d. 250 to 500 kilograms

(550 to 1,110 pounds) 14.28 9.52 4.76

e. 500 to 1,000 kilograms (1,110 to 2,220 pounds) 9.52 5.95 3.57

f. 1,000 kilograms and over 4.76 3.57 1.19

(a) Free from August 1 to February 14.

(b) According to weight.

"It needs but a glance at this list," said Consul-General Mason, "to show how important will be the concessions granted to one or more of the seven treaty nations, and how formidable will be their competition in the German market against similar goods coming from countries which, for want of a reciprocal treaty or other convention, will be subject to the autonomous or unmodified tariff in exporting goods into Germany."

On the 1st day of March, 1906, this tariff came into effect, and the tariff arrangements of Germany with the United States, under which the latter had enjoyed important concessions, secured by the "most favored nation" agreement in its commercial treaty with Germany, came to an end.

TARIFFS: A. D. 1909. Economic Results of the Protective System.

See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1009 (APRIL).

TARIFFS: Great Britain: A. D. 1909. List of articles on which Import Duties are collected.

The following is a complete list of the articles enumerated in the British tariff as subject to import duties:

Beer; Cards, Playing; Chicory; Cocoa; Coffee; Fruit, dried or otherwise preserved without sugar; Spirits and Strong Waters (including all alcoholic liquors, cordials and other alcoholic preparations); Sugar (including all confectionery, sugar-preserved fruits, and other sugared preparations); Tea; Tobacco, in all forms; Wine.

TARIFFS: A. D. 1909. Question of Preferential Trade raised by Mr. Chamberlain.

See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

TARIFFS: The United States: A. D. 1908-1909. The Demand for Tariff Revision. Its Expression in the Presidential Election. The Action of Congress and the President. The Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act.

For more than a decade prior to the presidential election of 1908 the popular demand for a revision of the exorbitantly protective duties imposed by the so-called Dingley Tariff of 1897 had been steadily rising in the United States, and making itself heard by men in public life. It had penetrated the mind of the great captain-general of the protectionist forces. {641} President McKinley, as early as 1901, and his last public utterance, addressed to a multitude at the Pan American Exposition, in Buffalo, on the 5th of September, the day before he was struck down by a murderous anarchist, contained this wise admonition on the subject:

"We have a vast and intricate business, built up through years of toil and struggle, in which every part of the country has its stake, which will not permit of either neglect or of undue selfishness. No narrow, sordid policy will subserve it. The greatest skill and wisdom on the part of manufacturers and producers will be required to hold and increase it. … Our capacity to produce has developed so enormously, and our products have so multiplied, that the problem of more markets requires our urgent and immediate attention. Only a broad and enlightened policy will keep what we have. No other policy will get more. … We must not repose in fancied security that we can forever sell everything and buy little or nothing. If such a thing were possible, it would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. We should take from our customers such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor. Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established. What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad. … If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?"

TARIFFS: The Party-Platform Promises of 1908.

But President McKinley’s words fell on deaf ears, among those to whom he had been leader and guide in this department of economic policy hitherto. They gave no heed to his new counsels of moderation for seven years. Even treaties of commercial reciprocity, which he had learned to appreciate since his own tariff-making was done, were negotiated in vain by the executive department of Government, to be scorned and rejected by the Senate. By 1908, however, the claim of the many-millioned consumers of the nation, for some relief from the intolerable cost to which almost every necessary of living had been worked up by the protective tariff lever, had risen to a pitch which compelled some attention from the managers of political parties and drew from them promises in the "platforms" prepared for the presidential and congressional canvassing of that year.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908, APRIL-NOVEMBER)

The National Republican Convention at Chicago, which nominated Mr. Taft for the presidency, made this distinct and emphatic pledge:

"The Republican party declares unequivocally for a revision of the tariff by a special session of Congress, immediately following the inauguration of the next President, and commends the steps already taken to this end, in the work assigned to the appropriate committees of Congress, which are now investigating the operation and effect of existing schedules. In all tariff legislation the true principle of protection is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries. We favor the establishment of maximum and minimum rates to be administered by the President under limitations to be fixed in the law, the maximum to be available to meet discriminations by foreign countries against American goods entering their markets, and the minimum to represent the normal measure of protection at home."

The National Convention, at Denver, of the Democratic party, supposedly confirmed in opposition to the whole theory of tariff protection by all its doctrinal history, made this declaration:

"We favor immediate revision of the tariff by the reduction of import duties. Articles entering into competition with trust-controlled products should be placed upon the free list, and material reductions should be made in the tariff upon the necessaries of life, especially upon articles competing with such American manufactures as are sold abroad more cheaply than at home, and graduated reductions should be made in such other schedules as may be necessary to restore the tariff to a revenue basis."

The Republican Party elected its candidate for the presidency, with a majority in Congress, and was given the greater opportunity to redeem its pledge, while the Democratic Party obtained sufficient representation in both branches of Congress to aid and influence the promised revision with important effect. President Taft, in his inaugural address, spoke impressively of the urgent duty thus laid on Congress, saying:

"A matter of most pressing importance is the revision of the tariff. In accordance with the promises of the platform upon which I was elected, I shall call Congress into extra session, to meet on the fifteenth day of March, in order that consideration may be at once given to a bill revising the Dingley act."

TARIFFS: The Making of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff.

The new Congress, as called by the President, was convened on the 15th of March, 1909, and a provisional tariff bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 18th by Chairman Payne of its Ways and Means Committee. This Bill was a product of the work of the House Committee of the preceding Congress, which had been giving hearings on successive tariff schedules since November. Naturally the protected interests swarmed to Washington, with attorneys and technical experts, and their side of every argument for and against existing duties was heard in its most persuasive form. Naturally, too, the unprotected consumers, less able to combine, were represented at the hearings in no such potent way, and their side of most arguments, according to all accounts, was but feebly pressed. Mr. Charles Francis Adams, who has the habit of plain speech, wrote a letter to Congressman McCall, of Massachusetts, while these hearings were in progress, in which he characterized a conspicuously greedy part of the clamorers for high duties in terms that were savagely rough, but not entirely undeserved. "Speaking after the fashion of men," he said, "they are either thieves or hogs. I myself belong to the former class. I am a tariff thief, and I have a license to steal. It bears the broad seal of the United States and is what is known as the ‘Dingley Tariff.’ I stole under it yesterday; I am stealing under it today; I propose to steal under it to-morrow. {642} The Government has forced me into this position, and I both do and shall take full advantage of it. I am therefore a tariff thief with a license to steal. And—what are you going to do about it? The other class come under the hog category; that is, they rush, squealing and struggling, to the great Washington protection trough, and with all four feet in it they proceed to gobble the swill. … To this class I do not belong. I am simply a tariff thief. … But, on the other hand, I am also a tariff reformer. I would like to see every protective schedule swept out of existence, my own included. Meanwhile, what inducement have I to go to Washington on a public mission of this sort? A mere citizen, I represent no one. … Meanwhile, have it well understood that my position is exactly the position of tens of thousands of others scattered throughout the country; to ask us to put aside our business affairs and at our own expense to go to Washington on a desperate mission is asking a little too much."

