result. He called out the fire department, which cleared the streets by turning the hose on the mobs. But this only resulted in diverting the riot from one place in the city to another. Only a rain on Sunday dampened the ardor of the rioters. Order was outwardly restored by Sunday evening, but even thereafter negroes were killed. Even though the riot differed from the Russian variety in that it was not instigated and abetted by the Government and the military, it brings nothing but shame to this Nation."

_The Outlook, September 29, 1906._

RACE PROBLEMS: The Georgia Railroad Strike.

One of the meanest of recent exhibitions of race animosity was presented in May and June, 1909, on the occasion of a strike of white men employed as firemen on the Georgia Railroad against the employment of blacks in the same capacity. Generally, the southern railroads have employed, for years, both white and black firemen. On the Georgia Railroad there were about sixty of the former and forty of the latter. The white firemen were eligible to promotion to be engineers; the blacks were not. By an unwritten law they were excluded from the higher and better paid service; but as firemen the best among them had gradually won promotion to the better trains and better "runs" on the road. It was this fact which caused the strike of their white associates. As a labor strike it would have caused little trouble; as a race and color question it inflamed the State and the South, and disturbed the country at large for several weeks. The conflict of the railroad company was not with its own employees but with mobs along its line, always ready to be maddened by the thought of a negro in any place which a white man wanted.

A mediation in the matter undertaken, at the instance of President Taft, by the United States Commissioner of Labor, Dr. Charles P. Neill, and the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Mr. Martin A. Knapp, succeeded, with much difficulty, in arranging a reference of the dispute to arbitration. The chosen arbitrators were Hilary A. Herbert, named by the railroad company, T. W. Hardwick, named by the employees, and Chancellor David C. Barrow, of the University of Georgia, selected by these two. This board of arbitration gave hearings to both parties and rendered its award on the 27th of June. The main proposition submitted to it by the employees was in these words: "That the Georgia Railroad Company and its terminals at Atlanta will not use negroes as locomotive firemen on the road or in the yards, nor as hostlers nor assistant hostlers."

On this its decision was as follows: "The Georgia Railroad, when using negroes as locomotive firemen on the road or in the yards, or as hostlers, or as hostlers’ helpers, shall pay them the same wages as white men in similar positions." But the representative of the employees dissented from this decision in part, explaining his view, as follows: "In so far as the above finding permits the continued employment of negro firemen by the Georgia Railroad, I dissent therefrom, because I believe from the evidence that such employment is a menace to the safety of the travelling public. In so far as such finding requires that when negroes are so employed they shall receive wages equal to those paid white men, I concur therein, believing that such requirement, by removing the principal incentive for their employment, will result in the speedy elimination of this cheaper labor, and a consequent improvement of the service."

On most of the minor points in controversy the arbitrators were agreed in their conclusions, and the settlement of the whole matter was complete.

{535}

RACE PROBLEMS: Oriental Labor in Competition with Western Labor. The Force of the Economic Objection to it in a Country under the Protective System.

"Behind the economic antipathy to Oriental laborers there is a justifiable feeling. Where there is established a system of protection, it is only just that it benefit not only the capitalist but also the laborer. If the American laborer must contend as best he can with the laborer whose standard of life is lower, then the American manufacturer, in fairness, ought to be let alone in his contest with the foreign manufacturer who does not pay so much for his labor. _The Outlook_ believes that a condition of such open competition as has prevailed between the States of the Union would be wholesome between the nations of the world. But at present the protective system prevails and apparently is firmly established in America. So long, therefore, as American capital is protected, it is a benefit for the whole country to have American labor protected. And certainly if there is any body of laborers against which the working people of America need protection, it is the coolie labor of Asia. The fact that the Japanese and Chinese laborers enter industries in which there is a scarcity of whites does not affect the case, for it is not the direct loss of jobs, but the lowering—or at least the changing—of the standards of living that brings injury to the mass."

_The Outlook, September 21, 1907._

RACE PROBLEMS: Existing Treaties between the United States and China concerning the Admission of Chinamen. Enactments of Law on the Subject. Correspondence of Wu Ting-fang with Secretary Hay.

For a proper understanding of the questions of national honor and official civility that are involved in the existing laws and regulations of the United States which govern the admission of Chinamen to the country, either as visitors or immigrants, some attention must be given to a series of engagements by solemn treaty between the Governments of China and the United States, respecting the hospitality which each has pledged itself to give to the citizens of the other. Three of those treaties remain partly or wholly in force. The abrogation of the fourth one has a significance of its own.

The earliest of these treaties, negotiated in 1858, superseding one of 1844, provided very carefully for the good treatment of American citizens in China, but contains nothing on the subject of Chinamen in America, probably for the reason that few of that people had yet travelled so far abroad. The rights it stipulated for the American who visited or sought residence in the Celestial Empire were as follows:

"Article XI. All citizens of the United States of America in China, peaceably attending to their affairs, being placed on a common footing of amity and good will with the subjects of China, shall receive and enjoy for themselves and everything appertaining to them the protection of the local authorities of government, who shall defend them from all insult or injury of any sort. If their dwellings or property be threatened or attacked by mobs, incendiaries, or other violent or lawless persons, the local officers, on requisition of the consul, shall immediately despatch a military force to disperse the rioters, apprehend the guilty individuals and punish them with the utmost rigor of the law. Subjects of China guilty of any criminal act towards citizens of the United States shall be punished by the Chinese authorities according to the laws of China. And citizens of the United States, either on shore or in any merchant vessel, who may insult, trouble or wound the persons or injure the property of Chinese or commit any other improper act in China, shall be punished only by the Consul or other public functionary thereto authorized according to the laws of the United States. Arrests in order to trial may be made by either the Chinese or the United States authorities."

Treaty of Peace, Amity, and Commerce, 1858 (Compilation of Treaties in Force, 58th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Document Number 318, page 138).

Ten years later, in 1868, another treaty was negotiated, not to supersede that of 1858, but to supplement it; and in this agreement the reciprocation of hospitalities is pledged in the following distinct and cordial terms:

"Article V. The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents. The high contracting parties, therefore, join in reprobating any other than an entirely voluntary emigration for these purposes. They consequently agree to pass laws making it a penal offence for a citizen of the United States or Chinese subjects to take Chinese subjects either to the United States or to any other foreign country, or for a Chinese subject or citizen of the United States to take citizens of the United States to China or to any other foreign country, without their free and voluntary consent, respectively.

"Article VI. Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence, as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States.

"Article VII. Citizens of the United States shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the Government of China, and, reciprocally, Chinese subjects shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the Government of the United States, which are enjoyed in the respective countries by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. The citizens of the United States may freely establish and maintain schools within the Empire of China at those places where foreigners are by treaty permitted to reside, and reciprocally, Chinese subjects may enjoy the same privileges and immunities in the United States."

_Treaty of Trade, Consuls, and Emigration, 1868 (58th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Document Number 318, pages 157-158)._

{536}

That this treaty, as well as that of 1858, is still obligatory in its hospitable spirit and intent, is a fact certified by the language of the preamble of the treaty negotiated next, by President Angell, of Michigan University, and other Commissioners, in 1880. The recital in that preamble of the purpose of the new agreement was this:

"Whereas, in the eighth year of Hsien Feng, Anno Domini 1858, a treaty of peace and friendship was concluded between the United States of America and China, and to which were added, in the seventh year of Tung Chih, Anno Domini 1868, certain supplementary articles to the advantage of both parties, _which supplementary articles were to be perpetually observed and obeyed:_ and Whereas the Government of the United States, because of the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese laborers to the territory of the United States, and the embarrassments consequent upon such immigration, now desires to negotiate _a modification of the existing Treaties which shall not be in direct contravention of their spirit:_ Now, therefore," &c. The following are the four articles of the treaty thus explained:

"Article I. Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of the said country or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence, _but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable, and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers,_ other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation, or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse.

"Article II. Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States _shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation._

"Article III. If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its power to devise measures for their protection and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.

"Article IV. The high contracting powers having agreed upon the foregoing articles, whenever the Government of the United States shall adopt legislative measures in accordance therewith, such measures will be communicated to the Government of China. If the measures as enacted are found to work hardship upon the subjects of China, the Chinese minister at Washington may bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State of the United States, who will consider the subject with him; and the Chinese Foreign Office may also bring the matter to the notice of the United States minister at Peking and consider the subject with him, to the end that mutual and unqualified benefit may result.

This is the latest of the still obligatory engagements by treaty that bear on the admission of visitors or immigrants from China to the United States. A fourth treaty, pressed on the Chinese Government in 1894, permitted the United States, during a period of ten years, to prohibit entirely the coming of Chinese laborers within its territory; but the concluding article of that treaty was as follows:

"This Convention shall remain in force for a period of ten years beginning with the date of the exchange of ratifications, and, if six months before the expiration of said period of ten years, neither Government shall have formally given notice of its final termination to the other, it shall remain in full force for another like period of ten years." The Chinese Government did give the formal notice of termination within the stipulated time, and the treaty became void on the 7th of December, 1904.

Hence the Government of the United States is now under the engagements which it made with the Government of China in 1880, which included an engagement to be faithful to the hospitable spirit of the compact of 1868. When one has looked over those engagements of national honor, it seems hard to harmonize them in spirit, or even in letter, with some of the enactments which are regulating, at the present day, the treatment of people from China who venture to approach the entry ports of the United States. Such, for example, as the following, from "the Act of May 6, 1882, as amended and added to by the Act of July 5, 1884," which, according to a recent official publication of "Laws and Regulations governing the Admission of Chinese," was "continued in force for an additional period of ten years from May 5, 1892, by the act of May 5, 1892, and was, with all laws on this subject in force on April 29, 1902, reënacted, extended, and continued without modification, limitation, or condition by the act of April 29, 1902, as amended by the act of April 27, 1904":

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby suspended, and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come from any foreign port or place, or having so come to remain within the United States."

"Section 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land, or attempt to land, or permit to be landed any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and may also be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year." …

{537}

"Section 6. That in order to the faithful execution of the provisions of this act, every Chinese person, other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said treaty or this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government, or of such other foreign government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject, in each case to be evidenced by a certificate issued by such Government, which certificate shall be in the English language, and shall show such permission, with the name of the permitted person in his or her proper signature, and which certificate shall state the individual, family, and tribal name in full, title or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession, when and where and how long pursued, and place of residence of the person to whom the certificate is issued, and that such person is entitled by this act to come within the United States.

"If the person so applying for a certificate shall be a merchant, said certificate shall in addition to above requirements, state the nature, character, and estimated value of the business carried on by him prior to and at the time of his application as aforesaid: _Provided_, That nothing in this act nor in said treaty shall be construed as embracing within the meaning of the word ‘merchant,’ hucksters, peddlers, or those engaged in taking, drying, or otherwise preserving shell or other fish for home consumption or exportation.

"If the certificate be sought for the purpose of travel for curiosity, it shall also state whether the applicant intends to pass through or travel within the United States, together with his financial standing in the country from which such certificate is desired.

"The certificate provided for in this act, and the identity of the person named therein shall, before such person goes on board any vessel to proceed to the United States, be viséd by the indorsement of the diplomatic representatives of the United States in the foreign country from which such certificate issues, or of the consular representative of the United States at the port or place from which the person named in the certificate is about to depart; and such diplomatic representative or consular representative whose indorsement is so required is hereby empowered, and it shall be his duty, before indorsing such certificate as aforesaid, to examine into the truth of the statements set forth in said certificate, and if he shall find upon examination that said or any of the statements therein contained are untrue it shall be his duty to refuse to indorse the same.

"Such certificate viséd as aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein, and shall be produced to the Chinese inspector in charge of the port in the district in the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive, and afterward produced to the proper authorities of the United States whenever lawfully demanded, and shall be the sole evidence permissible on the part of the person so producing the same to establish a right of entry into the United States; but said certificate may be controverted and the facts therein stated disproved by the United States authorities."

It will be observed that Article IV. of the Treaty of 1880 provides that, if measures enacted in the United States "are found to work hardship upon the subjects of China, the Chinese minister at Washington may bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State of the United States, who will consider the subject with him." One who consults the annual reports that are published, of "Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States," will find that the Chinese Minister at Washington has had occasion very often to bring cases of the kind thus referred to in the Treaty to the notice of the Secretary of State, and discovered, when he did so, almost invariably, that under the enactments complained of the Secretary of State had no power even to "consider the subject" of complaint with him. The highly intelligent and keenly logical Mr. Wu Ting-fang, who represented China at Washington in 1900-1902, had much correspondence on such matters with Secretary Hay, whose sympathetic friendliness to China was well proved; but Mr. Hay could never do more than refer Mr. Wu’s representations to the Treasury Department and its officials, who held all authority in the matter, and politely return to the Chinese Minister such responses as they put into his hands. The following is one example of Mr. Wu Ting-fang’s communications. It is dated at Washington, December 26, 1900:

"I have received from the imperial consul-general and from reputable Chinese merchants in San Francisco such urgent complaints that I feel it my regrettable duty to again address you on the subject of the manner in which the immigration laws of Congress are being enforced against Chinese subjects. They represent what I set forth in my note of the 30th ultimo, that under the rulings of the authorities of the port of San Francisco Chinese students holding certificates in conformity to the treaty and law of Congress are virtually debarred from entering the United States, it being held by the said authorities that such students must come here with a knowledge of the English language and with an education that will permit them to forthwith enter a college or take up an advanced professional course of study. They further represent that under the act of November 3, 1893, the Government of the United States issued certificates of residence to a large number of Chinese persons, not laborers—merchants and others— and that the rights acquired under these certificates are being entirely ignored. Holders of such certificates desiring to make a temporary visit to China are denied the privilege, and persons who have departed holding such certificates are denied the privilege of reentering the United States. They state that merchants returning to San Francisco after a temporary visit to China are often imprisoned in the detention dock for weeks and months pending their landing. Their Caucasian witnesses are put to all sorts of inconveniences and annoyances and treated with suspicion and discourtesy. When present to sign identification papers they are compelled to await the pleasure of the Chinese bureau for examination, and are plied with all sorts of immaterial questions from an inspector, who assumes the character of an inquisitor. {538} The result of this is that it is now very difficult for Chinese desiring to visit their native land to obtain the necessary signatures for their identification papers, thus causing them untold mental and financial suffering. They report that it has been heretofore the custom in San Francisco for years to allow the attorney for the persons desiring to enter the United States to be present at the Chinese bureau pending the taking of evidence on their behalf, thus affording a protection to the Chinese applicants and operating as a restraint upon overzealous subordinate officials. It has just been ordered by the port authorities that henceforth no attorneys shall be allowed to be present at the taking of such testimony, or of any testimony on behalf of Chinese desiring to enter that port. They assert that this action makes the immigration inspector, whose avowed policy is to cause the return to China of every Chinese he possibly can, the master of the situation and throws all Chinese applicants at his feet."

_Minister Wu to Secretary Hay, December 26, 1900 (Foreign Relations, 1901, page 64)._

In a previous communication the Chinese Minister had expressed the opinion that the matter demanded the attention of the President; to which Secretary Hay replied that "in the Department’s view the immigration acts do not confer upon the President any power to interpose in the matter. The act of August 18, 1894, provides that ‘in every case where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury." On this statement Mr. Wu now remarked:

"I beg to say that I was aware of the law which is quoted in your note of the 5th instant, when I suggested the interposition of the President of the United States, but I am advised that it can hardly be interpreted as a prohibition against the exercise by that supreme official of the nation of his influence with one of his own Secretaries, if he was convinced, upon examination of the facts, that a solemn treaty guaranty was being violated and a great wrong being done to subjects of a friendly Government. I am further advised that it was not the intent of Congress, by the act cited, to take from the President the duty, which I have understood was imposed on him by your great and wise Constitution, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and by the same instrument the treaties with foreign nations are declared to be ‘the supreme law of the land.’ I feel persuaded that if you will lay the questions presented in the present note and that of the 30th ultimo before the President, he will be inspired by his high sense of justice to induce the honorable Secretary of the Treasury to revise the decisions which have been made by the official of his Department, or that he will at least submit the question to the Attorney-General for a construction of the treaty and the laws depending thereon."

_Foreign Relations, 1901, page 65._

Any fair-minded reader of the correspondence between Chinese and American officials, relative to the treatment of Chinamen in the United States, is likely to find himself quite generally in sympathy with the former, and compelled to doubt whether the subjects of China would lose anything if all the treaty engagements supposed to be in force, between their Government and the Government of the United States, were cancelled to-morrow.

RACE PROBLEMS: Anti-Japanese Agitation in California. Segregation of Orientals in San Francisco Schools. Japanese Resentment. The Labor Question at the Bottom. State Rights and Treaty Rights.

"The events noted in this article belong mostly to San Francisco, but to a very considerable extent the agitation is one of state and national importance.

"In November, 1904, the American Federation of Labor held its annual meeting in San Francisco. It adopted a resolution demanding that the terms of the Chinese Exclusion Act should be so extended ‘as to permanently exclude from the United States and its insular territory all classes of Japanese and Coreans other than those exempted by the present terms of the act.’"