The Bill introduced by Mr. Payne was under debate in the House for three weeks, and passed on the 10th of April. In the Senate it was then nominally taken into consideration by the Finance Committee of that body, but that Committee, in fact, under the dominating lead of its chairman, Senator Aldrich, framed a new and protectively stiffened Bill, changed in 847 particulars from that of the House. A little more than twelve weeks were required for this more arduous labor of Mr. Aldrich, which the Senate approved by the passage of the Bill on the 8th of July. On the 9th it went to a conference committee of the two Houses; and there the President’s influence, not much exerted, apparently, until now, wrung a few important concessions to the great public of consumers, which the special interests guarded by a majority in Congress had been determined not to yield. The American people owe it to President Taft’s insistence that their shoes may be cheapened by a free importation of hides, and that lumber for their houses and coal for warming them may come from Canada at a slightly lower rate of duty than before; but he failed to loosen the grip of the woolen and cotton interests on the protected prices at which they are clothed.

After twenty days of battle the conferees reached agreement, July 29; the House adopted their report on the 31st, the Senate on the 5th of August. It was signed at once by the President, and went into effect the next day.

In the House the Bill was adopted by a vote of 195 to 183, twenty Republicans voting against it and two Democrats in its favor. In the Senate the vote stood 47 to 31, the negative including seven Republicans, and one Democratic senator recording himself on the side of the Bill. The opposing Republicans in both Houses were stigmatized as "insurgents," and the autocratic Speaker of the House, Cannon, of Illinois, presumed, so far as the powers of his office would stretch, to "read them out" of their party. In their struggle to secure a more honest fulfilment of the election promises of both parties, and more loyalty to the welfare of the people at large, the Republican "insurgents" had no such compact and earnest support from the Democrats of Congress as even party considerations gave reason to expect.

After signing the Bill, the President gave out a statement for publication, in part as follows:

"I have signed the Payne tariff bill because I believe it to be the result of a sincere effort on the part of the Republican party to make a downward revision, and to comply with the promises of the platform as they have been generally understood, and as I interpreted them in the campaign before election.

"The bill is not a perfect tariff bill or a complete compliance with the promises made, strictly interpreted, but a fulfilment free from criticism in respect to a subject matter involving many schedules and thousands of articles could not be expected. It suffices to say that, except with regard to whiskey, liquors, and wines, and in regard to silks and as to some high classes of cottons—all of which may be treated as luxuries and proper subjects of a revenue tariff—there have been very few increases in rates.

"There have been a great number of real decreases in rates, and they constitute a sufficient amount to justify the statement that this bill is a substantial downward revision, and a reduction of excessive rates.

"This is not a free trade bill. It was not intended to be. The Republican party did not promise to make a free trade bill.

"It promised to make the rates protective, but to reduce them when they exceeded the difference between the cost of production abroad and here, making allowance for the greater normal profit on active investments here. I believe that while this excess has not been reduced in a number of cases, in a great majority, the rates are such as are necessary to protect American industries, but are low enough, in case of abnormal increase of demand, and raising of prices, to permit the possibility of the importation of the foreign article, and thus to prevent excessive prices."

"The administrative clauses of the bill and the customs court are admirably adapted to secure a more uniform and a more speedy final construction of the meaning of the law. The authority to the President to use agents to assist him in the application of the maximum and minimum section of the statute, and to enable officials to administer the law, gives a wide latitude for the acquisition, under circumstances favorable to its truth, of information in respect to the price and cost of production of goods at home and abroad, which will throw much light on the operation of the present tariff and be of primary importance as officially collected data upon which future executive action and executive recommendations may be based.

"The corporation tax is a just and equitable excise measure, which it is hoped will produce a sufficient amount to prevent a deficit, and which, incidentally, will secure valuable statistics and information concerning the many corporations of the country, and will constitute an important step toward that degree of publicity and regulation which the tendency in corporate enterprises in the last twenty years has shown to be necessary."

{643}

TARIFFS: New Apparatus of Tariff Administration.

The President’s remarks in the next to the last paragraph of the above statement have reference to an important section of the Tariff Act, which authorized the creation of a Board of General Appraisers, a Customs Court of Appeals, and an agency for the collection of information. The Board is to consist of nine general appraisers of merchandise, the salary of each to be $9,000 per annum, who shall possess all the powers of a Circuit Court of the United States. To these general appraisers all cases of dissatisfaction with the amount and rates of duties levied by the appraisers and assistant appraisers at the various ports would be referred; the board to exercise both judicial and inquisitorial functions. The Customs Court was to be composed of a presiding Judge and four associate Judges appointed by the President, each to receive a salary of $10,000 per annum; to be a Court of Record, with jurisdiction limited to Customs cases, and to have several judicial circuits, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, New Orleans and Galveston, Chicago, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco, and such other places as may be found necessary.

More important, however, than either of these creations was the third one, embodied in a brief clause of the Act, which reads:

"To secure information to assist the President in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by this section, and the officers of the Government in the administration of the customs laws, the President is hereby authorized to employ such persons as may be required."

The President availed himself promptly of this permission to have assistance from a commission or bureau of tariff information, and on the 11th of September it was announced that he had chosen for the service three well-qualified gentlemen, namely: Professor Henry C. Emery, of Yale, chairman; James B. Reynolds, of Massachusetts, assistant secretary of the treasury, and Alvin H. Sanders, of Chicago, editor and proprietor of the Breeders’ Gazette. In announcing the selection of the board, the following statement was made at the Executive Offices: "The President and the secretary of the treasury have agreed upon the plan that these three gentlemen are to constitute the board and are to be given authority to employ such special experts as may be needed in the investigation of the foreign and domestic tariff."

The important direction that was given at once by President Taft to this Tariff Board, as he has named it, was explained in his Message to Congress, December 6, 1909, as follows:

"An examination of the law and an understanding of the nature of the facts which should be considered in discharging the functions imposed upon the Executive show that I have the power to direct the tariff board to make a comprehensive glossary and encylopædia of the terms used and articles embraced in the tariff law, and to secure information as to the cost of production of such goods in this country and the cost of their production in foreign countries. I have therefore appointed a tariff board consisting of three members, and have directed them to perform all the duties above described. This work will perhaps take two or three years, and I ask from Congress a continuing annual appropriation equal to that already made for its prosecution. I believe that the work of this board will be of prime utility and importance whenever Congress shall deem it wise again to readjust the customs duties. If the facts secured by the tariff board are of such a character as to show generally that the rates of duties imposed by the present tariff law are excessive under the principles of protection as described in the platform of the successful party at the late election, I shall not hesitate to invite the attention of Congress to this fact, and to the necessity for action predicated thereon. Nothing, however, halts business and interferes with the course of prosperity so much as the threatened revision of the tariff, and until the facts are at hand, after careful and deliberate investigation, upon which such revision can properly be undertaken, it seems to me unwise to attempt it. The amount of misinformation that creeps into arguments pro and con in respect to tariff rates is such as to require the kind of investigation that I have directed the tariff board to make, an investigation undertaken by it wholly without respect to the effect which the facts may have in calling for a readjustment of the rates of duty."

TARIFFS: The Corporation Tax.

The Corporation Tax mentioned in the final paragraph of the President’s statement is one imposed by an incongruous section of the Tariff Act, designed for revenue additional to the expected yield of import duties. It exacts one per cent. of the net earnings in excess of $5000 of all corporations, joint stock companies, and associations organized for profit and having a capital stock represented by shares, and all insurance companies. Foreign corporations are liable for the tax to the extent of their business in the United States. The net income upon which the tax is paid is to be ascertained by deducting from the gross income of the corporation all ordinary and necessary expenses of operation and maintenance; all uncompensated losses actually paid within the year on its bonded or other indebtedness not exceeding the paid-up capital stock; all Federal and State taxes already paid and all amounts received by it as dividends upon stock of other corporations subject to the tax hereby imposed.

Holding corporations were exempted in the original Bill. That exemption was struck out, but the Conference Committee adopted the original clause. Corporations exempted from the tax are:—Labour organizations, fraternal beneficiary societies, orders or associations operating under the lodge system, and providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, and other benefits to their members and dependents; domestic building and loan associations organized and operated exclusively for the mutual benefit of their members, and any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes, no part of the profits of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder, or individual, but all the profit of which is in good faith devoted to these purposes.

TARIFFS: Two Opposite Views of the new Tariff.

The Payne-Aldrich Tariff has been and will long be a subject of bitterly contentious discussion, from opposite standpoints of disgusted disappointment and happy satisfaction, before a large indifferent audience, which takes such legislation as belonging to an established order of conditions in the United States. For a fair presentation of the conflicting judgments, two carefully chosen reviews of the Act, from the two points of view, by unquestionably representative writers, are quoted below. The first is from President Woodrow Wilson, of Princeton University, as follows:

{644}

"The methods by which tariff bills are constructed have now become all too familiar and throw a significant light on the character of the legislation involved. Debate in the Houses has little or nothing to do with it. The process by which such a bill is made is private, not public; because the reasons which underlie many of the rates imposed are private. The stronger faction of the Ways and Means Committee of the House makes up the preliminary bill, with the assistance of ‘experts’ whom it permits the industries most concerned to supply for its guidance. The controlling members of the Committee also determine what amendments, if any, shall be accepted, either from the minority faction of the Committee or from the House itself. It permits itself to be dictated to, if at all, only by the imperative action of a party caucus. The stronger faction of the Finance Committee of the Senate, in like fashion, frames the bill which it intends to substitute for the one sent up from the House. It is often to be found at work on it before any bill reaches it from the popular chamber. The compromise between the two measures is arranged in private conference by conferees drawn from the two committees. What takes place in the committees and in the conference is confidential. It is considered impertinent for reporters to inquire. It is admitted to be the business of the manufacturers concerned, but not the business of the public, who are to pay the rates. The debates which the country is invited to hear in the open sessions of the Houses are merely formal. They determine nothing and disclose very little. …

"One extraordinary circumstance of the debates in the Senate should receive more than a passing allusion. The Republican party platform had promised that the tariff rates should be revised and that the standard of revision should be the differences between the cost of producing the various articles affected in this country and in the countries with which our manufacturers compete. One of our chief industrial competitors is now Germany, with its extraordinary skill in manufacture and the handicrafts and its formidable sagacity in foreign trade; and the Department of State, in order to enable Congress the more intelligently to fulfil the promises of the party, had, at the suggestion of the President, requested the German Government to furnish it with as full information as possible about the rates of wages paid in the leading industries of that country,—wages being known, of course, to be one of the largest items in the cost of production. The German Government of course complied, with its usual courtesy and thoroughness, transmitting an interesting report, each portion of which was properly authenticated and vouched for. The Department of State placed it at the disposal of the Finance Committee of the Senate. But Senators tried in vain to ascertain what it contained. Mr. Aldrich spoke of it contemptuously as ‘anonymous,’ which of course it was not, as ‘unofficial,’ and even as an impertinent attempt, on the part of the German Government, to influence our tariff legislation. It was only too plain that the contents of the report made the members of the controlling faction of the Finance Committee very uncomfortable indeed. … It would have proved that the leaders of the party were deliberately breaking its promise to the country. It was, therefore, thrown into a pigeonhole and disregarded. It was a private document.

"In pursuance of the same policy of secrecy and private management, the bill was filled with what those who discovered them were good-natured or cynical enough to call ‘jokers,’ —clauses whose meaning did not lie upon the surface, whose language was meant not to disclose its meaning to the members of the Houses who were to be asked to enact them into law, but only to those by whom the law was to be administered after its enactment. This was one of the uses to which the ‘experts’ were put whom the committees encouraged to advise them. They knew the technical words under which meanings could be hidden, or the apparently harmless words which had a chance to go unnoted or unchallenged. Electric carbons had been taxed at ninety cents per hundred; the new bill taxed them at seventy cents per hundred _feet_;—an apparent reduction if the word feet went unchallenged. It came very near escaping the attention of the Senate, and did quite escape the attention of the general public, who paid no attention at all to the debates, that the addition of the word feet almost doubled the existing duty.

"The hugest practical joke of the whole bill lay in the so-called maximum and minimum clause. The schedules as they were detailed in the bill and presented to the country, through the committees and the newspapers,—the schedules by which it was made believe that the promise to the country of a ‘downward’ revision was being kept by those responsible for the bill, were only the minimum schedules. There lay at the back of the measure a maximum provision about which very little was said, but the weight of which the country may come to feel as a very serious and vexatious burden in the months to come. In the case of articles imported from countries whose tariff arrangements discriminate against the United States, the duties are to be put at a maximum which is virtually prohibitive. The clause is a huge threat. Self-respecting countries do not yield to threats or to ‘ impertinent efforts on the part of other Governments, to affect their tariff legislation.’ Where the threat is not heeded we shall pay heavier duties than ever, heavier duties than any previous Congress ever dared impose.

"When it is added that not the least attempt was made to alter the duties on sugar by which every table in the country is taxed for the benefit of the Sugar Trust, but just now convicted of criminal practices in defrauding the Government in this very matter; that increased rates were laid on certain classes of cotton goods for the benefit, chiefly, of the manufacturers of New England, from which the dominant party always counts upon getting votes, and that the demand of the South, from which it does not expect to get them, for free cotton bagging was ignored; that the rates on wool and woollen goods, a tax which falls directly upon the clothing of the whole population of the country, were maintained unaltered; and that relief was granted at only one or two points,—by conceding free hides and almost free iron ore, for example,—upon which public opinion had been long and anxiously concentrated; and granted only at the last moment upon the earnest solicitation of the President,—nothing more need be said to demonstrate the insincerity, the uncandid, designing, unpatriotic character of the whole process. It was not intended for the public good. It was intended for the benefit of the interests most directly and selfishly concerned."

_Woodrow Wilson, The Tariff Make-Believe (North American Review, October, 1909)._

{645}

The second quotation is from an article in _The Atlantic Monthly_, by Honorable Samuel W. McCall, Congressman from Massachusetts, setting forth reasons for a moderate satisfaction with the Act:

"The certain method of determining just what the Payne Act does, is, as I have said, to take its paragraphs in detail and scrutinize the new duties in comparison with those which they have supplanted. Such a course will show the exact character and number of the increases and decreases. Those who have no other means of comparison at hand may safely take the table prepared by the Honorable Champ Clark of Missouri, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, and produced by him July 31 last, in his speech in the House of Representatives against the Conference Report on the bill. It is true that in commenting upon it he showed that he was a trifle rusty on his Cobden, and made the amount of actual revenue the test,—a method only less weird than that based upon the average ad valorem, for it is demonstrable that a purely free-trade tariff after the British model would provide us a greater revenue than does the Payne Act. While the table given by Mr. Clark exaggerates in some cases the extent of the increases, it will clearly appear from it that on the whole the decreases so vastly outnumber the increases as to make the new law seem almost revolutionary in character. If one takes the schedules in their order, he will find in the first schedule, which relates to chemicals, that the increases are a bare half-dozen in number, and include fancy soaps and alkaloids of opium and cocaine, while the decreases are more than fifty, and include many of the articles which are in general consumption, such as sulphur, various forms of soda, potash, lead, and sulphate of ammonia, the last of which is put on the free list.