"In February, 1905, the San Francisco _Chronicle_, a daily newspaper of state-wide reputation, began to publish a series of articles having the general object of representing the immigration of Japanese, particularly of Japanese laborers, as a menace to the interests of the people of California and of the nation as well. On the date of the first publication, February 23, 1905, the purpose of the series was thus announced editorially:

"‘With this issue we summon the attention of the public to a matter of grave import, a matter that no longer admits of delay if we are to preserve the integrity of our social life not only in California but throughout the Union. The Japanese invasion with which we are confronted is fraught with a peril none the less momentous because it is so silent, none the less attended with danger to American character and to American institutions because it is so peaceful. … It will be well for us to choose now the line of least resistance, to determine now and forever whether this State and this country are to be American or whether they are to be Asiatic, whether they are to continue under the sway of American thought and aspiration or whether they are to become a seminary, an abiding place, and an inheritance for the Oriental peoples. … This is a matter first for California and for the Pacific Coast and secondly for the whole Nation. California stands to-day as an open door for Japan and for Asia and when these portals have been passed the road to the Atlantic is unbarred.’

"The series of articles printed conspicuously on the front page at intervals of two or three days sought to establish as fact a rapidly increasing inflow of Japanese laborers, ready to work at wages far below the white standard, and sending native-born white men into the ranks of the unemployed.

"By a unanimous vote in each House, and with only few absentees, the California Legislature on March 1 and 2, 1905, placed itself on record with respect to Japanese immigration in the adoption of a concurrent resolution. After a lengthy preamble, the Legislature—

"‘_Resolved_, that in view of the facts and reasons aforesaid, and of many others that might be stated, we, as representatives of the people of the State of California, do earnestly and strenuously ask and request, and in so far as it may be proper, demand for the protection of the people of this State and for the proper safe-guarding of their interests, that action be taken without delay, by treaty, or otherwise, as may be most expeditious and advantageous, tending to limit within reasonable bounds and diminish in a marked degree the further immigration of Japanese laborers into the United States.

{539}

"‘That our Senators and Representatives be, and they are hereby, requested and directed to bring the matters aforesaid to the attention of the President and the Department of State.’

_California Statutes, 1905, Concurrent & Joint Res. chapter xxiv._

"On Sunday May 7, 1905, there was held in Lyric Hall, San Francisco, a sort of convention of representatives of various Labor organizations and Improvement Clubs of San Francisco and near-by cities,—such as the Building Trades Council, District Council of Painters, Carpenters’ Union No. 22, Federation of Mission Improvement Clubs, et al. After much speech-making of a demagogic character, committees were appointed and an adjournment taken to the following Sunday. On that day, May 14, organization was perfected by the election of the usual officers. All of these were men active in the promotion of labor organization.

"On May 6, 1905, the San Francisco Board of Education adopted a resolution expressing its determination ‘to effect the establishment of separate schools for Chinese and Japanese pupils … for the higher end that our children should not be placed in any position where their youthful impressions may be affected by association with pupils of the Mongolian Race.’ But finding itself without sufficient funds for equipment of a separate school, the Board did not pursue the matter at this time. Its zeal in the matter was not abated by the vast amount of labor required to reëstablish the schools after the great fire of April, 1906, and on October 11, 1906, it adopted and put into effect the following resolution:

"‘_Resolved_, That in accordance with Article X, Section 1662, of the School Law of California, principals are hereby directed to send all Chinese Japanese or Corean children to the Oriental public school, situated on the south side of Clay street, between Powell and Mason streets, on and after Monday, October 15, 1906.’

"The Consul of Japan in San Francisco at once addressed protests to the Board of Education, urging that the requirement would work great hardship upon Japanese children, by reason of distance and the difficulties of travel, street-car transportation at the time being very uncertain on account of the derangements produced by the great conflagration of April, 1906. Protests and appeals were alike turned aside in California, but they received instant attention in Washington by President Roosevelt, who sent Honorable V. H. Metcalf, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, to San Francisco to investigate on the ground.

"There seemed to be a possible solution of the school question by securing a judicial determination of the matter as a violation of treaty rights. Upon these points Secretary Metcalf reported to the President substantially as follows:

"1st. There is no ‘favored nation’ clause in any treaty between the United States and Japan which clearly guarantees the right of education. The action of the San Francisco School Board is therefore not the denial of a treaty right.

"2nd. Two points remain upon which the validity of the resolution of the School Board might be questioned, as follows:

"a. May the sovereign State of California delegate legislative rights to district school boards or other municipal or local bodies?

"b. Are the Japanese Mongolians, and as such covered by the state statute governing the establishment of schools?

"Suit upon these points is inadvisable for the reason that in case of a favorable decision, the next legislature would hasten to enact legislation especially singling out the Japanese for discrimination.

"In December, 1906, however, the United States District Attorney was summoned from San Francisco to Washington for conference with the President and Attorney-General, and upon his return to San Francisco two suits were commenced. One was a petition for a writ of mandate in the Supreme Court of California, the other was a suit in equity in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. Neither suit was prosecuted, and both actions were subsequently dismissed.

"The influence of the Japanese Consul and of the leaders among the Japanese resident in San Francisco was strongly exerted toward allaying excitement and preventing any acts that might give ground for complaint. However, it was impossible to conceal the fact that the effort of the School Board toward segregation was a stinging blow to Japanese national pride.

"The San Francisco school question was suddenly lifted into national prominence by President Roosevelt, who included pointed criticism of the San Francisco authorities in his annual message to Congress, as follows:

"‘Not only must we treat all nations fairly, but we must treat with justice and good will all immigrants who come here under the law. … Especially do we need to remember our duty to the stranger within our gates. … I am prompted to say this by the attitude of hostility here and there assumed toward the Japanese in this country. … It is most discreditable to us as a people and it may be fraught with the gravest consequences to the nation. … Here and there a most unworthy feeling has manifested itself toward the Japanese—a feeling that has shown itself in shutting them out from the common schools in San Francisco, and in mutterings against them in one or two other places, because of their efficiency as workers. To shut them out from the public schools is a wicked absurdity, when there are no first-class colleges in the land, including the universities and colleges of California, which do not welcome Japanese students and on which Japanese students do not reflect credit.’ The president then specifically recommended to Congress the enactment of legislation for the naturalization of Japanese and for the enlargement of the powers of the federal government for the better protection of resident aliens against infringement of treaty rights.

{540}

"The effect of the president’s utterances was to raise new questions and to bring new and powerful influences to the support of the San Francisco authorities. In California the San Francisco School Board received at once the credit of heroic defense of the principle of state sovereignty. Expression of the same sentiment in Congress was immediate and direct.

"Early in 1907, President Roosevelt invited the San Francisco Board of Education to come to Washington. This invitation was accepted, and the Board, accompanied by the Mayor of San Francisco, journeyed across the continent. Several conferences were held, and after their return to San Francisco, public statements of results were made both by the Board of Education and by the Mayor. On March 13, 1907, the offending resolution of the previous October was repealed.

"The action of the San Francisco authorities aroused very general comment throughout the country. The actual facts in regard to the Japanese in the schools were not inquired into by the San Francisco press, nor in fact were they accurately known at the time even to the school authorities of the city. The exact facts were published by _The Outlook_ on June 1, 1907, from accurate investigation on the ground. The Superintendent of Schools had given as the main reason for segregation, that 95 per cent. of the Japanese pupils were young men and ‘we object to an adult Japanese sitting beside a twelve year old girl.’ The facts were that on December 8, 1906, in all schools of primary and grammar grade there was an enrollment of 28,736 pupils. Of these there were 93 Japanese, nearly one-third of whom were born in the United States. There were 28 girls and 65 boys. Of the 65 boys 34 were under 15 years of age, and of the remaining 31 only 2 were 20 years. 25 of the boys over 15 years were in the grammar grades, leaving but 6 to justify the objection of adults ‘sitting beside children of tender years.’ The conclusion of the _Outlook_ inquiry was that there was nothing in the situation that could not have been met by simpler remedies than the attempted segregation, and that the underlying motive in the whole matter was a desire to win the political support of the labor unions.

"The great fire in San Francisco in 1906 drove the Japanese from their established quarters. Their attempts to gain new locations in districts previously occupied wholly by white residents tended to draw attention to them. For a time the policing of the city was inadequate, and cases of bodily violence toward Japanese were not infrequent. Anything like organized action took the form of boycotts directed against Japanese restaurants that sought white patronage and subsequently against the Japanese laundries.

"The biennial sessions of the legislature since 1905 have regularly furnished a large supply of anti-Japanese resolutions and bills, introduced for effect and without sufficient support for enactment. However, in 1909 legislation was attempted looking toward prohibiting Japanese from becoming owners of real property. It was only the strenuous protests of President Roosevelt actively supported by the governor of the state that prevented for this session the enactment of some such measure. The legislature finally contented itself with making an appropriation for a state census of Japanese.

"This census was intrusted to the state commissioner of labor, and is now (July, 1909) in progress. It may be regarded as a step toward an authoritative inquiry as to facts upon which later action may be based, if deemed necessary.

"The Japanese on the Pacific Coast uniformly exercise a most commendable self-restraint, and their officials take advantage of every opportunity to display a spirit of friendliness. This is illustrated by liberal contributions to the city’s fund for the entertainment of the sailors of the Atlantic Fleet during its visit to San Francisco in May, 1908, and by an invitation extended by the Chambers of Commerce of the large cities of Japan in July, 1908, to similar bodies in the Pacific Coast states to visit Japan as guests of the country. This invitation was accepted by numerous commercial representatives of the cities from Los Angeles northward to Seattle."

_Frederick H. Clark, Head of History Department, Lowell High School, San Francisco._

"'If you provide a system of education which includes alien children you must not exclude these particular alien children.'"

Inasmuch as the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, this prohibitory power was shown to be incontestable.

{541}

The common-sense ground of opinion and feeling on the whole subject in America could not be set forth more indisputably than it was by Mr. Roosevelt, after he had ceased to be President, when he wrote as a private citizen, in his editorial connection with _The Outlook_, on the 8th of May, 1909, this:

"The Japanese are a highly civilized people of extraordinary military, artistic, and industrial development; they are proud, warlike, and sensitive. I believe that our people have, what I personally certainly have, a profound and hearty admiration for them; an admiration for their great deeds and great qualities, an ungrudging respect for their national character. But this admiration and respect is accompanied by the firm conviction that it is not for the advantage of either people that emigrants from either country should settle in mass in the other country. The understanding between the two countries on this point should be on a basis of entire mutuality, and therefore on a basis which will preserve unimpaired the self-respect of each country, and permit each to continue to feel friendly good will for the other. Japan would certainly object to the incoming of masses of American farmers, laborers, and small traders; indeed, the Japanese would object to this at least as strongly as the men of the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain States object to the incoming in mass of Japanese workmen, agricultural laborers, and men engaged in small trades. The Japanese certainly object to Americans acquiring land in Japan at least as much as the Americans of the far Western States object to the Japanese acquiring land on our soil. The Americans who go to Japan and the Japanese who come to America should be of the same general class—that is, they should be travelers, students, teachers, scientific investigators, men engaged in international business, men sojourning in the land for pleasure or study. As long as the emigration from each side is limited to classes such as these, there will be no settlement in mass, and therefore no difficulty."

That the emigration from Japan has been thus closely limited was shown in September, 1909, by the issue of a statistical circular from the office of the Japanese Consul-General at San Francisco, dealing in tabulated form with the arrivals and departures from Japan for the year 1908 and for the first six months of the year 1909. It shows that the number of the excess arrivals in Japan over the departures for 1908 was 1807, and for the first six months of the present year 737, making a total excess of arrivals in Japan over departures for the 18 months of 2544. The circular states that "no new labourers are now leaving Japan for American territory," and this may be taken as the official Japanese reply to the continued assertions of the California labour unions that large numbers of coolies are still reaching the country by way of the Canadian and Mexican frontiers.

RACE PROBLEMS: Exclusion of Chinese. The Law and its Administration. The Chinese Resentment expressed in a Boycott. President Roosevelt’s Vain Appeal to Congress. Opinion of Secretary Straus.

Resentful feeling aroused in China by the immigration and exclusion laws of the United States, in their special application to incoming Chinese and in the harshness of their administration, began to have expression at Shanghai in May, 1905, when resolutions were adopted at a meeting of the merchant guilds of that city which initiated an extensive boycotting of American goods and of everything connected with America. A report of the meeting and of its recommendations was sent to all parts of the Empire and elicited a quick and general response. The undertaking of the movement was to stop the buying of American goods; to socially ostracise tradesmen who continue to handle them, and to render no service to Americans in China, except for higher pay than is demanded from others. This boycotting attitude of large numbers in China was persisted in throughout the year, and not only made itself felt seriously in commercial circles, but impressed the American public with a proper sense of the indignities they were allowing to be imposed on a people who deserve their respect. The President, in his Message to Congress at the opening of the session in December, dealt justly with the subject, as follows:

"The conditions in China are such that the entire Chinese coolie class, that is, the class of Chinese laborers, skilled and unskilled, legitimately come under the head of undesirable immigrants to this country, because of their numbers, the low wages for which they work, and their low standard of living. Not only is it to the interest of this country to keep them out, but the Chinese authorities do not desire that they should be admitted. At present their entrance is prohibited by laws amply adequate to accomplish this purpose. These laws have been, are being, and will be, thoroughly enforced. … But in the effort to carry out the policy of excluding Chinese laborers, Chinese coolies, grave injustice and wrong have been done by this Nation to the people of China, and therefore ultimately to this Nation itself. Chinese students, business and professional men of all kinds—not only merchants, but bankers, doctors, manufacturers, professors, travelers, and the like—should be encouraged to come here and treated on precisely the same footing that we treat students, business men, travelers, and the like of other nations. Our law's and treaties should be framed, not so as to put these people in the excepted classes, but to state that we will admit all Chinese, except Chinese of the coolie class, Chinese skilled or unskilled laborers. There would not be the least danger that any such provision would result in any relaxation of the law about laborers. These will, under all conditions, be kept out absolutely. But it will be more easy to see that both justice and courtesy are shown, as they ought to be shown, to other Chinese, if the law or treaty is framed as above suggested. Examinations should be completed at the port of departure from China. For this purpose there should be provided a more adequate consular service in China than we now have. The appropriations, both for the offices of the consuls and for the office forces in the consulates, should be increased.

{542}

"As a people we have talked much of the open door in China, and we expect, and quite rightly intend to insist upon, justice being shown us by the Chinese. But we can not expect to receive equity unless we do equity. We can not ask the Chinese to do to us what we are unwilling to do to them. They would have a perfect right to exclude our laboring men if our laboring men threatened to come into their country in such numbers as to jeopardize the well being of the Chinese population; and as, mutatis mutandis, these were the conditions with which Chinese immigration actually brought this people face to face, we had and have a perfect right, which the Chinese Government in no way contests, to act as we have acted in the matter of restricting coolie immigration. That this right exists for each country was explicitly acknowledged in the last treaty between the two countries. But we must treat the Chinese student, traveler, and business man in a spirit of the broadest justice and courtesy if we expect similar treatment to be accorded to our own people of similar rank who go to China."

_President's Message to Congress, December 5, 1905._

No effective impression on the moral sense or the rationality of Congress was made by the President’s appeal, and the laws which are contemptuous of national treaties and indifferent to the national honor remain on the statute books unchanged. That others than the President in the Federal Administration felt the wrong and the shame of the law which it had to administer, was shown by an article from the pen of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, published in the spring of 1908. The following are some passages from the article:

"It is not the policy of the Government with reference to Chinese immigration, but the manner in which it is, of necessity, carried out, by reason of the way in which the laws are framed, that causes constant friction and dissatisfaction. … The attitude of the Chinese Government may be inferred from the fact that in 1904, after the convention of 1894 had been in force ten years, China availed herself of her reserved right and formally denounced the treaty, refusing longer to be a party to an arrangement which, as carried into effect, was offensive to her national pride. …

"For proof of the feeling of the Chinese people it is only necessary to refer to the boycott of American goods, inaugurated by various trade guilds and business and commercial associations of the Empire during the summer of 1905. At that time China held first rank among Oriental countries as a consumer of American products. In that year, her total commerce amounted to $497,000,000, of which $329,000,000 were imports; $57,000,000, or more than seventeen per cent., being supplied by the United States. The exports from the United States to China had grown to these proportions by rapid strides. They were less than $3,000,000 in the seventies. They only reached $7,500,000 in 1886, $12,000,000 in 1897, $15,000,000 in 1900, $24,000,000 in 1902, $57,000,000 in 1905. It was reasonable to believe that American trade would continue to progress in something like the same ratio, and a larger and larger share of the foreign trade of China accrue to the United States. Instead of that, the exports of the United States to China, according to our statistics, fell to $44,000,000 in 1906, and to $26,000,000 in 1907.

"It is not necessary to attribute the decline wholly to the boycott of 1905, but a drop in our exportations to that country of fifty per cent. in two years is sufficiently startling to challenge attention. But on higher grounds than those of mere commercial interest should the frame of the laws be changed. …

"I would not suggest a change in the established policy of rigidly excluding Chinese laborers of every description, both skilled and unskilled. The policy has been and will continue to be as effectively enforced as circumstances will permit. But, at a time when this policy of exclusion has been so thoroughly applied that there remain in the United States only about 70,000 Chinese—less than one-tenth of one per cent, of our population—little danger need be apprehended from a full and fair reconsideration of the subject and a recasting of the laws upon a juster basis. …

"By making admission the rule, and exclusion the exception, we could easily preserve the present policy in all its integrity, and even strengthen the real prohibitory features thereof, at the same time entirely removing a material cause of friction, dissatisfaction and unnecessary humiliation to the people of a friendly nation."