"The second schedule shows a slight increase upon the smaller sizes of plate glass, and this increase is many times offset by decreases upon fire and other brick, gypsum, various kinds of window-glass, nearly all the grades of marble, and other important articles.

"In the metal schedule there is an increase in fabricated structural steel, zinc ore, and a very few other items, some of which relate to articles not manufactured when the Dingley law was passed; but, on the other hand, the basic article of iron ore is reduced from forty to fifteen cents per ton, the lowest ad valorem that it has had in the history of the country; pig iron is reduced from four dollars to two dollars and a half per ton, scrap iron and steel from four dollars to one dollar per ton, bar iron from six-tenths to three-tenths of a cent a pound, cotton ties from five-tenths to three-tenths of a cent per pound, steel rails from seven dollars and eighty-four cents to three dollars and ninety-two cents per ton. There are nearly a hundred other reductions in the metal schedule: in fact, the reductions in this schedule are so general, and in some cases so drastic, that it may be said, practically, that these duties have been cut in two.

"The lumber schedule shows but two unimportant increases, while the schedule generally is cut nearly forty per cent. One grade of sawed boards is reduced from one dollar to fifty cents per thousand feet, and all other sawed lumber from two dollars to a dollar and a quarter per thousand. Fence posts are put on the free list. Dressed lumber, telephone poles, railroad ties, and other important products of wood, are very much reduced.

"Notwithstanding the attempt that is being made to create a sectional feeling in the West, the only schedule covering necessary articles in which increases predominate is the agricultural schedule. The duties are also increased upon champagnes and other wines, brandy, ale, beer, tobacco, silks, high-priced laces, and various other articles, which for want of a better term, are called luxuries.

"Bituminous coal is reduced from sixty-seven cents to forty-seven cents per ton, which with the exception of a very brief period, is in value the lowest duty we have ever imposed upon it.

"Agricultural implements are reduced, and a provision added admitting them free of duty from any country which admits our agricultural machinery free.

"Works of art more than twenty years old are put on the free list.

"Hides of cattle are put on the free list, and an enormous reduction made, not merely on all the products of these hides, but on nearly all articles of leather. Sole leather is cut from twenty to five per cent ad valorem, upper leather from twenty to seven and a half per cent, and boots and shoes from twenty-five to fifteen per cent, and, on important kinds, to ten per cent. … The two great textile schedules are practically unchanged. The wool duty is politically the most powerful of any in the tariff. The farmers of the country have been pretty thoroughly educated to the belief, whether rightly or wrongly, that the free-wool agitation, culminating in the tariff of 1894, was responsible for the slaughter of their flocks. Their representatives formed the strongest single element behind the passage of the Dingley law; and, in the session just ended, their strength was so great as to discourage any assault upon the wool duties. These duties range from forty to more than one hundred per cent of the value, and so long as they are maintained at such a high point it is idle to talk of any very material reduction on woolens or worsteds. The centre of the entire schedule is the duty upon wool. … Every duty in this schedule from top to bottom might have been cut ten per cent without trenching upon the necessary amount of protection.

"The Dingley duties upon cottons were greatly less than those in the woolen schedule. This was doubtless due to the fact that we are the great cotton-producing nation, and our manufacturers are at no disadvantage in raw material with any of their foreign competitors. … These duties are so complicated that it is difficult for one who is not an expert to understand them; but according to the best experts, they are, at least, no higher in the Payne Act than the Dingley duties were intended to be, and were interpreted to be for four years after the passage of the act."

{646}

The following is from an article in the _American Review of Reviews, September, 1909:_

"Summing up the changes made in the tariff as shown in the various Senate documents, the new act has increased the Dingley rates in 300 instances, while reducing them in 584 cases. The increases affect commodities imported in 1907 to the value of at least $105,844,201, while the reductions affect not more than $132,141,074 worth of imports. Four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of imports (on the basis of 1907) remain subject to the same duties as under the Dingley tariff. That is to say, 65 per cent of the total imports remain subject to the old rates, more than fifteen per cent of the total will be subject to higher duties, the average increase amounting to 31 per cent. over the Dingley rates; and less than 20 per cent. of the imports are to be subject to lower duties, the reduction being estimated about 23 per cent. below the Dingley rates. All of these figures greatly underestimate the increases of duty for the following reasons: First they do not take into account the numerous changes (nearly all increases of duty) due to classification, similar to the instances cited in the case of sawn wood, structural iron, and cotton cloth; second a large part of the imports subject to ad valorem duties will now be assessed on the basis of domestic prices instead of the prices in foreign markets (with due allowance for freight and duty), as has hitherto been the case; and, finally, the possibility, even if remote, of the application of maximum rates to imports from some of the foreign countries, which will amount on the average to an increase of more than 50 per cent. over the new rates. The real increase of duty will not be accurately known for a year, until we have full returns of the imports and duties actually levied under the new law under the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers and the new Customs Court."

TARIFFS: Certain Outside Effects.

As between the United States and France, the situation produced by the new Tariff Act, which caused existing commercial agreements between the two countries to be abrogated on the 31st of October, 1909, was explained as follows in a Press despatch of September 22 from Washington:

"The State Department has received from Consul-General Mason at Paris the text of the announcement by the French government of the abrogation of the several commercial agreements with the United States by the action of President Taft in conformity with the provisions of our new tariff act.

"‘Under and in consequence of these conditions,’ the French announcement says, ‘there is reason to decide that the decrees dated July 7, 1893, May 28, 1898, and February 21, 1903, which constitute the measure of the application of the Franco-American agreement for merchandise produced in the United States and the Island of Porto Rico shall cease to be enforced on October 31, 1909.’

"On that date the articles produced in the United States and exported to France will pay what is known in France as its general tariff, but which in effect is its maximum rates of duty. The principal articles of export from the United States under this agreement are mineral oils and coffee from Porto Rico. At the same time articles imported from France into the United States under these agreements will pay our regular or highest rate. These include canned meats, fresh and dried fruits, manufactured and prepared pork meats, lard, and a few other articles of less importance."

The effect of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act on trade between the United States and Canada was left an open question, dependent on a decision which President Taft must make on or before April 1, 1910. Section 2 of the Law expressly provides the President with power to treat "any dependency, colony, or other political subdivision having authority to adopt and enforce tariff legislation" as a separate fiscal entity. The question for the President to decide is whether Canada, by reason of her preferential treatment of the Mother Country or by reason of the commercial treaty which she is about to conclude with France, will be judged guilty of "undue discrimination" and unworthy of the _minimum_ rates.

Looked at from the English standpoint, it is thought that he "can hardly declare so natural a relationship as the existing British preference to be ‘unduly’ discriminatory when a similar relationship exists between Cuba and the United States, and when Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines actually enjoy reciprocal free trade with America and with America alone."