_Oscar S. Straus (Secretary of Commerce and Labor), The Spirit and Letter of Exclusion (The North American Review, April, 1908)._

A much stronger expression was given to the shamed feeling of honorable Americans on this subject by the veteran diplomatist and former Secretary of State, Honorable John W. Foster, in an article written in 1906. The following is a passage from the article:

"I do not know how I can better illustrate the kind of protection, or want of protection, extended to the Chinese, as guaranteed by the Constitution, the treaties, and the solemn promises of the government of the United States, than by recalling a notorious case which occurred, not on the sand lots of California, not under the auspices of labor agitators, but in the enlightened city of Boston and under the conduct of Federal officials.

"The following narrative is condensed from the newspapers of that city. At about half past seven o’clock on the evening of Sunday, October 11, 1902, a number of United States officials of Boston, New York, and other cities charged with the administration of the Chinese exclusion laws, assisted by a force of the local police, made a sudden and unexpected descent upon the Chinese quarter of Boston. The raid was timed with a refinement of cruelty which did greater credit to the shrewdness of the officials than to their humanity. It was on the day and at the hour when the Chinese of Boston and its vicinity were accustomed to congregate in the quarter named for the purpose of meeting friends and enjoying themselves after a week of steady and honest toil. The police and immigration officials fell upon their victims without giving a word of warning. The clubs, restaurants, other public places where Chinese congregated, and private houses were surrounded. Every avenue of escape was blocked. To those seized no warrant for arrest or other paper was read or shown.

"Every Chinese who did not at once produce his certificate of residence was taken in charge, and the unfortunate ones were rushed off to the Federal Building without further ceremony. There was no respect of persons with the officials; they treated merchants and laborers alike. In many cases no demand was made for certificates, the captives were dragged off to imprisonment, and in some instances the demand was not made till late at night or the next morning, when the certificates were in the possession of the victims at the time of their seizure.

{543}

"In the raid no mercy was shown by the government officials. The frightened Chinese who had sought to escape were dragged from their hiding-places, and stowed like cattle upon wagons or other vehicles, to be conveyed to the designated place of detention. On one of these wagons or trucks from seventy to eighty persons were thrown, and soon after it moved it was overturned. A scene of indescribable confusion followed, in which the shrieks of those attempting to escape mingled with the groans of those who were injured. …

"About two hundred and fifty Chinese were thus arrested and carried off to the Federal Building. Here they were crowded into two small rooms where only standing space could be had, from eight o’clock in the evening, all through the night, and many of them till late in the afternoon of the next day. There was no sleep for any of them that night, though some of them were so exhausted that they sank to the floor where they stood. Their captors seemed to think that they had to do with animals, not human beings. Some of them were released during the night, when relatives brought their certificates or merchants were identified. But the greater part were kept till the next day, when the publicity of the press brought friends, or relief through legal proceedings. …

"So strong was the indignation of the respectable citizens of Boston, that a large public meeting was held in Faneuil Hall to denounce the action of the immigration officials and the police. … It was announced by the immigration officials that their raid was organized under the belief that there were a number of Chinese in Boston and its vicinity unlawfully in the United States, and this method was adopted for discovering them. The official report of the chief officer soon after the event showed that two hundred and thirty-four Chinese were imprisoned, that one hundred and twenty-one were released without trial or requirement of bail, and that only five had so far been deported, but that he hoped that he might secure the conviction and deportation of fifty; as a matter of fact, however, the deportations fell much below that number."

_J. W. Foster, The Chinese Boycott (Atlantic Monthly, January, 1906)._

In the same article Mr. Foster recalled facts connected with the negotiation of the Treaty of 1880 which deepen the shame to the United States of what followed: "In communicating to the Secretary of State," he said, "the signature of the treaty of 1880, the American commissioners wrote: ‘In conclusion, we deem it our duty to say to you that during the whole of this negotiation the representatives of the Chinese Government have met us in the fairest and most friendly spirit. They have been, in their personal intercourse, most courteous, and have given to all our communications, verbal as well as written, the promptest and most respectful consideration. After a free and able exposition of their own views, we are satisfied that in yielding to the request of the United States they have been actuated by a sincere friendship and an honorable confidence that the large powers recognized by them as belonging to the United States, and bearing directly upon the interests of their own people, will be exercised by our government with a wise discretion, in a spirit of reciprocal and sincere friendship, and with entire justice.’

"But even this treaty, which had been obtained from China so reluctantly, yet with the generous exhibition of friendship on her part just described, did not prove satisfactory to the increasing demands of the labor unions. Before ten years were passed, under the spur and excitement of the presidential campaign of 1888, and upon the hesitation of the Chinese government to make a further treaty modification, the Scott Act was passed by Congress, which was a deliberate violation of the treaty of 1880, and was so declared by the Supreme Court; but under our peculiar system it became the law of the land. Our government had thus flagrantly disregarded its solemn treaty obligations. Senator Sherman, then chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, stated in the Senate that we had furnished China a just cause for war."

----------RACE PROBLEMS: End--------

RACE-TRACK GAMBLING.

See (in this Volume) GAMBLING.

RADIO-TELEGRAPHY.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL: TELEGRAPHY, WIRELESS.

RADIUM, and Radio-activity.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE, RECENT: RADIUM; See also PHYSICAL.

RADOLIN, Prince de: Arrangement with France for the Algeciras Conference.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.

RAIGOSA, Don Genaro: President of Second International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

----------RAILWAYS: Start--------

RAILWAYS

RAILWAYS: Abyssinia: French Projects.

See (in this Volume) ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1902.

RAILWAYS: Africa: A. D. 1909. Progress of the Cape to Cairo Line.

A telegram from Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia, November 10, 1909, announced that the Cape-to-Cairo Railroad had reached the Congo frontier on the 16th.

RAILWAYS: Argentina-Chile: A. D. 1909. The Transandine Railway Tunnel.

The great work, of boring a tunnel through the chain of the Andes at an altitude of over 10,000 feet above sea level for the trains of the Transandine Railway was practically completed in the fall of 1909. "Early in April next the rails will be laid, and from then onward the journey from Buenos Ayres, on the eastern side of the South American continent, to Valparaiso, on the Pacific Coast, may be undertaken in comfort in a railway carriage all the year round. Up to the present time passengers from the east have had to leave the rail at Las Cuevas and proceed by a zigzag road over the mountains on mule-back or in coaches to Caracoles, the rail head on the Chilian side—a journey which occupies about two hours; but this route is only open during the summer months. In the winter, when the pass is closed by snow, travellers have to go round by sea. The route under the Andes will effect a saving of about twelve days. The work of boring the two-mile tunnel was begun four years ago and has presented exceptional difficulties."

{544}

RAILWAYS: Australia: Government Ownership. Difference of Gauge. Each State having its own.

"Warfare against monopoly is easier in Australia than in some other countries for the reason that in Australia the close relation between monopoly and transportation is generally understood and is not an issue. Some few and for the most part small railroad projects, including mining and timber lines, are still in private hands. All the other railroads are publicly owned and publicly operated. So far the ownership is vested in the several states, each having its own system. In the good old conservative days before the Labor demon raised its head, there was much childish jealousy among the different governments. In the conservative view the destiny of Australia was not to be a nation but a handful of nice little colonies vying with one another in expressing loyalty to the monarchical idea and the established order. When these came to build railroads each colony established its own gauge and stuck thereto. A more preposterous notion never bewitched the human mind, but the truth is that a gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches in New South Wales actually seemed a reason (to the conservative intellect) for a gauge of 5 feet 3 inches in Victoria and a gauge of 3 feet 6 inches in Western Australia. The annoyance, delay, and expense resulting to through traffic make the thing seem like a section of Bedlam. Between Melbourne and Sydney, for instance, a line with an immense business and with otherwise excellent accommodations, you must change cars on the frontier and all the freight must be transferred. Eventually the federal Government is to take over and unify the systems of the different states. Considering the multiplicities of systems and gauges, the task that will then confront the federal Government will not be for a holiday."

Charles E. Russell, The Uprising of the Many, chapter 27 (Doubleday, Page & Co., New York, 1907).

RAILWAYS: Canada: A. D. 1903-1909. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.

See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1903-1909.

RAILWAYS: Canada: A. D. 1904. Establishment of the Board of Railway Commissioners with large Regulative Powers.

In _Moody’s Magazine_ of January, 1906, the Honorable Robert Bickerdike, M. P., of Montreal, gave a favorable account of the operation of the Canadian Act of two years before which created a Board of Railway Commissioners, taking the place of the former Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and exercising large powers of control over rates, construction of road, and speed of trains. "No toll" (that is, freight rate), he said, "may be charged which unjustly discriminates between different localities. The board shall not approve any toll which for like goods or passengers, carried under substantially similar conditions in the same direction over the same line, is greater for a shorter than a longer distance, unless the board is satisfied that, owing to competition, it is expedient to do so. Where carriage is partly by rail and partly by water, and the tolls in a single sum, the board may require the company to declare, or may determine, what portion is charged in respect of carriage by rail, to prevent discrimination. Freight tariffs are governed by a classification which the board must approve, and the object is to have this classification uniform. Railways shall, when directed by the board, place any specified goods in any stated class. Tariffs shall be in such form and give such details as the board may prescribe. The maximum mileage tariff shall be filed with the board and be subject to its approval; when approved, the company shall publish it in the _Canadian Gazette_, the official publication. As respects this act, the board is invested with the rights, privileges, and powers of a superior court. None, therefore, may oppose it."

RAILWAYS: Canada: A. D. 1906. Government Ownership and Operation of a Railway Line.

See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1906-1907.

RAILWAYS: Canada: A. D. 1908-1909. Projected Railway from the Canadian Northwest to Hudson Bay.

In a speech at Niagara Falls, in September, 1908, the Canadian premier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, announced positively that his government had undertaken the construction of a railway from the Canadian Northwest to Hudson Bay; that surveyors are in the field determining the route, and that plans for the construction of the road are being prepared. For a few weeks in the year this will give another outlet to the greatest wheat region of the continent for its harvests; and even a few weeks will afford important relief, no doubt, to the pressure of its need. Unfortunately, the passage from Hudson Bay to the ocean, through Hudson Strait, is sealed up with ice during much the greater part of the year. Quite recently there were reports of the return of a vessel from the strait which had found it blocked in July.

Notwithstanding the limit thus put on the usefulness of the Hudson Bay route, the Northwest is counting on immediate advantages from it. The _Manitoba Free Press_ exclaims: "To bring uncounted millions of acres of wheat in Western Canada a thousand miles nearer to the market in Europe, and make a saving of many millions of dollars every year in transportation charges, thereby ensuring higher prices to the farmers of the Prairie Provinces—this is what the opening up of the Hudson Bay outlet will achieve. It will mean a revolution in traffic routes and traffic rates. The immense amount of territory within the cost-saving reach of Hudson Bay, the New-World Mediterranean, will make this route one of the greatest trade arteries of the world. It will place the grain-growers of Western Canada in control of the markets of the world by making possible a great reduction in the cost of transportation. This saving will be brought about because the Hudson Bay route is by a very considerable distance the shortest route, and the saving is in the rail haul. … The total cultivable area in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is some 175,000,000 acres. Even estimating the as yet uncultivated area as being only one-half as productive as that which has already come under the plow, a tenfold increase of the present production is to be counted upon."

{545}

"Roughly speaking," says a magazine article on the subject, "Churchill [one of the proposed Hudson Bay terminals] is just 1000 miles from the grain areas of Hill’s roads. New York is 2000 miles. Churchill is 1500 miles from Oregon. New York is nearly 3000. … The harbor itself could not have been better if it had been made to order. It is a direct 550-mile plain, open deep-water sailing from the west end of the Straits,—no shoals, no reefs, deep enough for the deepest-draft keel that ever sailed the sea."

Tentative surveys of two routes from Winnipeg were undertaken in October, 1908, and a report of them made in the following spring. They were favorable to the project on either line. That to Fort Churchill would have 465 miles of length and its cost was estimated at $11,608,000. The alternative line, to Fort Nelson, at the mouth of Nelson River, would be 397 miles long, and have an estimated cost of $8,677,000; but harbor construction at Fort Nelson would cost heavily. The report, however, recommended the latter route. Moreover, abundant water power is waiting development along the Nelson River, which might result in an economical electrification of the road. Furthermore, the report suggested possibilities of a canal along the river from Hudson Bay to Lake Winnipeg, and from the latter to Winnipeg city, through which ocean craft might ultimately reach the Manitoba metropolis.

In connection with this projected opening of a commercial route from America to Europe through Hudson Bay, a Danish writer has lately urged the Danish Government to bring Greenland into touch with it.

RAILWAYS: Canada: A. D. 1909. Important Ruling by the Railway Commission, affecting American Railways.

In June, 1909, an important decision of the Canadian Railway Commission was announced, "in the case of the Dawson Board of Trade against the Yukon and White Pass Railway Company, an English Corporation, laying down that by the amendment of the Railway Act passed last session all railways, whether originating in the United States or not, are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian board. The point involved is the question of rates on the White Pass, as to which counsel asserted that if ordinary rates were ordered to prevail it would be impossible to pay dividends. The board takes time to consider the question of rates in view of the details involved, but orders both the American and Canadian sections of the line to file figures before the board. It is probable that the rates of all American railways crossing Canada will by this decision come under the jurisdiction of the board. This will affect the Vanderbilt lines, which cross the Niagara peninsula, also the Hill lines, which enter Canada from Washington, Oregon, and other States. Railway men regard the decision as the most important in the history of Canada, because it gives the Canadian Commission power to regulate rates on American railways entering Canada."

RAILWAYS: Central Africa: A. D. 1909. Lines to Katanga.

In March, 1909, the _Temps_, of Paris, published information according to which the work of constructing the railway from the Upper Congo to the great Central African lakes was making such progress that communication with the Katanga mine fields would probably be established by the end of 1910. The British South Africa lines, also, are being pushed toward Katanga.

RAILWAYS: Chile-Bolivia: A. D. 1909. The Arica-La Paz Railway.

According to a Press despatch from Santiago de Chile, April 5, 1909, a contract for the great railway to be made across the Andes from Arica, in Chile, to La Paz, in Bolivia, attaining an elevation of upwards of 12,000 ft. and having a length of a little over 300 miles, had just been given to an English firm. The actual money voted for the scheme was said to be £3,000,000.

RAILWAYS: China: Extent of Railway Travel. Unused Concessions.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1904.

RAILWAYS: China: A. D. 1904-1909. The Hankau-Sze-chuan Railway Loan. American participation.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1904-1909.

RAILWAYS: China: A. D. 1909. The Fa-ku-menn Railway and the Antung-Mukden Railway questions between China and Japan.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905-1909.

RAILWAYS: China: A. D. 1909. The Chinese Eastern Railway. New Russo-Chinese Agreement. Municipalities on the Line.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1909 (MAY).

RAILWAYS: China: A. D. 1909. Opening of the Peking-Kalgan Line. A purely Chinese undertaking.

The opening, October 2d, 1909, with grand ceremonies, of the Peking-Kalgan Railway, was an event of especial pride and satisfaction to the Chinese people. It has been, wrote a newspaper correspondent, "a purely Chinese undertaking, the chief engineer of which, Jeme Tienyow, a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, and every employé are Chinese; but the rails and rolling stock are foreign. It has been paid for from the earnings of the Northern Railways, without foreign financial assistance.

"The line, the length of which is 122 miles, joins Peking with the important trade mart of Kalgan, piercing the Nankau Pass by four tunnels, the longest, under the Great Wall, being 3,580 ft. It taps extensive coalfields and is well and economically laid. Already the traffic is astonishing and will add to the wealth of the province and increase the earnings of the Northern Railways.

"The construction of the line has given training and experience to a body of young Chinese engineers, who will find ready employment in the future. The line will now be continued westwards through populous country to Kwei-hua-cheng and the Yellow River, a distance of 275 miles, the route for which was surveyed last year. This line will also be paid for from the earnings of the Northern Railways."

RAILWAYS: China: A. D. 1909-1910. Proposal to neutralize Manchurian Railways and to internationally finance a Chinchow-Aigun Line.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1909-1910.

RAILWAYS: England: A. D. 1907-1909. Adopted System in Great Britain for pacific Settlement of Labor Disputes in the Railway Service.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.

RAILWAYS: England: A. D. 1908. No Passengers killed by Train Accidents.

The British public had the happiness of being informed that no passenger was killed by a train accident on the railways of Great Britain in 1908, and also that the number of passengers injured—283—was not only 251 less than in 1907 and 345 less than in 1906, but, like the number of killed, was less than any previously recorded.

{546}

RAILWAYS: France: A. D. 1908. Government purchase of the Western Railway.

In June, 1908, the French Government secured legislation authorizing it to purchase the Western Railway of France, which adds 3100 miles to the previous 2500 miles of State-owned railways. The purchase is said to have been made with the expectation "that sufficient pressure will be brought on the other railway companies to make them adopt the methods of management applied by the State to its railways."

RAILWAYS: France: A. D. 1909. The Pensioning of State Railway Employés.

See (in this Volume) POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT: FRANCE.

RAILWAYS: Mexico: A. D. 1906. Nationalizing of the Mexican Railway System. Opening of the Tehuantepec Railway.

"1906 was a year of railway consolidations in Mexico. In March last, the National Railway of Mexico bought the Hidalgo Railway, which starts from the capital, passes through the important mining camp of Pachuca, and will ultimately reach the port of Tuxpam on the Gulf of Mexico. But by far the most important operation of the year along these lines was announced by Finance Minister Limantour on December 14. The Minister, in an address to Congress, informed that body that the negotiations, which for some time past had been in progress, for the reorganization of the finances of the Mexican Central Railway, had culminated in a plan for the consolidation of that property with the Mexican National, and the incorporation of a new company, with headquarters in the City of Mexico, to own and operate the merged system. Moreover, the Minister informed the legislature that the Mexican government, which had owned a controlling interest in the Mexican National, would hold an absolute majority of the stock of the new corporation.

"The transaction is an important one, as by it the Mexican government gains unquestioned control of the transportation system of the Republic."

_F. R. Guernsey, The Year in Mexico (Atlantic Monthly, March, 1907)._

Early in November, 1906, President Diaz formally opened the Tehuantepec Railway. The event marks the completion of the plan first proposed by Cortez four hundred years ago, when he wrote to the king of Spain concerning the feasibility of a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific by this route, though he little dreamt of a railway.

RAILWAYS: Mexico: A. D. 1909. Extended Governmental Control of Railways.

"The most important step ever taken by the Mexican Government in connexion with transportation was completed on February 1, when the amalgamation of the National lines and the Mexican Central Railway became operative. With this achievement the Government secured control of 7,012 miles of railway, thus possessing a majority of the stock of the national lines and 70 per cent. of the stock of the Mexican Central. The combination includes, apart from the Mexican Central, the National, International and Interoceanic lines. The Government likewise controls the Vera Cruz and Pacific Railroad, with 265 miles, and the Tehuantepec National, with 206 miles."

_Correspondence London Times, July 16, 1909._

RAILWAYS: Mono-Rail System, The Brennan Gyroscopic.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: RAILWAYS.

RAILWAYS: Netherlands: Laws against Railway Strikes.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.

RAILWAYS: New York: A. D. 1907. The Public Service Commissions Act.

See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910; and PUBLIC UTILITIES.

RAILWAYS: New Zealand: A. D. 1909. No more building by the Government of Railways not likely to pay Interest on Cost.

A despatch from Wellington, New Zealand, to the English Press, October 18, 1909, reported that "the Premier has made an important announcement regarding his future railway construction policy. He said that the Government would not undertake the building of any more lines that were likely not to pay. If the people wanted such lines they would have to guarantee their earnings up to 3 per cent."

RAILWAYS: Nigeria: A. D. 1909. Rapid development of the Railway System.

Early in 1909 Press despatches to London announced that "a junction had been effected between the rails proceeding northwards from Lagos and the rails proceeding southward from Jebba on the Niger River. This places the Niger River, at a point some 500 miles from its mouth, in direct communication by rail with the town of Lagos, the capital of Southern Nigeria, and fulfils the wishes of the inhabitants of Lagos that ‘the iron horse should drink of the waters of the Niger.’"

"The completion of the southern branch of the Nigerian railway system," said a correspondent, "as far as Jebba on the Niger is an event of considerable significance in the history of British action in West Africa. The Anglo-French Agreement of 1898 secured us in the possession of what is undoubtedly the most interesting portion of West Africa; interesting above all from the character of its varied inhabitants—the agricultural Yoruba, the keen Hausa trader and manufacturer, the Fulani, by turn statesman and ruler or wandering herdsman. To this region—to many parts of it at least—Islam has brought its schools, its literature, and an effective system of administration."

RAILWAYS: Rhodesia: Rapid Extension of Railways.

See (in this Volume) RHODESIA.

RAILWAYS: Switzerland: A. D. 1905. Completion of the Tunnel under the Simplon Pass.

The tunnel under the Simplon Pass, between Brigue, Switzerland, and Iselle, Italy, was finished February 24th, 1905, after seven years work and at a cost of $14,000,000. It is twelve miles long,—two and three-quarters miles longer than the St. Gothard tunnel. It opens direct railway communication between Paris and Milan.

RAILWAYS: Switzerland: A. D. 1909. Government Purchase of the St. Gothard Railway.

The St. Gothard Tunnel and Railway were built under an agreement (1879) with the Swiss Government under which the latter reserved the right of buying the St. Gothard within thirty years, and the price arranged was twenty-five times the amount of the net profits of the line during the last ten years of working. The right was exercised in the spring of 1909, and thus the last of the principal Swiss lines passed into the possession of the Government. The St. Gothard Company at first demanded 215,800,000 francs, but eventually accepted 212,500,000 francs. The Confederation took over the debt of the company--117,090,000 francs ($23,418,000) with 3½ per cent. interest, and paid six million francs for expenses of the issue of the company’s loans.

{547}

RAILWAYS: Turkey: A. D. 1899-1909. The Bagdad Railway.

In January, 1902, the Turkish Sultan signed a convention which provides a guarantee, to the extent of 12,000 francs per kilometre for the undertaking of the Bagdad Railway, to build which a concession had been obtained by a German syndicate in 1899.

See, in Volume VI. of this work, TURKEY: A. D. 1899--NOVEMBER).

The new railway was to be an extension of the existing Anatolian Railway, starting from the terminus of the latter at Konieh and running, via Bagdad, to some point on the Persian Gulf, the selection of which was left for future arrangement. The line, with its branches, was to have a length of 2,500 kilometres or about 1550 miles.

A further convention respecting this project was signed in March, 1903, concerning which the following statement was made in the British Parliament on the 23d of that month by the Premier, Mr. Balfour: "A copy of the convention, concluded March 5, 1903, between the Turkish Government and the Anatolian Railway Company is in our possession. It leaves the whole scheme of railway development through Asia Minor to the Persian Gulf entirely in the hands of a company under German control. To such a convention we have never been asked to assent, and we could not in any case be a party to it."

Mr. David Fraser, a young traveller of experience, was commissioned by the _Times of India_ in 1907 to follow the proposed route of the Bagdad Railway and report on its prospects. He started from Constantinople, and traversed the completed portion of the line to where it breaks off suddenly some ten kilometres east of Eregli, "with its pair of rails," he wrote, "gauntly projecting from the permanent way and pointing in dumb amazement where the Taurus shares the horizon with the very skies." "They have now," said the _London Times_ not long since, "been pointing thus for nearly five years, to the bewilderment of those who, not knowing the country, imagined, in 1904, that with Germany determined and Turkey desirous to push ahead, the Bagdad line would go forward with inevitable march towards its distant goal."

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908. Damascus to Mecca. The Pilgrims’ Road.

"The Damascus to Mecca Railway has many remarkable features which distinguish it from other lines. Its principal object is to provide a means for faithful Moslems to perform their pilgrimage to the holy places of Mecca and Medina with a greater degree of comfort than formerly. Its inception is due to the initiative of the present Sultan, and the enthusiasm created by its first announcement brought in subscriptions from the faithful in all parts of the Islamic world."

The length of the line from Damascus to Mecca is 1097 miles.

"The gauge of the line is the somewhat curious one of 1.05 meter (3 feet 5¼ inches), which was necessary, when the line was first commenced, to correspond with the gauge of the Beirut-Damascus line, over which the rolling stock had to be brought."

_Colonel F. R. Maunsell, National Geographic Magazine, February, 1909._

The line was opened to Medina early in the autumn of 1908.

RAILWAYS: United States of America: A. D. 1870-1908. Railway Rate Regulation. Its slow Development. "Granger" Legislation in the Middle West. State Commissions. Defiant Rebating. Tardy Federal Legislation. The Interstate Commerce Act, 1887, 1906. President Roosevelt on the subject.

The creation of largely capitalized and therefore powerful corporations was first developed in a rapid and extensive way by the modern enterprise of railway building; and the railways became soon so essentially related to every kind of interest, personal or general, that they naturally gave rise to the earliest of the specially modern problems of public policy concerning corporations which required to be solved. For a long period society had no call to defend itself against monopolistic combinations among its railway corporations; because it was long before seriously competitive lines of rail could be built. Each served its own belt of country; but each company owning and managing a line held therefore, in itself, a monopoly of the transportation agency it had created, and could, in an unchecked management of that agency, either wrong its whole clientele by excessive rates of charge, or wrong one part of it by some favoritism of unequal rates. Those were the original abuses of opportunity and power which provoked defensive measures of law. Naturally the earlier undertakings of defence in the United States were by State legislation, since nearly all charters of incorporation for business purposes have been derived from the States. Wherever the operations of business conducted under such charters extend over more than a single State, the constitutional power of Congress to "regulate commerce … among the several States" gives it an undoubted right to take part in the regulation of them; but it was slow to exercise that right. The following abridgment of an excellent sketch of the slow development of railway-rate regulation gives the essential facts. It is quoted from extensively by kind permission of its authors and of The _Boston Evening Transcript_ for which it was prepared:

"Perhaps the most remarkable fact in the whole history of interstate transportation is that, despite flagrant abuses, Federal regulation was held off until 1887. Within the States themselves railroad rates had been often subjected to severe regulation: yet even the public excitement which accompanied the ‘granger’ legislation between 1870 and 1880 did not result in Federal legislation. In several States, notably in the Middle West, during that epoch, detailed statutes were passed fixing maximum rates which by no present standard could be said to be anything but outrageous. In those times the Federal courts held that they would not consider legislation as confiscatory if it left to the railroad one cent of net profit above operating expenses. But even with this rule, now almost incredible, it was found in the next decade that much of the rate-fixing under the State statutes was unconstitutional. {548} Nor was the situation much ameliorated by the later establishment of State commissions, for many of them, according to the present standards, flagrantly abused their powers. … After the first outburst more conservative counsels generally prevailed. The movement met much opposition in its progress throughout the country, and although commissions were generally created in the East, they were given no final powers over rates. Then a reaction set in, due in part to the prostration of the Western roads. … Much wise legislation dates from this period, and many State commissions acted in a moderate spirit. The history of railroad legislation in these seventeen years illustrated, however, the slow process by which a popular movement culminates in Federal legislation; and good law or bad, proper action or improper action, the legislation of the States supplied experience in view of which Congress could act wisely when, in 1887, Federal legislation became inevitable. That this legislation had become inevitable was due very largely to the continued abuse of their commercial power by the railroad managers. For several years public opinion as to railroad discrimination had become so well settled as to work a real change in the common law, yet the railroad officials persistently defied it. Rebating, which, as late as 1875, was at common law merely a doubtful practice, by 1885 had become generally accepted as an illegal business; but this change the railroads refused to recognize in any other way than to make their practices more secret. It was public indignation against long continued illegal discrimination and undue preference which brought down upon the railways the inter-State commerce legislation in 1887. The wonder is, in view of the railway practices, that it did not come sooner. But however well behaved the railways might have been, Federal regulation would have come inevitably long before the end of the nineteenth century, in accordance with the general current of public opinion that public services could no longer go without governmental regulation. Still the act itself as finally passed was really very conservative, when the nature of the crisis is considered. … By the principal provisions of the Interstate Commerce act the railways were forbidden: (1) To charge unreasonable rates; (2) To discriminate between persons; (8) To give preference between localities; (4) To charge less for a long haul than for a shorter haul included within it ‘under substantially similar circumstances.’ These provisions were undoubtedly intended by the majority of those who framed the act as rather radical legislation, which should materially affect the practice of the railroads; but the conservative force of judicial decision soon modified the intended force of the act. From the outset the commission claimed that it not merely had power under the act to forbid any unreasonable rate upon complaint made, but that also, in giving relief, it might indicate to the railroad what should be the reasonable rate thenceforth. But within ten years the Supreme Court decided that the commission had no power to fix rates at all. This was a famous victory for the railroad bar, for without an authoritative statement by the commission of what rate it would regard as reasonable, even a railroad which yielded obedience to the decree of the commission without appeal to the courts, could make a slight reduction in the rate, and any dissatisfied shipper would be obliged to enter again into an expensive and dilatory litigation. In this way the railroads tired out objecting shippers; but in the process they stimulated a widespread demand for a power in the commission to fix rates similar to that given to many State commissions and to the corresponding body in Great Britain. The long and short haul clause provided that exceptions to it must be by special dispensation from the commission. … But tucked away in the section was the vague phrase, ‘under substantially similar circumstances,’ which proved its destruction. At first the commission began to enforce the act according to its obvious reading, and to grant dispensations from its operation on petition of the railroad in proper cases. But the whole effort of the railway counsel was concentrated upon the courts, and it was finally held that wherever there was competition at the distant points, the conditions were dissimilar with those at the intervening points of any benefit from the clause. Water competition was first held an excuse for a lower rate for the longer haul. Then rail competition was recognized. Next potential competition over existing routes was held enough. But finally the courts refused to consider the mere possibility of new routes. … Commercial cities and towns were left at the mercy of the railways, as they had been before the act, and the long and short-haul clause became a dead letter. This was a cause of most bitter complaint; yet, singularly enough, when the amendments of 1906 were adopted, no attempt was made to amend this clause. … Further action by the Federal Government was foreshowed as before by a very considerable body of legislation throughout the United States, between 1900 and 1905. In many States there was an unfortunate recrudescence of the ill-advised ‘granger’ legislation, by the passing of statutes fixing maximum rates; but this time it was passenger rates which were chiefly attacked, while before it had been freight rates. The two-cent fare was a popular programme in this period, and it all but swept the country. Some legislatures, however, defied it, and some governors stood out against the legislatures. … The legislation of this period had, however, another branch which was well-advised. It is the general characteristic of this legislation that it confers on the railroad commission the power, while setting aside unreasonable rates, of fixing a maximum rate. The giving of such power to the interstate Commission was the principal point in the programme for further Federal legislation. One other general power that has been given to State commissions in the legislation since 1900 is the authority to compel railroads to furnish proper facilities, together with power of supervision of management in other respects, which is adopted in the Federal legislation of 1906 in an experimental way. Those who would understand the Federal legislation in its latest form should study the most recent railroad regulation in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Indiana and New York. … As finally adopted, the act of 1906 [known as the Hepburn Act] is in form of a series of amendments to the original act of 1887. … The main object in most of the legislation was to strengthen still further the power of the commission over rates and rebates. {549} In regard to these, the amendments affected change chiefly along these two lines. (1) Power is given to the commission to fix maximum rates in cases where, upon complaint, the rates fixed by the railroad were found to be excessive. This includes the power to fix joint through rates. (2) Rebating is forbidden under heavy penalties, civil and criminal, both to the railroad and to the shipper; and the cases in which a reduced rate can be given are enumerated."

_Joseph H. Beale and Bruce Wyman, Two Years of the Railroad Rate Law (Boston Evening Transcript, October 10, 1908)._

It was through no fault of the President that effective legislation to suppress secret rebates and other practices of favoritism to large shippers by the railways came so tardily from Congress, as appears above. In his first Message, of December, 1901, he began urging the needed amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, saying:

"That law was largely an experiment. Experience has shown the wisdom of its purposes, but has also shown, possibly, that some of its requirements are wrong, certainly that the means devised for the enforcement of its provisions are defective. … The act should be amended. The railway is a public servant. Its rates should be just to and open to all shippers alike. The Government should see to it that within its jurisdiction this is so and should provide a speedy, inexpensive, and effective remedy to that end. At the same time it must not be forgotten that our railways are the arteries through which the commercial life-blood of this Nation flows. Nothing could be more foolish than the enactment of legislation which would unnecessarily interfere with the development and operation of these commercial agencies. The subject is one of great importance and calls for the earnest attention of the Congress."

For five years after this reasonable and most just recommendation was addressed to Congress, the special interests opposed to public interests in the matter were represented so controllingly in that body that the impotences of the law remained uncured. In the Presidential Message of 1904 a more imperative language on the subject was used. "It is necessary," said the Chief Magistrate, "to put a complete stop to all rebates. Whether the shipper or the railroad is to blame makes no difference; the rebate must be stopped, the abuses of the private car and private terminal-track and side-track systems must be stopped, and the legislation of the Fifty-eighth Congress which declares it to be unlawful for any person or corporation to offer, grant, give, solicit, accept, or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in respect of the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce whereby such property shall by any device whatever be transported at a less rate than that named in the tariffs published by the earner must be enforced. … The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the railways engaged in interstate commerce; and such increased supervision is the only alternative to an increase of the present evils on the one hand or a still more radical policy on the other. In my judgment the most important legislative act now needed as regards the regulation of corporations is this act to confer on the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to revise rates and regulations, the revised rate to at once go into effect, and to stay in effect unless and until the court of review reverses it."

Still Congress did nothing in response to this demand, which was the demand of the American public, uttered by its chief and truest representative. Another year passed, and when the next annual communication of counsel from the national executive to the national legislature came forth, all other topics in it were overshadowed by this. The force of argument, admonition, and pleading in the Message was fairly overpowering, and it went to a newly chosen Congress in which the people had represented themselves with somewhat better effect. The result was the amending act of 1906.