A more practical consideration in the matter, however, is that suggested in the following, from a Boston newspaper, which remarks:

"According to the Department of Commerce and Labor, there are now 147 branch factories in Canada, representing a capital of $125,000,000, established by United States concerns which formerly supplied their Canadian trade with the product of industry on this side the national border. This is the result of retaliatory legislation in Canada invited by our own tariff against Canadian imports. If further tariff war is invited by the imposition of the maximum schedules against Canada, still more United States capital will go over the line to provide employment and wages for Canadian workmen."

The _Monetary Times_, of Toronto, made an exhaustive inquiry on this subject late in 1909, and found 168 American manufacturing concerns in Canada, representing an estimated investment of $226,000,000.

The spirit in which President Taft will interpret the maximum and minimum clause of the Act, and exercise his discretion in applying it, was indicated by him in his Message to Congress, December 6, 1909, when he said: "By virtue of the clause known as the ‘Maximum and Minimum’ clause, it is the duty of the Executive to consider the laws and practices of other countries with reference to the importation into those countries of the products and merchandise of the United States, and if the Executive finds such laws and practices not to be _unduly discriminatory_ against the United States, the minimum duties provided in the bill are to go into force. Unless the President makes such a finding, then the maximum duties provided in the bill, that is, an increase of 25 per cent. ad valorem over the minimum duties, are to be in force. Fear has been expressed that this power conferred and duty imposed on the Executive is likely to lead to a tariff war. I beg to express the hope and belief that no such result need be anticipated.

{647}

"The discretion granted to the Executive by the terms ‘unduly discriminatory’ is wide. In order that the maximum duty shall be charged against the imports from a country, it is necessary that he shall find on the part of that country not only discrimination in its laws or the practice under them against the trade of the United States, but that the discriminations found shall be undue; that is, without good and fair reason. I conceive that this power was reposed in the President with the hope that the maximum duties might never be applied in any case, but that the power to apply them would enable the President and the State Department through friendly negotiation to secure the elimination from the laws and the practice under them of any foreign country of that which is unduly discriminatory. No one is seeking a tariff war or a condition in which the spirit of retaliation shall be aroused."

On the 19th of January, 1910, the President issued the first of his proclamations relative to the operation of the maximum and minimum rates of duty. Six countries, namely Great Britain, Russia, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey, were designated as entitled to the minimum rates. Negotiations with Germany and France were understood to be still in progress, which might, it was hoped, clear away the differences that obstructed a similar concession to those countries. In the case of Germany, the difficulty related to the exclusion of American meats.

A second proclamation, February 7, announced the conclusion of an agreement with Germany which gave to each country the minimum rates of the other. This agreement had been ratified by the Reichstag on the 5th.

Negotiations with France and with Canada occupied more time, being protracted in the latter case almost to the limit of the period prescribed in the Act. Terms of agreement were arrived at in both instances, and, in the end, the President was not called on to apply the maximum rates to any country.

----------TARIFFS: End--------

TARSUS: Moslem attack on Armenians.

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

TARTARS: Holy War against Armenians in the Caucasus.

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

TASHINCHIAO, Battle of.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN; A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

TAVERA, DR. T. H. PARDO DE.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901.

TAXATION: Graduated Taxation of Land.

See (in this Volume) NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1905.

TAXATION: Progressive Taxation of Fortunes.

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

TAYLOR, EDWARD R.

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

TEACHERS: English and American Interchange of Visits.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.

TEAMSTERS’ UNION: Strike at Chicago.

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

TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION.

TEHERAN: TEHRAN: Revolutionary events in.

See (in this Volume) PERSIA.

TELEGRAPHERS’ STRIKE: In France.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-MAY).

TELEGRAPHERS’ STRIKE: In Russia.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

TELEGRAPHERS’ STRIKE: In the United States.

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

TELEGRAPHY.

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

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH MERGER, United States.

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

TELISSU, Battle of.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

TELLES, Sebastião.

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

TEMPERANCE.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.

TENEMENT HOUSE REFORM.

See (in this Volume) NEW YORK: A. D. 1900-1903.

TERRITORIAL FORCE, THE BRITISH.

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

TEWFIK PASHA.

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

TEXAS: A. D. 1906-1909. Successful Prosecution of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &C.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.

THEOTOKIS MINISTRY.

See (in this Volume) GREECE: A. D. 1906, and 1909.

THIBET.

See TIBET.

THOMSON, Sir Joseph: Presidential Address to British Association for the Advancement of Science, at Winnipeg.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: RECENT: PHYSICAL.

THOMSON, J. J.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

TIBET: A. D. 1902. Russo-Chinese Treaty for Control of the Country.

"A Russo-Chinese treaty concerning Tibet was negotiated [in the later months of 1902] … by Yung-lu. And as it had to be notified to the Chief-Lamas of the different Buddhist countries, it became possible to obtain the confidential communication of its text immediately on its conclusion. This text, which I published a month ago in the _Frankfurter Zeitung_, and which has since been admitted as correct by Russian semi-official papers, runs as follows:

"Article 1st. Tibet being a territory situated between Central China and Western Siberia, Russia and China are mutually obliged to care for the maintenance of peace in that country. In case troubles should arise in Tibet, China, in order to preserve this district, and Russia, in order to protect her frontiers, shall despatch thither military forces on mutual notification.

{648}

"Article 2nd. In case of apprehension of a third Power’s contriving, directly or indirectly, troubles in Tibet, Russia and China oblige themselves to concur in taking such measures as may seem advisable for repressing such troubles.

"Article 3d. Entire liberty in what concerns Russian orthodox as well as Lamaist worship will be introduced in Tibet; but all other religious doctrines will be absolutely prohibited. For this purpose, the Grand-Lama and the Superintendent of the Orthodox Peking Mission are bound to proceed amicably and by mutual assent, so as to guarantee the free propagation of both religions and take all necessary measures for avoiding religious disputes.

"Article 4th. Tibet shall be made, gradually, a country with an independent inner administration. In order to accomplish this task, Russia and China are to share the work. Russia takes upon herself the reorganisation of the Tibetan military forces on the European model, and obliges herself to carry into effect this reform in a good spirit and without incurring blame from the native population. China, for her part, is to take care of the development of the economic situation of Tibet, and especially of her progress abroad."

_Alexander Ular, England, Russia, and Tibet (Contemporary Review, December, 1902)._

TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904. British Enforcement of Unfulfilled Promises. The Peaceful Mission of Colonel Younghusband which forced its way to Lhasa.

For a dozen years prior to 1902 there had been unfulfilled promises from China to India of a settlement of trade relations between Tibet and the latter, so far as the nominal suzerain at Peking had power to settle them. In that year the Chinese Government proposed to send a Commissioner to the Tibetan frontier to discuss matters there, and the Viceroy of India, assenting promptly to the proposal, commissioned Colonel Younghusband, in June, 1903, to proceed, with the British Political Officer in Sikkim, to Khamba Jong, for a meeting with Chinese and Tibetan representatives. The mission was escorted by 200 native troops, and reached the meeting place in July, but found no Chinese or Tibetan envoys on the spot. It remained encamped at the appointed place for six months or more, Colonel Younghusband returning personally meantime to Simla to report the situation and receive instructions. A reserve force was stationed in Sikkim to protect the mission in case of need.

Early in 1904 the mission moved forward, over the Tang Pass, to Tuna, where it halted again until the end of March, no envoys appearing, but many marks of hostility shown. Then, after being reinforced,—as the intention of Tibetans to oppose its further advance had become plain,—its march was resumed. Thrice attacked within the next few days and forced to severe fighting, it reached Gyangtse on the 11th of April, where it was halted again until near the end of June, in a camp established on the plain. There Colonel Younghusband received a communication from the Chinese Resident or Amban at Lhasa, promising to meet him in three weeks. This was followed immediately however by a fierce attack of the Tibetans on the British camp. The assault was repelled, but bombardment of the camp was opened from a neighboring fort. The Mission now abandoned attempts to maintain its peaceful character, and with approval of the governments behind it, both in India and Great Britain, prepared to force its way to Lhasa and extort fulfilment of the promises on the strength of which it had been sent. General Macdonald, who held the military command, brought up further reinforcements, and the expedition, now numbering about 1000 British and 2000 native troops, after capturing the fort at Gyangtse which had harassed it, set forth on its march to Lhasa July 14th. It met with slight resistance in the Karola Pass, across which a wall had been built; but otherwise it found little but the natural obstacles of the mountain country to overcome. Lhasa was reached, but not entered in force, on August 3d. The Dalai Lama had left the city, but had appointed an intelligent monk to act as regent in his place. With him and with the Chinese Amban Colonel Younghusband succeeded in negotiating the treaty desired, which was signed September 7th. As soon as possible thereafter the expedition started on its return, but suffered severely from the cold and snows of the mountains before India was reached. Its total death roll was 411, of which only 37 officers and men had died from battle-wounds.

By the treaty secured, the Tibetan Government was pledged to carry out former agreements concerning the marking of boundaries and the opening of trade at three marts; to arrange a fixed tariff; to maintain certain roads from the frontier; and to make no territorial, political, or commercial concession to any foreign Power without granting similar or equivalent concessions to Great Britain. It also undertook to pay an indemnity for the cost of the British expedition, pending the payment of which the Chumbi Valley should be held by a British force.

TIBET: A. D. 1907. Convention between Great Britain and Russia relative to Tibet.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).

TIBET: A. D. 1910. Chinese Authority strengthened in Tibet. Flight of the Dalai Lama. His formal Deposition.

The Dalai Lama, who had fled from Lhasa in 1904, on the approach of the British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband, did not return to Tibet until more than five years later. Meantime he had visited Peking, where he was coldly received, and seems to have wandered widely through the Empire. During his absence the Chinese authority in Tibet had been strengthened, and his return was followed by a considerable reinforcement of troops to support the Ambans who represent the Chinese Government at Lhasa. Exactly what friction arose then has not yet been made clear; but, in February, 1910, the Lama fled again from his capital, into India, and on the 25th he was solemnly deposed from his sacred office by an imperial decree.

TIEN-TSIN: Delivered to the Chinese Viceroy.

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

TIGER HILL.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

TILAK, BAL GANGADHAR: His Trial and Imprisonment.

See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908.

TIRPITZ, Admiral: On German Navy-building.

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

TISZA MINISTRY.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903; 1905-1906.

{649}

TITTONI MINISTRY.

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

TOBACCO FARMERS’ UNION, IN KENTUCKY: Its Night-Riders.

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

TOBACCO TRUST: Suit of the Government against it. Report of Commissioner of Corporations.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906; 1905-1906; 1907-1909; and 1909.

TOGO, Admiral: In the Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.

TOLSTOI, COUNT LYOFF: His Challenge to the Russian Government.

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

TOMUCHENG.

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

TORONTO: A. D. 1909. Meeting of International Council of Women.

See (in this Volume) WOMEN, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF.

TOWN-PLANNING LEGISLATION.

See (in this Volume) SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND; A. D. 1909.

TRADE BOARDS BILL, THE ENGLISH.

See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES REGULATION.

TRADE UNIONS. Disputes. Agreements:

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION.

TRANSANDINE RAILWAY TUNNEL.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: ARGENTINE-CHILE.

_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transandine_Railway_

TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, The Case of the.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1890-1902.

TRANSVAAL, THE.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA.

TREPOFF.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, THE: A. D. 1902. Renewal.

The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, originally negotiated in 1879, was renewed in June, 1902, for twelve years from May, 1903.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, THE: A. D. 1905. Effect of the Defeat of Russia in the War with Japan.

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

TROUBETZKOI, PRINCE S. N.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

TRUSTS.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.

TSAI-TSE, PRINCE: HIS MISSION ABROAD.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905-1908.

TSONTSHEFF, GENERAL: Operations in Macedonia.

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

TSUSHIMA, NAVAL BATTLE OF.

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

TUBERCULOSIS, THE CRUSADE AGAINST.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUNG FANG.

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

TURBINE ENGINE.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.

----------TURKEY: Start--------

TURKEY: A. D. 1901. The Bulgarian Committee which directs Revolutionary Operations in Macedonia. Its Instructions to the Bands and Control of their Murders.

"The Committee which was originally formed at Sofia for the purpose of conducting the nationalist campaign among the Macedonians has been the dominant factor in the later developments of the Macedonian problem, and is directly responsible for all the periodical outbreaks which students of Eastern politics have been accustomed to look for at the approach of spring during the last few years. The nature of this Society will be clearly appreciated from the following document, which sets forth in unequivocal terms both the Committee’s mission and the means resorted to for its fulfilment. This document was seized on the Bulgarian conspirators who in the spring of 1901 were arrested at Salonica, tried, sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration at Rhodes, and permitted to escape a few months after. I obtained a literal translation of it from an official source at the time …:

"‘Each armed band to consist of Bulgarians belonging to each particular district. Their duty is to carry out secretly the orders given by the president of the committee. The bands are armed with weapons furnished by the Committee. These bands are formed by the revolutionary committees of each district or village, and receive the military training necessary for their purpose. These bands depend on the committees, and in their turn distribute arms among those whom they enrol or gain over to the cause. … The armed bands are placed under the command of the local committees in accordance with the following rules:

"‘To obey received instructions. By means of persuasion or intimidation to place new recruits at the committees’ disposal. To put to death the persons indicated by the committees. … Each band, under the command of the revolutionary committee established in the district, to be ready to raise the standard of revolt on being so ordered by the local committee, which cannot act except by the order of the president of the Sofia committee. … The bands shall also commit political crimes: that is to say, they shall kill and put out of the way any person who will attempt to hinder them from attaining their ends, and shall immediately inform the Sofia committee of the crimes committed. The instructions of the bands must be kept quite secret, as the least indiscretion may lead to great disaster. … "Acts of personal vengeance, attacks on villages, and generally all kinds of unauthorised attempts to raise a revolution are strictly forbidden, and those who are guilty of such acts will be sentenced to death. No murder shall be committed by the bands without a previous decision taken by the committee, except those which are inevitable in an accidental encounter.’