In the energy of the President’s advocacy of this legislation there was nothing of animosity to the railway corporations. His most impressive arguments, for example, were such as these: "I believe that on the whole our railroads have done well and not ill; but the railroad men who wish to do well should not be exposed to competition with those who have no such desire, and the only way to secure this end is to give to some government tribunal the power to see that justice is done by the unwilling exactly as it is gladly done by the willing. Moreover, if some Government body is given increased power the effect will be to furnish authoritative answer on behalf of the railroad whenever irrational clamor against it is raised, or whenever charges made against it are disproved. I ask this legislation not only in the interest of the public but in the interest of the honest railroad man and the honest shipper alike, for it is they who are chiefly jeoparded by the practices of their dishonest competitors."

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1890-1902. Application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890 to Railway Combinations and Poolings of Rates. The Trans-Missouri Freight Association Case. Decision of the Supreme Court. Remarks of the Industrial Commission.

In the period between 1870 and 1880 the widening of combination and organization in all fields of heavily capitalized industry began, especially in America, to attain proportions that could be dangerous to social interests in many ways, by its concentration of the power that money commands. Alarming possibilities of monopoly, of oppression to labor, of political corruption, of commercial tyranny exercised in many forms, were all involved. At the same time the processes working in this matter were wholly those of a natural evolution, and were shaping human industry, very plainly and surely, to perfected economic conditions and results. Serious problems in government were thus pressed on public attention for the first time. How to realize the economic benefits which industrial organization on the large scale can produce, and which are unattainable without it, and be at the same time securely defended in all social and common interests against selfishly hostile uses of the power so engendered, became then a subject of anxious debate, and the satisfying answer to it has not yet been found.

{550}

Railway companies were now no longer alone, as corporations that challenge the exercise of public authority to control their performance of the public service for which they were chartered. The growth of mammoth organisms of business in other fields—such, for example, as the Standard Oil Company—had reached startling proportions, and the power of oppression in them was being displayed. Economists, jurists, and thoughtful legislators were giving earnest study to the problems they raised. The difficulty of the problem, in the United States more than in other countries, because of the divided jurisdictions in government under the federal system, is made plain by Mr. E. Parmalee Prentice, in the seventh chapter of his treatise on "The Federal Power over Carriers and Corporations." Before Congress attempted legislation for a general control of commercial combinations that were operative in the country at large, there was much searching for an adequate ground of constitutional power. In the first instance it was sought for, not in the authority to regulate commerce, but in the taxing power, or the right of government to protect itself from injury to the operation of its revenue laws. When this was given up there were efforts to frame an act "in restraint of competition in the production, manufacture or sale of goods ‘that in due course of trade shall be transported from one State’ to another." But, says Mr. Prentice, "a statute of this nature could be sustained only on the ground of an anticipating and continuing jurisdiction over every article which, at any period in its history—from production commenced to consumption completed—had ever crossed, or would cross, State lines, and over every buyer and every seller of such article." This, too, was abandoned, as "an attempt to do the impossible." "The clause relating to diversity of citizenship was stricken out, and the bill once more rested upon the narrow power to regulate commerce." As it finally passed the two houses of Congress and was approved by the President, July 2d, 1890, this much discussed and much litigated piece of legislation, known as the Sherman Act, embodied its purpose in the first two sections, which read as follows:

"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

"In a number of early cases," says the writer already quoted, "the act was applied to combinations of laborers to interrupt the free passage from State to State, the defendants in most instances being railroad employees. At this point in the process of judicial construction the case of the Freight Association [United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association] presented to the Supreme Court the question whether the act applied to interstate carriers. Of the intention of Congress there is probably little doubt. Railroad transportation had been covered in 1887 by the Interstate Commerce Act. The Sherman Act of 1890 was intended to cover not transportation, but trade."

The suit of the United States against the Trans-Missouri Freight Association, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co., and others, was brought for the dissolution of an association or combination alleged to be in restraint of trade, and in violation therefore of the Act of July 2, 1890, called the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. It was tried originally in November, 1892, before United States District Judge Riner, of the Kansas District, who ruled that the law did not apply, and dismissed the case. On appeal it was tried again with the same result the next year before Circuit Judge Sanborn and District Judges Shiras and Thayer. Judges Sanborn and Thayer affirmed the judgment of the District Court, while Judge Shiras dissented. The question then went for final adjudication to the Supreme Court, where it was argued on the 8th and 9th of December, 1896, and decided on the 22d of March, 1897. The opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Peckham, reversed the judgment of the courts below, affirming that the Anti-Trust Act applies to railroads, and that it renders illegal all agreements which are in restraint of trade. The case was accordingly remanded to the Circuit Court "for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion." Justices White, Field, Gray, and Shiras dissented from the opinion of the majority.

"In the Final Report (transmitted to Congress in February, 1902), of the Industrial Commission, created by Act of Congress in 1898, this case of the Trans-Missouri Freight Association, and the general status at that time of questions involved in it, are discussed at length, and partly as follows:

"It is of peculiar interest to note that this leading case was decided, not upon interpretation of the interstate commerce act itself, but under the provisions of the Sherman anti-trust law of 1890. … Two questions were plainly before the court: First whether the Sherman anti-trust law applied to and covered common carriers by railroad; and secondly, whether the Trans-Missouri Freight Association violated any provision of that act by being an unreasonable restraint upon trade. The court itself acknowledged that it was doubtful whether Congress originally intended to include railroads under the prohibitory provisions of the anti-trust law. Counsel for the carriers showed, it would seem conclusively, that an amendment proposed by Mr. Bland to include railroads in the prohibition was rejected. The dissenting Supreme Court justices maintained that in the absence of a specific application of the anti-trust law to railroads, inasmuch as the anti-trust law was a general act, while the act to regulate commerce, antedating it by three years, was specific, the latter exempted the railroads, in any case, from the drastic provisions of the Sherman Act against combinations in restraint of trade. The court refused to consider other than mere questions of law, holding that if pooling were excepted it was the province of Congress to take appropriate action. …

{551}

"It has very frequently been asserted that a primary cause of the notable tendency toward railroad consolidation since 1898 was the definitive prohibition of all varieties of traffic contracts or agreements by the Trans-Missouri Freight Association decision of 1897. This decision, as has already been indicated, was rendered upon the basis of the Sherman anti-trust law, without contemplation of the prohibitive provision of the Act to regulate commerce of 1887. According to the opinion of many jurists, in fact, the latter act could not reasonably have been construed to prohibit many of the traffic agreements which have been customary between carriers. It has been urged with great force that coöperation among the railroads having been finally adjudged illegal, it became necessary to have recourse to a more drastic remedy, namely, consolidation in some of its various forms. … The first difference to be noted between pooling and consolidation is that the latter is much more comprehensive in its scope. … Agreements for the division of traffic constitute but the mere machinery by which a certain result is to be attained. … Experience has abundantly shown that it is possible for railroads to maintain a large part of their identity, even reserving to themselves the power to make rates independently, under a pool, in exceptional cases, without thereby entirely nullifying the steadying influences of such traffic agreements. Consolidation, however, necessarily involves the unification of all interests as between railroads. … In brief, pooling may still permit competition in respect to facilities. It may merely eliminate the ruinous phases of competition in rates, leaving still in force the healthful influences of reasonable rivalry. Consolidation proceeds to the uttermost to stifle competition of all kinds, whether in respect of rates or of facilities. … A second point to be kept in mind as between the effects of consolidation and pooling lies in the fact that consolidation can never hope to accomplish the steadying influence upon rates which is claimed for railroad pools, until such time as every railroad within a given competitive territory shall have been bought up and absorbed. … A division of territory into a number of specific groups, each absolutely monopolized by one interest, seems to be the only logical outcome of the consolidations which have been already accomplished. …

"Pools and pooling still exist: although outwardly called gentlemen’s agreement or disguised in some other way, it is incontestable that in every case where consolidation has not proceeded to its uttermost limits, as in New England, traffic agreements exist. Railroad men are almost unanimous in the expression of their desire to have the inhibition removed. Representatives of commercial interests have, in the main, acceded to this opinion. As has been shown, the prohibition was not contemplated originally. It was included in the act only as a concession to certain opponents of pooling in the House of Representatives. … On the other hand, it is universally recognized that certain dangers to the shipper are incident to such action. Railroad pools may, and certainly have, in some instances, operated either to raise rates, or to maintain them in face of a tendency to decline. As a consequence, the majority of these appeals for remedial legislation are accompanied by a demand that pooling, if once more permitted by law, shall be subject to governmental approval and supervision."

_Final Report of the Industrial Commission, pages 338-348._

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1901-1905. The Northern Securities Case. Another test of the Sherman Act. The question of the Legality of Combination between Corporations through a "Holding Company."

At about the time when the Industrial Commission was producing its final report, from which the above is taken, the courts of the United States were called on to give attention to another mode, distinctly different from either "pooling" agreements or corporate consolidation, by which an effective combination of railway lines could be secured. It came to the consideration of the courts in the case of the Northern Securities Company, which was famous in its day. Briefly related, the case arose as follows:

Although the Great Northern Railway and the Northern Pacific Railway traverse the same Northwestern section of the United States, from the Mississippi River and the western extremity of the Great Lakes to the Pacific Coast, at no great distance apart, there was not rivalry, but a community of interest between them, in 1901, when the corporations to which they belong became joint purchasers of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway system, in order to secure for each of them a direct connection with Chicago, under their joint control. This achievement of the powerful railway interests controlled by James J. Hill was followed by what is known in Wall Street as a "raid" on the stock of the Northern Pacific, by the Union Pacific interests, headed by E. H. Harriman, with the object of securing votes to elect the next board of directors in that corporation, and thus control the whole Northern transcontinental combination. The outcome of the fierce struggle was a compromise, from which issued the famous "holding company" known as the Northern Securities Company, incorporated on the 12th of November, 1901, under the accommodating laws of the State of New Jersey. The term "holding company" describes precisely the function which this corporation was created to perform. In the language of its charter, "the objects for which the corporation is formed are: To acquire by purchase, subscription or otherwise, and to hold as investment, any bonds or other securities or evidences of indebtedness. … To purchase, hold, sell, assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge, or otherwise dispose of, any bonds or other securities or evidences of indebtedness created or issued by any other corporation. … To purchase, hold … etc., shares of capital stock of any other corporation … and, while owner of such stock, to exercise all the rights, powers and privileges of ownership, including the right to vote thereon."

{552}

The specific plan of operation was set forth in a circular issued by the Northern Securities Company, on the 22d of November, 1901, to holders of the stock of the Great Northern Railway Company, which said: "The Northern Securities Company, incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with an authorized capital stock of $400,000,000, and with power to invest in and hold the securities of other companies, has commenced business, and has acquired from several large holders of stock of the Great Northern Railway Company a considerable amount of that stock. A uniform price has been paid of $180 per share, in the fully paid stock of this company, at par. This company is ready to purchase additional shares of the same stock at the same price, payable in the same manner, and will accept offers made on that basis if made within the next sixty days."

"It seems," says Professor Meyer, in his "History of the Northern Securities Case," "that the capitalization of $400,000,000 was fixed at that figure in order to cover approximately the combined capital stock of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern at an agreed price apparently based upon earning capacity. The par value of the outstanding capital stock of the Great Northern was $123,880,400, and that of the Northern Pacific amounted to $155,000,000. The Northern Securities Company purchased about seventy-six per cent. of the former and ninety-six per cent. of the latter, on the basis of $115 per share of $100 of Northern Pacific and $180 per share of $100 of the Great Northern."

From the side of the railway interests concerned, this holding together of the stocks of the two corporations which owned between them the connecting Burlington line to Chicago was a necessary business transaction. Their view of it was stated subsequently by Mr. Hill, in testimony given during proceedings which tested the legality of the holding company, when he said: "With the Northern Pacific as a half-owner in the shares of the Burlington and responsibility for one-half of the purchase price of these shares, the transfers of the shares of the Northern Pacific or the control of the Northern Pacific to an interest that was adverse or an interest that had greater investments in other directions, the control being in the hands of companies whose interests would be injured by the growth and development of this country would, of course, put the Great Northern in a position where it would be almost helpless, because we would be, as it were, fenced out of the territory south which produces the tonnage we want to take west and which consumes the tonnage we want to bring east, and the Great Northern would be in a position where it would have to make a hard fight—either survive or perish, or else sell out to the other interests. The latter would be the most business-like proceeding."

On the other hand, from the standpoint of public interests, the combination looked dangerous to the Northwestern States, as being a suppression of competition and a creation of monopoly in railway transportation, and it was quickly announced that the Governor of Minnesota had determined to invite the Governors of States affected by the transaction to a conference, for the purpose of considering "the best methods of fighting the Northern Securities Company’s propositions in the courts and by new legislation, if necessary." The result of the conference was a suit undertaken by the State of Minnesota, at first in the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was found to be impracticable, but finally begun in the United States Circuit Court. This State action was soon followed by proceedings taken by the Federal Government. Attorney-General Knox was asked by the President for an opinion as to the legality of the procedure involved in the formation of the Northern Securities Company, and replied that, in his judgment it violated the provisions of the Sherman Act of 1890. The President then "directed that suitable action should be taken to have the question judicially determined." Suit was begun accordingly on the 10th of March, 1902, by the United States, in the United States Circuit Court at St. Paul, against the three companies, —Northern Securities, Great Northern, and Northern Pacific. Testimony was taken in St. Paul and New York, and the case was argued in March, 1903, at St. Louis, before a special trial court, composed of four circuit judges. The decision rendered by this court, the four judges concurring, declared the transaction illegal, and enjoined the Northern Securities Company from performing the acts that it was intended to perform. This decision was contradicted, however, by one given at about the same time in the suit of the State of Minnesota, which had its trial in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota. There the legality of the formation of the Northern Securities Company was affirmed.

Appeals from both decisions were taken to the Supreme Court, and that of the special trial court, in the suit of the Federal Government, which declared the procedure involved in the formation of the Northern Securities Company to be in violation of the Sherman Act of 1890, was fully sustained by a majority of the Court, in March, 1904. In the opinion of the majority of the justices, "if Congress has not, by the words used in the Act, described this and like cases, it would, we apprehend, be impossible to find words that would describe them."

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.

The Court below was authorized accordingly to execute its decree against the Securities Company. A little later the Supreme Court decided in the Minnesota State suit that it had no jurisdiction, and sent the case back, to be remanded to the State court from which it had been originally removed. With this case nothing further was done.

In connection with the undoing of the Northern Securities Company’s operations, to reconvey the property for which it had issued its stock, fresh litigation arose, over questions that touched the construction to be put on the court’s decree. This, too, went up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and was decided there in March, 1905; but it has no important bearing on the questions involved in the original case.

{553}

In the final chapter of his history of the case, Professor Meyer has this to say of it: "The chief interest of the Northern Securities case lies in the magnitude of the interests involved and in the variety of the economic and legal problems which were incidentally drawn into the controversy. From the point of view of railway organization the case presents little of consequence, except that railway corporate organization, in the process of metamorphosis or evolution, must, avoid the technicality of the particular type of holding company which the Northern Securities Company represented. From the point of view of railway regulation and the relations between the general public interests and private railway management, the case has no significance whatsoever, in spite of the fact that action against the Securities Company arose out of alleged injurious consequences to the public. It was assumed that competition had been stifled, without first asking the question whether competition had actually existed; and whether, if competition could be perpetuated, the public would profit by it."

_Balthazer Henry Meyer, A History of the Northern Securities Case (Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, Number 142)._

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1901-1909. The Harriman System. Its Creation. Its Magnitude. The Rapid Rise of the late E. H. Harriman to Financial Power.

On the death of the late Edward H. Harriman, which occurred on the 9th of September, 1909, it was said that he was the absolute dictator of 75,000 miles of railroad in the United States—about one-third of the country’s total mileage of railways—besides being a leading director in four ocean steamship lines, two trust companies, and three banks. Some time previously the Interstate Commerce Commission, in the report of its investigation of the Union Pacific Railroad management, said of him: "Mr. Harriman may journey by steamship from New York to New Orleans, thence by rail to San Francisco, across the Pacific Ocean to China, and, returning by another route to the United States, may go to Ogden by any one of three rail lines, and thence to Kansas City or Omaha, without leaving the deck or platform of a carrier which he controls, and without duplicating any part of his journey."

In the same report, referring to one of the most questionable of Harriman’s financial operations, the Commission remarked that it was "rich in illustrations of various methods of indefensible financing," but added that it was no part of the Harriman policy to permit the properties under the Union Pacific control to degenerate. "As railroads," it was said, "they are better properties to-day, with lower grades, straighter tracks, and more ample equipment than they were when they came under that control. Large sums have been generously expended in the carrying on of engineering works and betterments which make for the improvement of the service and the permanent value of the property."

On the occasion of Mr. Harriman’s death, the New York _Evening Post_, reviewing his career, said of him that "his worst enemies are forced to admit that as a railroad executive he had no peer. What he found on taking charge of the Union Pacific was two dirt ballasted streaks of rust. The stations along the mountain grades were tumbled-down shacks, and most of the equipment was fit only for the scrap pile. Moreover, there was no organization. From top to bottom of the staff the men had lost heart. In 1898 the Union Pacific was suffering from bankruptcy, brought on by years of political and financial intrigue. But when Harriman got his grip on the property he said to his associates: ‘We will rebuild it and do it right away.’

Harriman’s plans called for hundreds of millions of dollars for new rails, lower grades, and modern cars, locomotives, and terminals. After a struggle the Union Pacific directors came around to his way of thinking."