"The reports of the action of the Committee in Macedonia during the last twelve months alone form a _dossier_ which leaves little doubt to the reader of average candour that the regulations printed above are not allowed to remain a dead letter, but that practice goes hand in hand with, or rather outstrips, precept. The exploits of the Committee and its brigands in the country may be classed under three heads: extortion, intimidation, provocation. …

{650}

"Cases of wanton massacre, though not so numerous as the atrocities committed with a material object in view, are not uncommon. The victims in these cases are generally Mohammedans. … The motive of these outrages is purely to provoke reprisals—that is, a general massacre—and then pose as the victims of Turkish cruelty and fanaticism, a cry which never fails to move the nations of Europe to sympathy and their Governments to intervention."

_G. F. Abbott, The Macedonian Question (Nineteenth Century, March, 1903)._

TURKEY: A. D. 1901-1902. Abduction of Miss Ellen M. Stone, by Brigands. The Ransom paid for her Release.

In a communication to the President of the United States, March 24, 1908, the Secretary of State, Mr. Root, recited the circumstances which attended the abduction by brigands, in 1901, of Miss Ellen M. Stone, an American missionary to Turkey, as she travelled the highway from Raslog to Djumabala in the Turkish Empire, and the necessary payment of a ransom to her captors, to secure her release. In the judgment of Mr. Root the Government should refund the ransom money to the citizens from whom it was obtained by subscription at the time, and his communication, as follows, was to that end:

"Our diplomatic and consular representatives in Turkey, in correspondence with the Department of State, shortly after the capture, indicated their belief that the motive therefor was to obtain a ransom, and stated that they had requested the Turkish officials to abstain from too close pursuit of the brigands, lest the death of the captured might result. From later correspondence with our representatives it appeared that the brigands had retired to the mountains with the captive, probably over the border into Bulgaria. The exact location of the party during the captivity, however, is not established by any evidence in the possession of the Department of State, nor does it appear clearly of what government the bandits were subjects.

"About October 1, 1901, the bandits opened negotiations for a ransom, demanding £25,000, and transmitting a letter from Miss Stone, asking that the sum demanded be paid and that pursuit of the brigands by the Turkish troops be stopped. Our diplomatic representatives were of the opinion that Miss Stone’s release could only be obtained by the payment of the ransom, and the State Department shared this view. Miss Stone’s friends, of course, entered into correspondence with the Department regarding the payment of the ransom, and were told that it must be raised by private means.

"On October 3, 1901, the State Department wrote to the Reverend Judson Smith, of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Boston, Massachusetts, as follows: ‘It seems imperative that the amount (of the ransom) should be raised or pledged, so as to be available by your treasurer at Constantinople in season to save Miss Stone. Statutory prohibitions make it impossible for this Government to advance the money or guarantee its payment. If paid by Miss Stone’s friends, every effort will be made to obtain reimbursement from whichever government may be found responsible under international law and precedent. In the event of its proving impossible to hold any foreign government responsible for the capture and to secure the repayment of the money, this Government is willing in the last resort to urge upon Congress as strongly as possible to appropriate money to repay the missionaries.’

"It is claimed that this assurance given by the Department in its letter to Mr. Smith, to the effect that, as a last resort, a recommendation would be made to Congress looking toward the appropriation of a sum sufficient to pay the donors, was largely instrumental in enabling Miss Stone’s friends to secure the sum of $66,000, which was raised through public subscription in this country by October 23, 1901, for the purpose of effecting Miss Stone’s release. After negotiations of considerable length, the brigands finally consented to accept the amount raised and arrangements were made by United States Minister Leishman for the payment of the money at a point near Bansko, Macedonia, the Turkish authorities consenting to withhold their troops from the vicinity of the place in order that the negotiations might have a successful issue. The release of the captive was not obtained so soon as expected, but was finally reported by Minister Leishman on February 23, 1902.

"After careful consideration of all the facts my predecessor, Mr. Hay, decided on January 19, 1905, that it was not advisable to attempt to hold the Turkish Government responsible for the capture and to secure the repayment of the money. Upon the subsequent application for reconsideration of this decision Mr. Hay again, on April 11, 1905, reaffirmed the judgment which he had originally expressed. Upon a further review of the same subject I have come to the conclusion that it is not advisable to reverse or change the conclusion which Mr. Hay reached.

"It would seem, therefore, that the Executive Department is bound to make good its promise to recommend to Congress that money be appropriated to repay the ransom money, a promise which was probably relied upon by many of those who contributed of their private means to save the life of an American citizen believed to be in the gravest peril. Accordingly I have the honor to advise that Congress be recommended to appropriate an amount sufficient to repay the contributors."

_60th Congress 1st Session, Senate Document No. 408._

TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903. Conventions for Building the Bagdad Railway.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.

TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903. Insurgent operations in Macedonia. Horrible Retaliatory Atrocities. Misery of the Macedonian Peasants. Contradictory Reports and Views of the Situation.

Insurgent operations in Macedonia were opened in the fall of 1902 and continued the following year, and into 1904. Besides an activity of insurgent bands and collisions with Turkish soldiery, there were many dynamite explosions, wrecking a bank at Salonica, blowing up a railway train, a passenger steamer, and other outrages of that kind. Then came confused and revolting accounts of a terrible retaliation by the Turks. According to Dr. Dillon, the monthly reviewer of "Foreign Politics" for _The Contemporary Review_, the substantial facts of what occurred were these:

{651}

"The insurrection in Macedonia planned by outsiders and fixed for last autumn [1902] proved abortive. The first shot should have been fired in August, but the members of the revolutionary agencies which organised the scheme quarrelled among themselves at the Congress held during that month in Sofia, and then split up into hostile factions. In the committee of one of these sections, General Tsontsheff occupied the foremost position, and he resolved on his own initiative to stir up the Macedonians to rebellion. Now it should be borne in mind that all these committees are composed of so-called outsiders—that is to say, mainly Macedonian refugees in Bulgaria, and that whether their aim be to get the provinces annexed to Bulgaria or Servia, or to demand simple autonomy, they meet with but little sympathy and less active support in Macedonia itself, where there is a very intelligent native organisation in favour of self-government. Tsontsheff was therefore left largely to his own resources. On the 23rd of September his adjutant, Nikoloff, crossed the frontier, but owing to the Shipka festivities, it was not until the 15th of October that Tsontsheff himself, who had meanwhile escaped from prison, took the field. The scene of action was the valley of the Struma, which a week later was wholly occupied by the Turks, and the insurrection, which had hardly even flashed, suddenly fizzled and went out. The natives warned by their own committee had generally held aloof. But there were people among them who, not content with holding back, resolved to act in the spirit of the admonitions vouchsafed to them by the Great Powers, and ordered the revolutionary bands to quit the country, and when the latter refused, actually drove them off with arms in their hands. …

"When the people had gone home the Turks came to search for arms. The peasants denied that they possessed any, and then the work of torture began. All who could, ran away, and, owing to the height of the mountain passes and the enormous snowdrifts, had to leave their wives and children behind. Before this calamity overtook the place, the district of Razlog had twelve hamlets and 3,665 Bulgarian houses containing about 25,000 inmates. Of these Madame Bakhmetieff, the American wife of the Russian minister in Sofia, counted 961 fugitives, besides some hundreds who found a refuge in the Peshtshersky district. The entire number of able-bodied men driven away from Razlog alone is about 1,500!