"It is necessary to remember," said the _Post_, in another article, "in summing up the Wall Street side of Mr. Harriman’s history, that fifteen years ago he was hardly known, even in railway circles; that ten years ago, his name would have conveyed no meaning or association to the general public; that even at the inception of the celebrated Northern Pacific fight of 1901 [see above, under date of 1901-1905], in which he was actually a chief protagonist, Wall Street mentioned his name only incidentally in connection with it. The fight, as the Stock Exchange and the newspapers then saw it, was waged between the ‘Standard Oil interest,’ and the ‘Morgan interest,’ and the Union Pacific’s chairman cut little individual figure in the public view."

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1903 (February). Act of Congress to Further Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations and among the States, known commonly as "the Elkins Law."

The following are the essential provisions of the Act, approved February 19, 1903, which is commonly referred to as the Elkins Anti-Rebate Law:

"The willful failure upon the part of any carrier subject to said Acts to file and publish the tariffs or rates and charges as required by said Acts or strictly to observe such tariffs until changed according to law, shall be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof the corporation offending shall be subject to a fine not less than one thousand dollars nor more than twenty thousand dollars for each offense; and it shall be unlawful for any person, persons, or corporation to offer, grant, or give or to solicit, accept, or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in respect of the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier subject to said Act to regulate commerce and the Acts amendatory thereto whereby any such property shall by any device whatever be transported at a less rate than that named in the tariffs published and filed by such carrier, as is required by said Act to regulate commerce and the Acts amendatory thereto, or whereby any other advantage is given or discrimination is practiced. Every person or corporation who shall offer, grant, or give or solicit, accept or receive any such rebates, concession, or discrimination shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than twenty thousand dollars. In all convictions occurring after the passage of this Act for offences under said Acts to regulate commerce, whether committed before or after the passage of this Act, or for offenses under this section, no penalty shall be imposed on the convicted party other than the fine prescribed by law, imprisonment wherever now prescribed as part of the penalty being hereby abolished. Every violation of this section shall be prosecuted in any court of the United States having jurisdiction of crimes within the district in which such violation was committed or through which the transportation may have been conducted; and whenever the offense is begun in one jurisdiction and completed in another it may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either jurisdiction in the same manner as if the offense had been actually and wholly committed therein.

{554}

"In construing and enforcing the provisions of this section the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any common carrier acting within the scope of his employment shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such carrier as well as that of the person. Whenever any carrier files with the Interstate Commerce Commission or publishes a particular rate under the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce or Acts amendatory thereto, or participates in any rates so filed or published, that rate as against such carrier, its officers or agents in any prosecution begun under this Act shall be conclusively deemed to be the legal rate, and any departure from such rate, or any offer to depart therefrom, shall be deemed to be an offense under this section of this Act."

_Statutes at Large of the United States, Fifty-seventh Congress, Session II, chapter 708._

In comment on the above Act, Professor Ripley wrote, sometime after its passage:

"Two years ago, at the instance of the railways, which were desirous of stopping large leakages of revenue due to rate cutting, Congress enacted the so-called Elkins law. This was distinctly a railway measure. Hence the ease and quiet of its passage. It roused none of the corporate watch dogs of the Senate, ostensibly guardians of the public welfare. Nor was it a compromise. There was no need of compromise. Both railways and shippers were agreed in the wish to eliminate rebates. Section 3 of this law of 1903 recites ‘that whenever the Interstate Commerce Commission shall have reasonable ground for belief that any common carrier is engaged in the carriage of passenger or freight traffic between given points at less than the published rates on file, _or is committing any discriminations forbidden by law_’ (our italics), it may petition any circuit judge for the issuance of an injunction summarily prohibiting the practice. Such a remedy would seem to be prompt, efficient, and adequate. It is the basis of the universal railway testimony that no further legislation on the subject is needed, but that the Interstate Commerce Commission should quit talking and get down to business. …

"That the Elkins law adds nothing to the original statute of 1887 is indisputable. It deals with means, not ends. It provides motive power, but not intelligent direction, for the wheels of justice. The law remains absolutely unchanged in its definition of rights and wrongs."

_W. Z. Ripley, President Roosevelt’s Railway Policy (Atlantic Monthly, September, 1905)._

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1905. International Railway Congress.

The International Railway Congress had its meeting of 1905 at Washington, on the invitation of the American Railroad Association. Between three and four hundred American railroad men were in attendance during the Congress, which lasted from May 4 to May 13. The delegates from oversea numbered three hundred and twenty, and included representatives from every country in the world. Germany, for the first time, was adequately represented in the Congress; while at no previous Congress were there so many delegates from Great Britain and from British colonies.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1906. Reconstruction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

See (in this Volume) INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1906-1909. Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the Constitutionality of the "Commodities Clause" of the Hepburn Act. The Railroad Monopoly of the Anthracite Coal Trade.

The Act of 1906 (known commonly as the Hepburn Act) which amended the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (see above, under date of 1870-1908), contains an important provision which was specially intended to dissolve the monopolistic combination by which a group of railroads operating in Pennsylvania have established control of the mining and marketing, as well as the transportation of anthracite coal. This was inserted in the Act on motion of Senator Elkins and is sometimes referred to as the "Elkins Clause," sometimes as the "Commodities Clause" of the Railway Rebate Act. This clause declared it to be unlawful "for any railroad company to transport from any State to any other State or to any foreign country any article or commodity other than timber manufactured, mined, or produced by it, or under its authority, or which it may own in whole or in part, or in which it may have any interest, direct or indirect, except such articles or commodities as may be necessary and intended for its use in the conduct of its business as a common carrier."

Since 1874 the Constitution of Pennsylvania had declared that "no incorporated company doing the business of a common carrier shall, directly or indirectly, prosecute or engage in mining or manufacturing articles for transportation over its works; nor shall such company directly or indirectly engage in any other business than that of common carrier, or hold or acquire lands, freehold or leasehold, directly or indirectly, except such as shall be necessary to carry on its business." But this constitutional prohibition had not sufficed to restrain the owners of the railways which tap the anthracite coal district from acquiring practical ownership of so large a part of its mines as to be able, by combinations and understandings among their managers, to monopolize the market of that most important commodity. It was thought that the power vested in the General Government to regulate the commerce in coal between Pennsylvania and other States might be brought into exercise against this anthracite monopoly with more effect.

On the 1st of May, 1908, the "commodities clause" of the Hepburn Act became operative, and soon thereafter a suit was brought in the United Slates Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to test its constitutionality. In this trial of the question the Government met defeat. Two of the three Judges of the Court, namely Gray and Dallas, filed opinions against the constitutionality of the enactment, their colleague, Judge Buffington, dissenting. The case went then on appeal to the Supreme Court, and there, by a judgment so nearly unanimous that Judge Harlan alone dissented on a single point, the decision of the Circuit Court was reversed and the constitutionality of the law upheld.

{555}

The following summary of its opinion was given out by the Supreme Court at the time of the announcement, May 3, 1909:

"(1.) The claim of the government that the provision contained in the Hepburn act, approved June 29, 1906, commonly called the Commodities Clause, prohibits a railway company from moving commodities in interstate commerce because the company has manufactured, mined, or produced them, or owned them in whole or in part, or has had an interest direct or indirect in them, wholly irrespective of the relation or connection of the carrier with the commodities at the time of transportation, is decided to be untenable. It is also decided that the provision of the commodities clause relating to interest, direct or indirect, does not embrace an interest which a carrier may have in a producing corporation as the result of the ownership by the carrier of stock in such corporation irrespective of the amount of stock which the carrier may own in such corporation, provided the corporation has been organized in good faith.

"(2.) Rejecting the construction placed by the government upon the commodities clause, it is decided that that clause, when all its provisions are harmoniously construed, has solely for its object to prevent carriers engaged in interstate commerce from being associated in interest at the time of transportation with the commodities transported, and therefore the commodities clause only prohibits railroad companies engaged in interstate commerce from transporting in such commerce commodities under the following circumstances and conditions:

"(a) When the commodity has been manufactured, mined, or produced by a railway company, or under its authority, and at the time of transportation the railway company has not in good faith before the act of transportation parted with its interest in such commodity;

"(b) When the railway company owns the commodity to be transported in whole or in part;

"(c) When the railway company at the time of transportation has an interest direct or indirect in a legal sense in the commodity, which last prohibition does not apply to commodities manufactured, mined, produced, owned, etc., by a corporation because a railway company is a stockholder in such corporation.

"Such ownership of stock in a producing company by a railway company does not cause it as the owner of the stock to have a legal interest in the commodity manufactured, etc., by the producing corporation.

"(3.) As thus construed the commodities clause is a regulation of commerce within the power of Congress to enact. The contentions elaborately argued for the railroad companies that the clause, if applied to preexisting rights, will operate to take property of railroad companies and therefore violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, were all based upon the assumption that the clause prohibited and restricted in accordance with the construction which the government gave that clause and for the purpose of enforcing which prohibitions these suits were brought.

"As the construction which the government placed upon the act and seeks to enforce is now held to be unsound, and as none of the contentions relied upon are applicable to the act as now construed, because under such construction the act merely enforces a regulation of commerce by which carriers are compelled to dissociate themselves from the products which they carry and does not prohibit where the carrier is not associated with the commodity carried, it follows that the contentions on the subject of the Fifth Amendment are without merit.

"(4.) The exemption as to timber, etc., contained in the clause is not repugnant to the Constitution.

"(5.) The provision as to penalties is separable from the other provisions of the act. As no recovery of penalties was prayed, no issue concerning them is here presented. It will be time enough to consider whether the right to recover penalties exists when an attempt to collect penalties is made.

"(6.) As the construction now given the act differs so widely from the construction which the government gave to the act, and which it was the purpose of these suits to enforce, it is held that it is not necessary, in reversing and remanding, to direct the character of decrees which shall be entered, but simply to reverse and remand the case with instructions to enforce and apply the statute as it is now construed.

"(7.) As the Delaware and Hudson Company is engaged as a common carrier by rail in the transportation of coal in the channels of interstate commerce, it is a railroad company within the purview of the commodities clause, and is subject to the provisions of that clause as they are now construed."

Six railway companies, namely, the Delaware and Hudson, the Erie, the Central of New Jersey, the Lackawanna, the Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley, were involved in the test suit on which this decision was given; but the ruling will affect all roads engaged in coal mining. Justice Harlan dissented from that part of the decision which relates to the ownership of stock in a producing company; otherwise the opinion, announced by Justice White, was the opinion of the entire Bench.

By ruling that "ownership of stock in a producing company by a railway company does not cause it as the owner of the stock to have a legal interest in the commodity manufactured, etc., by the producing company," the court appears to have made further legislation necessary, if the companies are to be barred from controlling the production and marketing of the coal through subsidiary corporations.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &C.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907-1909.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907. Regulative Legislation in the States.

"Never in the history of railroad legislation have our transportation systems run counter to a campaign so comprehensive, wide-spread, and disturbing as the general trend of ‘regulation’ in almost every State Legislature in session during 1907. It seems as if a legislative tempest against the railroads had been unloosed simultaneously in more than thirty States upon a given signal. The welcome accorded it by our lawmakers is inexplicable, unless we are prepared to admit that our Government, as has been charged frequently, is one of impulse. On this hypothesis it is readily understood.

{556}

"Thirty-five States, in all, attempted to enact laws reducing freight or passenger rates, establishing railroad commissions, increasing the powers of existing commissions, regulating car service, demurrage, safety appliances, block signals, free passes, capitalization, liability for accidents to employees, hours of labor, blacklisting, strikes, etc. … Uniformity was sought without discrimination or foresight. Railroads in densely populated districts and those in sparsely settled rural localities were given alike a two-cent rate. Worse than this: roads of different earning power in the same State were assigned a level rate. The prosperous and well-established road and the struggling pioneer were bracketed,—to sink or swim.

"But all of their work was not wasted. Real constructive legislation was enacted in many States in regard to corporate control, safety appliances, block signals, working hours, rights of employees, railroad mergers, valuation, capitalization, publication of rate schedules, etc., while in the States of South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin the rate question was given fair and temperate consideration. …

"An analysis of the general results shows that passenger fares were either actually reduced or affected in twenty-one States: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Two-cent rates now prevail in Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and in Ohio, since 1906; two-and-one-half-cent rates in Alabama and North Dakota. North Carolina has established a two-and one-quarter-cent rate; West Virginia, a two-cent rate for railroads over fifty miles in length; Iowa, a sliding scale of from two to three cents per mile; Michigan, a two, three, and four cent rate; Kansas, Maryland, and Mississippi, two-cent rates for mileage books; the railroad commissions of Georgia and South Dakota have been authorized to establish a two-cent and a two-and-one-half-cent rate, respectively; and Oklahoma specifies in its new constitution a maximum charge of two cents for passenger fare. Virginia’s Corporation Commission has adopted a two-cent rate for trunk lines, a three-cent rate for minor roads and a three-and-one-half-cent rate on one or two lines.

"Freight charges were lowered in many States. The Commodity Freight Rate law of Minnesota is probably the most scientific and equitable, and is being used by many Western roads as a basis. Commissions in other States have adopted it as a model.

"Laws prohibiting free passes were enacted in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas.

"Eleven States created railroad commissions: Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Sixteen others gave increased power to existing commissions, apart from rate regulation: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin."

_Robert Emmett Ireton, The Legislatures and the Railways (Review of Reviews, August, 1907)._

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907. Limitation of Working Hours for Trainmen.

An Act of Congress passed in January, 1907, prohibits railways engaged in interstate and foreign commerce from requiring or permitting those of their employés who have to do with the movement of trains to work more than sixteen hours consecutively, or more than an aggregate of sixteen in each twenty-four hours, and requires that when an employé shall have worked for sixteen hours there shall follow a period of rest of not less than ten hours before he shall resume his duties. Certain exceptions are made to provide for accidents, the failure of trains to make their regular schedules, connections, etc. Violation of the act is declared to be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of from $100 to $1,000, and the Interstate Commerce Commission is charged with the duty of enforcing the law.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907. Strike on roads west of Chicago averted by Federal Intermediation.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907-1908. Limitation of State Authority in matters of Interstate Commerce.

Serious collisions between Federal and State authority which occurred in 1907, in the States of Alabama, North Carolina, and Minnesota, on questions relating to interstate railways and their commerce, were cleared by important decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, rendered in the spring of 1908. The States in question had enacted laws which had the effect of intimidating railway companies and their agents from appealing to Federal courts, by the severity of the penalties they imposed. Suits undertaken in consequence against the State officials acting under these laws raised the question which was carried to the Federal Supreme Court. The bearing of the judgment rendered by that Court in the Minnesota case, Justice Harlan alone dissenting, is indicated by two passages from it, as follows:

"The provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the rates, either for freight or passengers, by imposing such enormous fines and possible imprisonment as a result of an unsuccessful effort to test the validity of the laws themselves, are unconstitutional on their face, without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates."

"If the act which the State Attorney-General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

{557}

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908. Decision in Armour Packing Company Case.

A decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. the Armour Packing Company covered cases in which identical proceedings were pending against three other packing companies and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company. The packing company had contracted with the railway company for a rate from the Mississippi to New York, to continue for seven months, soon after which the railway company filed, published, and posted a much higher rate, continuing, however, to give transportation to the packing company, on through bills of lading to foreign ports for the lower rate of the contract. The Supreme Court sustained the Circuit Court in deciding this to be in violation of the law against discrimination in rates, since that law, being in force when the contract was made, was necessarily "read into the contract" and "became part of it."

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908 (April). Passage of Act relating to the Liability of Common Carriers by Railroad to their Employés in Certain Cases.

See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908 (November). Supreme Court Decision in Case of Virginia Railroads vs. the State Corporation Commission of Virginia.

"Justice Holmes today [November 30, 1908] announced the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Virginia railroads versus the state corporation commission of Virginia, calling into question the order of the commission fixing a uniform rate of two cents a mile for carrying passengers in the state. The decision reversed the decision of the United States circuit court for the eastern division of Virginia on the technical ground that the railroads should have appealed from the commission’s order to the supreme court of Virginia before seeking the intervention of the federal courts. In effect the court directs that the railroad companies take their case to the state court of last resort and that in order to prevent injustices through the possible application of the statute of limitations, the case be retained on the docket of the United States circuit court, by which it was originally decided favorably to the roads."

_Washington Despatch to the Associated Press._

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908-1909. The Missouri River Rate Case. Permanent Injunction against the Interstate Commerce Commission.

By an order made on the 24th of June, 1908, the Interstate Commerce Commission forbade the charging of a through rate on first class matter, by the railroads, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Missouri River ($1.47 per hundred pounds), which equalled the rate charged from the Atlantic to the Mississippi (87 cents) plus the rate from the Mississippi to the Missouri (60 cents). In other words, the Commission sought to impose a through rate to the Missouri which would be nine cents per hundred pounds less than the sum of the rates charged on two parts of the same distance. The western railway companies affected by the order applied to the United States Circuit Court, at Chicago, for a permanent injunction to restrain its enforcement. The injunction was granted on the 24th of August, 1909, Judges Grosscup and Kohlsaat concurring in the decision, Judge Baker dissenting.

"The question raised," said Judge Grosscup, in rendering the opinion, "in its larger aspects is not so much a question between the shippers and the railroads as between the commercial and manufacturing interests of Denver and of the territory east of the Mississippi River on the one side, and the commercial and manufacturing interests of the Missouri River cities on the other. …

"We are not prepared to say the commission has not the power to enter upon a plan looking toward a system of rates wherein the rates for longer and shorter hauls will taper downward according to distance, providing such tapering is both comprehensively and symmetrically applied—applied with a design of carrying out what may be the economic fact, that, on the whole, it is worth something less per mile to carry freight long distances than shorter distances.

"But it does not follow that power of that character includes power, by the use of differentials, to artificially divide the country into trade zones tributary to given trade and manufacturing centres, the commission in such cases having as a result to predetermine what the trade and manufacturing centres shall be; for such power, vaster than any one body of men has heretofore exercised, though wisely exerted in specific instances, would be putting into the hands of the commission the general power of life and death over every trade and manufacturing centre in the United States."

In the dissenting opinion of Judge Baker he said: "The question is not whether a lawful power or authority has been shown to have been wrongly exercised, but whether there is any law at all for the power or authority claimed and exercised." He found the necessary law, and added: "If Congress cannot constitutionally make a general declaration that the rates shall be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory and then trust an executive body to hear evidence and decide questions of fact respecting reasonableness and just discrimination, the power of Congress over rates would be worthless."

In September it was announced that the Commission would appeal from the injunction to the Supreme Court.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1909. The Seventh Transcontinental Line.

The seventh transcontinental line of railway in America, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul system, was announced as completed on the 1st of April, 1909. As its name indicates, it is an extension of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul system by a line fourteen hundred miles long from Mobridge, South Dakota, to Seattle and Tacoma, in the State of Washington.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1909. Fines imposed on the New York Central Railroad Company.

Fines aggregating $134,000, imposed on the New York Central Railway Company by the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York for rebates granted to the American Sugar Refining Company in violation of law, were affirmed in February, 1909, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and were paid on the 12th of May.

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1909 (May-June). The Georgia Railroad Strike.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.

{558}

RAILWAYS: A. D. 1910. Special Message of President Taft touching Interstate Commerce.

The important Special Message addressed to Congress by President Taft on the 7th of January, 1910, recommending amendatory legislation on the two subjects of interstate commerce and the combinations called "trusts," opened with the following statement:

"In the annual report of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the year 1908 attention is called to the fact that between July 1, 1908, and the close of that year sixteen suits had been begun to set aside orders of the commission (besides one commenced before that date), and that few orders of much consequence had been permitted to go without protest; that the questions presented by these various suits were fundamental, as the constitutionality of the act itself was in issue, and the right of Congress to delegate to any tribunal authority to establish an interstate rate was denied; but that perhaps the most serious practical question raised concerned the extent of the right of the courts to review the orders of the commission; and it was pointed out that if the contention of the carriers in this latter respect alone were sustained, but little progress had been made in the Hepburn act toward the effective regulation of interstate transportation charges. In twelve of the cases referred to, it was stated, preliminary injunctions were prayed for, being granted in six and refused in six.

"‘It has from the first been well understood,’ says the commission, ‘that the success of the present act as a regulating measure depended largely upon the facility with which temporary injunctions could be obtained. If a railroad company, by mere allegation in its bill of complaint, supported by ex-parte affidavits, can overturn the results of days of patient investigation, no very satisfactory result can be expected. The railroad loses nothing by these proceedings, since if they fail it can only be required to establish the rate and to pay to shippers the difference between the higher rate collected and the rate which is finally held to be reasonable. In point of fact it usually profits, because it can seldom be required to return more than a fraction of the excess charges collected.’

"In its report for the year 1909 the commission shows that of the seventeen cases referred to in its 1908 report, only one had been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, although five other cases had been argued and submitted to that tribunal in October, 1909.

"Of course, every carrier affected by an order of the commission has a constitutional right to appeal to a Federal Court to protect it from the enforcement of an order which it may show to be _prima facie_ confiscatory or unjustly discriminatory in its effect; and as this application may be made to a court in any district of the United States, not only does delay result in the enforcement of the order, but great uncertainty is caused by contrariety of decision. The questions presented by these applications are too often technical in their character and require a knowledge of the business and the mastery of a great Volume of conflicting evidence which is tedious to examine and troublesome to comprehend. It would not be proper to attempt to deprive any corporation of the right to review by a court of any order or decree which, if undisturbed, would rob it of a reasonable return upon its investment or would subject it to burdens which would unjustly discriminate against it and in favor of other carriers similarly situated. What is, however, of supreme importance is that the decision of such questions shall be as speedy as the nature of the circumstances will admit, and that a uniformity of decision be secured so as to bring about an effective, systematic, and scientific enforcement of the commerce law, rather than conflicting decisions and uncertainty of final result.

"For this purpose I recommend the establishment of a court of the United States composed of five judges designated for such purpose from among the circuit judges of the United States, to be known as the ‘United States Court of Commerce,’ which court shall be clothed with exclusive original jurisdiction over the following classes of cases:

"(1.) All cases for the enforcement, otherwise than by adjudication and collection of a forfeiture or penalty, or by infliction of criminal punishment, of any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment of money.

"(2.) All cases brought to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order or requirement of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

"(3.) All such cases as under section 3 of the act of February 19, 1903, known as the ‘Elkins Act,’ are authorized to be maintained in a circuit court of the United States.

"(4.) All such mandamus proceedings as under the provisions of section 20 or section 23 of the Interstate Commerce law are authorized to be maintained in a circuit court of the United States.

"Reasons precisely analogous to those which induced the Congress to create the Court of Customs Appeals by the provisions in the tariff act of August 5, 1909, may be urged in support of the creation of the Commerce Court."

Further recommendations of the Message are summarized in the following:

Pooling arrangements as to rates to be allowed under direct supervision of the commission.

The commission to be empowered to pass upon freight classifications.

The commission to be empowered to hold up new rates or classifications by railroads until an inquiry can be made as to their reasonableness. If found to be unreasonable, the commission may forbid the increase.

Shippers to be given the choice of established routes on through freight.

From and after the passage of the amendments, it is provided that no railroad shall acquire any stock or interest in a competing line, except that where a road already owns 50 per cent, or more of the stock of another road, it may complete the purchase of all the stock. Also in cases where one road is operating another under a lease of more than twenty-five years’ duration, it shall have a right to acquire the demised road. Allowing these acquisitions of stock does not exempt any road from prosecution under the Anti-Trust law.

Stocks must be issued at par value for money paid in or for property or services, rates at full value, under an inquiry by the Federal authority, who shall supervise all stock and bond issues.

----------RAILWAYS: End--------

RAISULI, The Moorish Brigand.

See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.

RALLIÉS.

A political party in France said to be made from fragments from the former Bonapartists, Orleanists, and Boulangerists.

RAMSAY, Sir William.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE, RECENT: RADIUM; also, NOBEL PRIZES.

RATE REGULATION, Railway.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908.

{559}

RAYLEIGH, Lord.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

REBATE RESTRICTION, Railway.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908, and 1903 (February).

RECIPROCITY TREATY: United States and Newfoundland: The Hay-Bond Treaty. Its Amendment to Death by the United States Senate.

See (in this Volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902-1905.

RECLAMATION OF ARID LANDS.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.

RED CROSS SOCIETY, The American National.

By an Act of Congress passed in 1904, the American National Red Cross was incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia and brought directly under Government supervision. Its charter provided that five members of its Board of Incorporators were to be chosen from the Departments of State, War, Navy, Treasury, and Justice. Its accounts were to be audited by the disbursing officer of the War Department. The entire support, however, aside from the income from a small endowment, comes from the dues of individual members and voluntary contributions. The election of Mr. Taft, then Secretary of War, as the first president of the reorganized Red Cross, emphasized its new relationship to the Federal Government and its new position as a body of really National scope. At the annual meeting of the Society in December, 1908, Mr. Taft, then President-elect of the United States, consented to be reelected to the presidency of the Red Cross organization in the United States.

Throughout all the many calamities of the past decade, from earthquake, volcanic eruption, fire, flood, war, famine, and pestilence, the Red Cross Society has always been instant in readiness for effective humane service, from almost every civilized country of the world, and for any call to any quarter of the globe. In the United States it has lately undertaken a continuous and permanent service in connection with the anti-tuberculosis crusade.

RED CROSS SOCIETY: In Japan, before and during the Russo-Japanese War.

"The Red Cross Society of Japan is by no means merely a copy of the Red Cross societies of Europe, as its name would seem to indicate; for the idea of assisting the wounded soldiers and allaying the suffering caused by war arose spontaneously in Japan. …

"In 1867, two years before the Restoration, when Japan was considered a savage country by the West, and when she possessed neither railways nor telegraphs, machinery, etc., Count Sano, an enthusiastic humanitarian, was sent by the Shogun to the Exhibition in Paris, where he had the opportunity of studying the Red Cross societies of various countries. Again, in 1873, when this gentleman was ambassador in Vienna, he carefully observed the Red Cross Society, and especially its activity during the Franco-German War of 1870. When the Civil War of 1877 broke out in Japan, Count Sano was back in his native country, and he conceived the idea of forming a society after the model of the European Red Cross societies. The nobility of Japan received his ideas most favourably, and a society was founded which was called Hakuaisha (Benevolent Society). …

"The Mikado countenanced the objects of the Society and assisted it in every way. From 1887 onward he gave it a yearly contribution of 5,000 yen, to which in 1888 a gift of 100,000 yen was added. After the Chino-Japanese War, the Mikado’s yearly contribution was increased to 10,000 yen, in recognition of the progress which the Society had made and of the great assistance which it had given during that campaign. Besides this sum he contributes yearly 5,000 yen to the Red Cross Society for the patients, and from time to time makes generous gifts to the Society. The motto of the Japanese Red Cross Society is ‘Pay your debt to your country by helping its soldiers’; and this motto has quickly made the Society immensely popular throughout the country. …

"The war with China of 1894-1895 demonstrated the excellence of the Japanese Red Cross Society, and proved at the same time its best advertisement, for at the end of 1895 there were more than 160,000 members. Since the Society had proved its immense practical utility, the number of its members rose by leaps and bounds, and at the end of 1898 there were 570,000 members, and the yearly receipts had reached 1,582,622 yen; at present it must count about 1,000,000 members, and must have an income of at least 3,000,000 yen, or about £300,000 per annum, a truly enormous sum for a country like Japan, where a yen goes about as far as ten shillings go in Great Britain. The latest available figures give the following record: Number of members, 920,000; funds in hand, £794,000; annual income, £231,000."

_O. Eltzbacher, The Red Gross Society of Japan (Contemporary Review, September, 1904)._

REDEMPTORISTS: Forbidden to teach in France.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1903.

REFERENDUM, Initiative and Recall: In Switzerland.

According to a report on the subject made to the State Department at Washington, in June, 1902, by the United States Minister to Switzerland, the Honorable Arthur S. Hardy, down to that time, "since the referendum has been in force, 226 Federal laws and resolutions have been enacted, of which 40 were submitted to the people, 14 by the compulsory and 26 by the optional referendum. The people have exercised the initiative five times since its adoption in 1891, rejecting the measures proposed four out of five times."

REFERENDUM, Initiative and Recall: In the United States.

"The first State to adopt a constitutional amendment providing for the initiative and referendum was South Dakota in 1898. Next came Utah (1900) with an amendment which is not self-executing, and the Legislature has not so far passed the necessary enabling act. Oregon followed in 1902, Montana in 1906, and Oklahoma in 1907. South Dakota, Oregon, and Oklahoma have also extended the constitutional amendments so as to provide for the initiative and referendum in municipal corporations. Maine, Missouri, and North Dakota are soon to vote upon constitutional amendments embodying the initiative and referendum for State matters; and Maine proposes to extend this right to municipal corporations concerning their local affairs.

{560}

In 1907 Iowa and South Dakota each enacted a general law under which cities may, if they so choose, have charters embodying the general features of the ‘commission plan of government,’ and acquire with them the right to have the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. In South Dakota the Constitution specifically gives to the people the right of the initiative and referendum, but in Iowa no mention thereof is made in the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Iowa, however, has held that the statute conferring the right upon cities of a certain class to adopt a commission plan of government which included the initiative, referendum, and recall was constitutional, as the State Constitution did not specifically forbid the granting of these rights. In Texas cities of a designated size can be incorporated by special act, and since Galveston obtained its new form of government several cities of Texas have been given charters by special acts, some embodying the initiative, referendum, and recall, others one or two of these rights, and some none of them or only in a modified form. The recall is the most recent of the three new measures of relief. Los Angeles in 1903 seems to have been the first city to have made the recall a part of its city charter. In 1905 San Diego, San Bernardino, Pasadena, and Fresno, California, followed. In 1906 Seattle joined the list, and in 1907 there were added Everett, in Washington, and six other California cities—Santa Monica, Alameda, Long Beach, Vallejo, Riverside and San Francisco. No State has a constitutional provision for the recall."

_The Outlook, August 15, 1908._

On the 25th of May, 1908, the Initiative and Referendum League of America addressed a memorial to Congress, asking for the passage of a Bill which had been introduced in the Senate (Senate Bill No. 7208), "For a modern system whereby the voters of the United States may instruct their National Representatives," and, further, for the passage of Senate Joint Resolution No. 94, "asking the States to establish the machinery for taking a referendum vote on national issues whenever Congress shall so direct."

REGENERADORES.

See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.

REGGIO: Its Destruction by Earthquake.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: ITALY.

REGIE, The San Domingo.

See (in this Volume) SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1901-1905.

REGINA: Capital of the Province of Saskatchewan.

See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1905.

REID, George Houston: Premier of Australia.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1903-1904.

REID, Sir Robert T.: Lord Chancellor of England.

See (in this Volume) England: A. D. 1905-1906.

REINSCH, Paul S.: Delegate to Third International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Its Limitations in Russia.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA. A. D. 1905 (APRIL-AUGUST), and 1909 (JUNE).

RELIGIOUS TEACHING, in State Supported Schools: The Controversy.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1903; CANADA: A. D. 1905; EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 and 1906.

RENAULT, Louis.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

RENNENKAMPF, General.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (SEPTEMBER-MARCH).

REPATRIATION OF THE BOERS.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1903.

REPUBLIC, The Rescue of the Steamship.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL.

RESCHAD, Mohammed: Raised to the Turkish Throne.

See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).

RESEARCH, Original.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: CARNEGIE INSTITUTION.

RESOURCES, Conservation of Natural.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

REVAL, Disorders in.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).

REVOLUTION, Persia.

See (in this Volume) PERSIA.

REVOLUTION, Turkish.

See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.

REYES, Rafael: President of Colombia.

See (in this Volume) COLOMBIA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1906-1909.

RHODES, CECIL J.: His death. His continued Influence in South Africa. His Policy carried on by Dr. Jameson.

See(in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1904.

RHODES, CECIL J.: His Will, endowing Scholarships at Oxford for Students in the British Colonies and the United States.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.

RHODESIA: A. D. 1908. Report of the British South Africa Company.

The annual report of the directors of the British South Africa Company, presented at a meeting of shareholders in London in February, 1909, contained the following statements:

"During 1908 there has been a remarkable improvement in the circumstances of Rhodesia. This improvement has been evident in every department of trade and industry, and is reflected in the returns of administrative receipts, railways, mines and land. It was pointed out last year what an important effect even a slight increase in general prosperity would exercise upon the whole financial position, and the figures now available show that this view was correct. The administrative revenue of Southern Rhodesia during the year 1908-1909 will suffice to cover administrative expenditure without any call whatever upon the commercial income of the company; the shortages of the railway companies in respect of the same period will be less by £100,000 than in 1907-1908; during the year ending 31st March, 1910, large additional revenue will be derived from the carriage from the port of Beira of the materials and stores for the extension of the railway into the Congo territory. … The negotiations for the extension northwards of the Rhodesian Railway system have been brought to a successful conclusion. With the coöperation of the Tanganyika Concessions (Limited) a company has been formed called the Rhodesia-Kantanga Junction Railway and Mineral Company (Limited), which will construct a standard gauge line from the present terminus at Broken Hill to a point on the frontier of the Congo Free State; from the frontier to the Star of the Congo Mine the line will be constructed by the Couipaguie du Chemin de Fer du Kantanga. … On the completion of the first section to the frontier, Rhodesia will be traversed by a trunk line from south to north.

{561}

"The European population shows a net increase of over 1,100 since the intermediate census, in September, 1907, when it numbered 14,018. An area of 1,169,305 acres of land has been settled and occupied during the past year. The output of gold has increased from £2,178,886 in 1907 to £2,526,037 in 1908. Imports have increased by about £100,000 during the past year."

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1904.

RIBEIRO, HINTZE.

See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.

RICHMOND, Virginia: A. D. 1907. Great Reunion of Confederate War Veterans. Unveiling of Monument to Jefferson Davis.

A great gathering of the surviving veterans of the Confederacy, to the number of about 15,000, at Richmond, late in May and early in June, was brought about in connection with the unveiling of an impressive monument to Jefferson Davis. An equestrian statue of General J. E. B. Stuart was also unveiled on one of the days of the reunion.

RIFF, The.

See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.

RIGA, Disorders in.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).

RIKKEN SEIYU-KAI.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).

RIO DE JANEIRO: A. D. 1903-1905. Eradication of Yellow Fever.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: YELLOW FEVER.

RIO DE JANEIRO: A. D. 1906. Third International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

RITCHIE, C. T.: Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Government.

See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JULY).

ROBERT, CHRISTOPHER R.: Benefactor of Robert College.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: TURKEY, &C.

ROBERT COLLEGE: Its Influence in Turkey and the Balkan States.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: TURKEY, &C.

ROBERTS, SIR FREDERICK SLEIGH ROBERTS, FIRST EARL: On the British Territorial Force and the need of Compulsory Military Training.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.

ROCHAMBEAU MONUMENT: The unveiling at Washington. Representatives of the families of Rochambeau and Lafayette invited Guests of the Nation.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (MAY).

ROCKEFELLER, John D.: Stupendous Endowment of the General Education Board.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.

ROCKEFELLER, John D.: Gift for the eradication of the Hookworm Disease.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: THE HOOKWORM DISEASE.

ROCKEFELLER, John D., Jr.: Investing in a Concession in the Congo State.

See (in this Volume) CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.

ROCKHILL, W. W.: Minister to China.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.

ROENTGEN.

See (in this Volume) RONTGEN.

ROGHI, EL.

See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.

ROJESVENSKY, ROZHDESTVENSKY, ADMIRAL.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

See (in this Volume and Volume IV.) PAPACY.

ROMAÑA, PRESIDENT EDUARDO DE.

See (in this Volume) PERU.

ROME: A. D. 1903. General Strike of Workmen.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.

ROME: A. D. 1908. Election of Ernesto Nathan to be Mayor.

See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1909.

RONTGEN, Wilhelm Conrad: Recipient of Nobel Prize.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

----------ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Start--------

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Becomes President of the United States on the Assassination of President McKinley.

See (in this Volume) BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Federal Control of Corporations engaged in Interstate Trade.

See (in this Volume) Combinations, Industrial, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1903.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On Railway Rate Regulation.

SEE RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: His intermediation in the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Message recounting the Circumstances of the Secession from Colombia and recognized Independence of Panama, and the Treaty with Panama for the Building of the Isthmian Canal.

See (in this volume) PANAMA CANAL.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Wrong done to the Chinese.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Strike of the Teamsters’ Union at Chicago.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905 (APRIL-JULY).

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Elected President of the United States.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER ).

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Mediation between Russia and Japan.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Initial Invitation to the holding of the Second Peace Conference.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Account of Visit to Porto Rico.

See (in this Volume) PORTO RICO: A. D. 1906.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Rendering of Aid to San Domingo.

See (in this Volume) SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1904-1907.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Progressive Taxation of Fortunes.

See (in this Volume) WEALTH, THE PROBLEMS OF.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Defense of Japanese Treaty Rights.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Recommends remission of part of Boxer Indemnity to China.

See CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Conservation of Natural Resources.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Appointment of Country Life Commission, and Message on its Report.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908-1909 (AUGUST-FEBRUARY).

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: On the Japanese Question in California.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Recipient of Nobel Prize for Promotion of Peace. Its devotion to the Creation of a Foundation for the Promotion of Industrial Peace.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Veto of the Census Bill.

See (in this Volume) CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES.

{562}

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Renunciation of Third Term Candidacy.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (NOVEMBER).

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Progress of Civil Service Reform under his Administration.

See (in this Volume) CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore: After leaving the White House.

Shortly before the ending, March 4, 1909, of his second term in the Presidency of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt became connected, as "Contributing Editor," with _The Outlook_, and began the discussion of current topics in signed articles, published in that weekly magazine. For some time it had been known that Mr. Roosevelt intended, when released from office, to enjoy a long vacation in Central Africa, hunting wild game. His preparations were made before he left the White House, and on the 20th of March, to correct misunderstandings as to the recreation he contemplated, he published the following announcement in _The Outlook_:

"I am about to go to Africa as the head of the Smithsonian expedition. It is a scientific expedition. We shall collect birds and mammals for the National Museum at Washington, and nothing will be shot unless for food, or for preservation as a specimen, or unless, of course, the animal is of a noxious kind. There will be no wanton destruction whatever.

"I very earnestly hope that no representative of any newspaper or magazine will try to accompany me or to interview me during any portion of my trip. Until I actually get to the wilderness my trip will be precisely like any other conventional trip on a steamboat or railway. It will afford nothing to write about, and will afford no excuse or warrant for any one sending to any newspaper a line in reference thereto. After I reach the wilderness of course no one outside of my own party will be with me, and if any one pretends to be with me or pretends to write as to what I do, his statements should be accepted as on their face not merely false but ludicrous. Any statement purporting to have been made by me, or attributed to me, which may be sent to newspapers should be accepted as certainly false and as calling for no denial from me. So far as possible I shall avoid seeing any representative of the press, and shall not knowingly have any conversation on any subject whatever with any representative of the press beyond exchanging the ordinary civilities or courtesies. I am a private citizen, and I am entitled to enjoy the privacy that should be the private citizen’s right. My trip will have no public bearing of any kind or description. It is undertaken for the National Museum at Washington, and is simply a collecting trip for the Museum. It will be extremely distasteful to me and of no possible benefit to any human being to try to report or exploit the trip, or to send any one with me, or to have any one try to meet me or see me with a view to such reporting or exploitation. Let me repeat that while I am on steamer or railway there will be nothing whatever to report; that when I leave the railway for the wilderness no persons will have any knowledge which will enable them to report anything, and that any report is to be accepted as presumably false." THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

The ex-President took steamer from New York on the 30th of March, and one of the journals which had been among the sharpest of his critics and opponents for years, the New York _Times_, had this to say of him that day:

"There is no need to tell him that he will carry with him wherever he goes the abiding affection of nearly 80,000,000 of people. They who dislike Colonel Roosevelt, or think they do, scarcely count in the Census. Wherever he goes he will make friends among human beings, and impress everybody with a reasonably high yet easily appreciable ideal of the American citizen. Courage, energy, quick co-ordination of muscle and brain, persistent alertness, boundless sympathy, and good fellowship are characteristics of Colonel Roosevelt. Everybody likes such a man."

Returning from his African expedition in the spring of 1910, the ex-President accepted invitations in Europe which took him to Naples, Rome, Vienna, Paris, Brussels, The Hague, Christiania, Berlin, London, and was received with extraordinary honors at every capital.

----------ROOSEVELT, Theodore: End--------

----------ROOT, ELIHU: Start--------

ROOT, ELIHU: Secretary of War and Secretary of State.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905, and 1905-1909.

ROOT, ELIHU: Correspondence relating to the establishment of the Republic of Cuba.

See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1901-1902.

ROOT, Elihu: On the Alaska Boundary Commission.

See (in this Volume) ALASKA: A. D. 1903.

ROOT, Elihu: Correspondence on American Fishing Rights on the Newfoundland Coast.

See (in this Volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.

ROOT, Elihu: Visit to South American Republics, 1906. Address at the Third International Conference of American Republics in Rio de Janeiro.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

ROOT, Elihu: Speech in 1906 summarizing recent Governmental Action against Corporate Wrong-doers.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.

ROOT, Elihu: Address to Central American Peace Conference at Washington.

See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1907.

ROOT, Elihu: At Peace Congress in New York.

See (in this Volume) WAR: THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.

ROOT, Elihu: On the Japanese Question in California.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.

ROOT, Elihu: Exchange of Notes with Japan, embodying a Declaration of Common Policy in the East.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).

ROOT, Elihu: On National Duty in State Legislation.

See (in this Volume) LAW AND ITS COURTS: UNITED STATES.

----------ROOT, ELIHU: End--------

ROSE, URIAH M.: Commissioner Plenipotentiary to the Second Peace Conference.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.

ROSEBERY, ARCHIBALD F. PRIMROSE, EARL: Opposition to Home Rule for Ireland.

See (in this Volume) England: A. D. 1905-1906.

ROSEBERY, ARCHIBALD F. PRIMROSE, EARL: On the State of Peace in Europe and the Preparations for War.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.

ROSEBERY, ARCHIBALD F. PRIMROSE, EARL: To the House of Lords on the Budget of 1909.

See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

ROSEN, BARON ROMAN: Russian Ambassador at Washington and Plenipotentiary for negotiating Treaty of Peace with Japan.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-JULY).

ROSS, Dr. Ronald.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

{563}

ROTA, The.

See (in this Volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1908.

ROTATIVOS.

See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.

ROUMANIA: A. D. 1902. Oppression of the Jews. Remonstrance of the United States.

See (in this Volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: ROUMANIA.

ROUVIER, Maurice: Prime Minister of France.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.

ROUVIER, Maurice: Agreement with Germany for the Conference at Algeciras.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.

ROUVIER, Maurice: Fall of his Ministry.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906.

ROWE, Dr. L. S.: Delegate to Third International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

ROZHDESTVENSKY, ROJESVENSKY, ADMIRAL.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).

RUEF, ABRAHAM.

See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: SAN FRANCISCO.

RUNCIMAN, Mr.: President of the English Board of Education. Statements.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.

----------RUSSIA: Start--------

RUSSIA: A. D. 1870-1905. Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.

See (in this Volume) [Other countries or regions]: A. D. 1870-1905.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1901 (July). Russianizing of the Finnish Army. Autocratic Violation of the Constitution of Finland.

See (in this Volume) FINLAND: A. D. 1901.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904. Persistent Occupation of Manchuria, despite Treaty with China. Japanese Complaints and Demands.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904, CHINA: A. D. 1901-1902.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904. The Disaffection among the Students of the Universities. Famine in Eastern Districts, and Industrial Depression in the Cities. Assassination of Sipiagin. Advent of Plehve to Power. Atrocities of his Administration. Witte, Minister of Finance. Assassination of Plehve.

In Volume VI. of this work, which went to press in the spring of 1901, the record of events in Russia was brought down to March and April of that year. The revolutionary temper, then rapidly rising in heat throughout the Empire, found its most active manifestation among the students of the universities, whose outbreaks of disaffection were punished mercilessly, by Siberian exile, by draft into the army, or more summarily by the Cossacks’ knout. The Tsar, however, had seemed at last to recognize the special grievances of the students and to wish to have remedies found for them. To succeed M. Bogoliepoff, the late Minister of Instruction, whom a student had shot on the 27th of February, the Tsar appointed to that office a General Vannovsky, who was credited with having a clear and sympathetic understanding of the wrongs to the student body which provoked their disorderly conduct. It was believed, too, that full powers had been given to him for reforming the government of the universities. But, whatever may have been the excellence of disposition in General Vannovsky and in the Tsar, the projected reforms were so obstructed, in some manner, that the students became more and more openly revolutionary in their action, and the new minister resigned in the second year of his endeavors.

A number of immediate causes of misery in the Empire were now added to the many causes which a despotic and corrupt government kept always in operation. Harvests in large parts of Eastern Russia had failed, bringing the horrors of famine on some 24,000,000 people. Simultaneously with this, an industrial crisis came, to close great numbers of factories and shops and to create a vast army of the unemployed. M. Witte, as Minister of Finance, had been extraordinarily skilful and successful in developing new industries in Russia; but had done so by measures of unnatural stimulation which had this unfortunate result. High tariffs for the protection of home manufactures from foreign competition, and the offer of attractive inducements to foreign capital, had brought about many investments which proved to be unprofitable, and the time had come, as happens always and everywhere in such cases, when the unsound structure of productive enterprise must collapse. Thus the country, having all of its industrial centers filled with suffering unemployed workmen and many of its rural districts filled with starving peasants, was a field most perfectly prepared for the seed of insurgent passion which countless agents were now busied in sowing.

Students and workmen became associated in flagrant revolutionary demonstrations, flaunting the red flag of rebellion and singing seditious songs, at St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kieff, Kharkoff, Odessa, and other cities, fighting vain battles with savage Cossacks and police. To excite the peasantry to action, a forged ukase was circulated among them, in the districts of Poltava and Kharkoff, announcing that the land, held wrongly by the nobles, had been restored to them by the Tsar; that they could take possession of it, and, with it, the present contents of granaries and barns. They proceeded accordingly to strip many estates (see below, Russia: A. D. 1902), and suffered piteously from the soldiery that came in haste to stop their deluded work. It was at this time that M. Witte set on foot an extensive inquiry into agricultural conditions, the important political outcome of which will be spoken of later on.

On the 15th of April, 1902, the Minister of the Interior, M. Sipiagin, was killed by a student named Belmatcheff. This murderous exploit of the revolutionary terrorists brought a man into power who gave Russia an experience in the next two years, of heartlessness and foulness in despotism which surpassed all that it had known before.

{564}

"Sipiagin, when Minister of the Interior, had already brought matters so far by his reactionary policy of violence that the news of his assassination at the hands of Belmatcheff was received with unmixed joy in all classes of Russian society. But the fullest proof of the irreconcilableness of autocracy with things like improvement and progress was furnished by the successor of Sipiagin, Von Plehve, who soon proved himself to be the complete personification of all evil, heartlessness, and corruption. … The attention of the highest circles was drawn to his person when, after the assassination of Alexander II., he conducted the prosecution at the arraignment of the participators in the deed. Later, on being appointed State Secretary, he was able, by his persistent zeal in the service of the reaction, to place himself on a good footing with those in power, particularly with the Procurator of the Holy Synod, Pobiedonostseff, who, when the policy of destroying the Finnish constitution was determined upon, found a good tool in Von Plehve. In the anti-Finn _coup d’état_ he played a considerable part, particularly as member of the secret committee which drafted the plan for the Russification of the Finnish Grand Duchy, and drew up the manifesto; while, still later, as Secretary for Finland, together with the then Governor-General Bobrikoff, he conducted and carried out the well-known policy of suppression.

"As Minister of the Interior, Von Plehve lost no time in showing what policy he intended to follow, as he declared the general dissatisfaction in Russia to be solely the result of the conspiracy and machinations of a handful of evil disposed persons, who could easily be rendered incapable of harm if only the police were sufficiently strengthened and received extensive powers. … The Minister came into conflict, shortly after his appointment, with a number of his colleagues, especially with the Finance Minister, De Witte, who had previously been practically omnipotent, and with the Minister of Justice, Muravieff. The difference with the latter hinged on the question of the treatment of 'political criminals,' the trials of whom Von Plehve wished to allocate to a special court-martial, the proceedings being conducted with closed doors, whilst the Minister of Justice required a public trial before the ordinary courts. The Tsar, as usual, followed the most reactionary counsel. … Of deeper significance and more far-reaching effects was the conflict with the Finance Minister, who, indeed was far more menacing to Von Plehve’s exalted position. Without being imbued with really liberal views, but being possessed of intelligence and a clear view as regards all social phenomena, De Witte, doubtless one of the most able statesmen Russia has possessed in recent times, recognized that, if matters in the Empire continued much longer in the same way, a catastrophe was unavoidable. …

"De Witte obtained the consent of the Tsar to the formation of committees, in the different parts of the country, consisting of representatives of agriculture, and including both large estate owners and men of the people, to whom was allotted the task of declaring their views as to the cause of the decline of Russian agriculture, and of indicating steps for the improvement of agricultural conditions. De Witte himself urged the committees to express themselves freely and openly as to the causes of the prevailing misery, and as to the means of remedying it. But in all probability he hardly expected that these utterances would go so far in their openness as they really did. Quite a number of committees were perspicacious enough to deal not merely with the economical, but likewise with the general political position, though recognising that the former was very closely connected with the latter. In this way the ice was broken. One committee after the other criticised the existing system of government with astonishing boldness, and required an unconditional and radical change therein. … it was the representatives of the _zemtsvo_ assemblies who played the chief part in the agricultural committees, and consequently hopes began to be cherished more or less everywhere that these assemblies would now receive amplified rights, and that in this way the basis would be laid for the future and for the constitution dreamt of by all. Such hopes were, however, not to the taste of Von Plehve, the new Minister of the Interior. … Finally they [the committees] were dissolved, without having achieved any other result than a number of reports which had been drawn up by them, and which ended by being pigeon-holed in one record office or the other. Von Plehve had conquered the Finance Minister. But his success was a Pyrrhic victory. At one stroke he converted a large number of liberal friends of reform into radical adherents of the emancipation movement, while to all others who had followed the proceedings of the agricultural committees with interest and expectancy he brought home a clear apprehension of the fact that a régime, under which the will or the whim of an irresponsible official could bring to naught plans having for their object the amendment of the conditions of life of many millions of people, could never contribute to the promotion of national development. Similar fruits were borne by Von Plehve’s policy in many other directions. …

"Never have the police been so numerous or so powerful as under Von Plehve’s regime; never were such trifling causes sufficient to deprive both sexes of citizens of their liberty, to expose them to ill-treatment, and to send them into exile. But never, on the other hand, have such means proved to be more powerless. … The so-called ‘Organisation of the Struggle,’ the same that had slain the previous Minister of the Interior, Sipiagin, also sentenced to death the Governor of Ulfa, Bogdanovitch. … At last Von Plehve, too, was overtaken by his fate. On the 28th of July, 1904, a member of the ‘Organisation of the Struggle’ threw a bomb into the carriage of the Minister as he was driving towards the Warsaw railway station in St. Petersburg, on his way to an audience with the Tsar. He was killed instantaneously; while the assassin, Sasonov, and a second terrorist, Sickocki, who had lent him assistance, were arrested and condemned to twenty and eleven years respectively of penal servitude."

_K. Zilliacus, The Russian Revolutionary Movement,