"In that loyal and well-conducted district there were fourteen churches with twenty-two priests; of the latter eight escaped to Bulgaria, one was killed, one arrested, and the fate of the remainder is unknown. According to the statement of the priest who, having made good his escape, found an asylum in the Principality, their churches were defiled and destroyed by the Turks. A considerable number of the remaining peasants are said to have perished on the way over the mountains. Over one-third, therefore, of the male population of the best behaved district of Macedonia has been thus forced to flee the country. …

"We have the authority of Madame Bakhmetieff—who travelled about in the deep snow with the thermometer at 22 Celsius below freezing point, to bring succour to the fugitives—for saying that two priests of the villages of Oranoff and Padesh were tortured in a manner which suggests the story of St. Lawrence’s death. They were not exactly laid on gridirons, but they were hung over a fire and burned with red hot irons. In the Djumaisk District six churches were destroyed, and the Church of St. Elias was turned into a stable, while the shrine dedicated to the same saint in Shelesnitza was converted into a water closet. The churches of Padesh, Troskoff and Serbinoff were razed to the ground; the school buildings in the Djumaisk District were used as barracks, and the teachers put in prison or obliged to flee. The horror of the situation is intensified, Madame Bakhmetieff says, by the fact that large numbers of fugitives have been driven back by the Turks into the interior southwards towards Seres, where their horrible sufferings and their miserable end will be hidden from all who might give them help or pity."

_E. J. Dillon, The Reign of Terror in Macedonia (Contemporary Review, March, 1903)._

Another view of the Macedonian situation is presented in the following, from another of the English reviews:

"The Macedonian problem is desperate mainly because it has been overlaid with abstractions. We talk of trouble in the Balkans, of insurgent excesses, and Turkish atrocities, without realising that these occasional and startling phenomena are the product of a misery that is as constant as it is uninteresting—and unbearable. We think of Turkish misrule as an isolated and irrational fact, without comprehending that it is a highly organised and quite intelligent system, designed to promote the profit of a small minority of officials, tax farmers, and landlords. It rests on a substantial basis of corrupt and anti-social interest. The political mismanagement is the least of all the evils it produces. The reality behind the whole muddle of racial conflicts, beyond the Chauvinism of the Balkan peoples and the calculations of the greater Powers, is the unregarded figure of the Macedonian peasant, harried, exploited, enslaved, careless of national programmes, and anxious only for a day when he may keep his warm sheepskin coat upon his back, marry his daughter without dishonour, and eat in peace the bread of his own unceasing labour. All our efforts might fail to bestow upon him an ideal government—there are not the makings of a harmonious nation in Macedonia. But politics are, after all, a mere fraction of life. While Servia earns the contempt of the civilised world, the Servian peasant sows in hope and reaps in peace, keeping for winter evenings the tale of murdered forbears and ravished ancestors. The Macedonian villager is ignorant. But his leaders have heard of a far-off England which twenty-five years ago flung them back under the heels of the Turk, after Russia had won their freedom at San Stefano. The tale runs that this same England then guaranteed them, at Berlin, the amplest of reforms. And thereupon these simple men will talk about their rights. It is for these they are fighting."

_H. N. Brailsford, The Macedonian Revolt (Fortnightly Review, September, 1903)._

{652}

And still a third view in this which follows:

"The Turks are honestly doing their best to administer justice indifferently. Again and again during my travels in Macedonia I have admired the energy of Valis and Kaimakams, who hold thankless posts with courage and determination. If the Albanians could be kept in order and Bulgarian anarchism could be suppressed, there would be no grievances in Macedonia to-day. The Albanians are turbulent sportsmen, engaging as individuals, but intolerable as neighbours. They must be made to understand that no further nonsense will be permitted. The Porte would be quite capable of reducing them to order if they had not a powerful protector at hand. The Porte could also reduce the Bulgarian conspirators if she did not fear to arouse prejudice in Europe. The echo of former Bulgarian ‘atrocities’ (as resolute government was dubbed), paralyses effective action. The Turks cannot punish Christian criminals so long as Exeter Hall is on the _qui vive_ to defend them. Give the Sultan a free hand, and the Macedonian conspiracy may be ended in a few weeks."

_Herbert Vivian, The Macedonian Conspiracy (Fortnightly Review, May, 1903)._

The British Government received the following representation of facts from its Minister to Bulgaria, Mr. Elliott, in a despatch dated May 19, 1903.

"There are some points which appear to me to be too frequently lost sight of in apportioning responsibilities for occurrences in Macedonia. In the first place, the term ‘Bulgarian’ is applied indiscriminately to subjects of the Principality and to Macedonians of Bulgarian race, and the former are made to bear the blame for the actions of the latter. In the same way, it appears to be believed that the ‘Bulgarian bands’ which make incursions into Macedonia from the territory of the Principality are composed of Bulgarian subjects, whereas the latter probably do not contribute more than 10 per cent, of the number of incursionists, the remainder being all Macedonians, of whom there are some 200,000 in the Principality."

The same Minister wrote from Sophia on the 1st of July: "All the reports received concur in stating that every Turkish official, civil and military, from Hilmi Pasha downwards, look to war as the only means of escape from a situation which is becoming intolerable. It is obvious that in such a war both sides would have much to lose and little material advantage to gain; but the Turks argue that if they could administer a crushing defeat to Bulgaria, of which they have no doubt, they would, even if they were afterwards obliged to withdraw, obtain some years’ peace in Macedonia, by the destruction of what they have been taught to believe, with some justification in the past, is the centre of disaffection, though the real cause of it is to be sought in their own maladministration. The Bulgarians, although believing that the conquest of Bulgaria would not prove the easy matter that the Turks seem to imagine, are, for the most part, under no illusions as to their ability to hold out single-handed against the Ottoman Empire; they are unprepared, and they have apparently been deserted by their protectors. They are, therefore, sincere in their desire to do everything to avoid a conflict. But it does not rest with them to avoid it. The Macedonian agitators will naturally do all they can to provoke a war. It is therefore of the most urgent importance that an attempt should be made by the Turkish Government to restore the conditions of life in Macedonia to something like their normal state. If the persecutions of the last few weeks continue, it will be impossible for the Government to restrain the Macedonians established in this country."

_Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 1875._

The condition of suffering in the region of country tormented by this inhuman strife is indicated by such despatches as the following, from the British Vice-Consul at Monastir, writing September 23, 1903:

"According to the best data actually available, the number of persons now wandering on the mountains homeless and destitute cannot be estimated at less than 40,000, while the number of Christians massacred may be safely put down at 3,000. Some of my colleagues, notably the Austrian, French, and Italian Consuls, have sent even higher figures to their embassies."

_Parliamentary Papers (Turkey, No. 2, 1904), Cd. 1879._

TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904. The Mürzsteg Programme of Reforms in the Administration of Macedonia.

During a meeting of the Emperors of Austria-Hungary and Russia, in 1903, at Mürzsteg, in the Austrian Alps, a plan of supervised administration in Macedonia (known since as the Mürzsteg Programme), to be pressed on the Turkish Government, was agreed upon by the two sovereigns and their advisers. With the assent and support of the other Powers in Europe this was submitted to the Porte, and was accepted in principle on the 25th of November; but it was not until the following May that it could be said to have been brought at all into action. Turkey "agreed

(1) to the appointment, for two years only, of Austrian and Russian civil agents, with a limited staff of dragomans and secretaries, to reside in the same place as the Inspector-General, and to make tours in the interior, accompanied by a Turkish official, to question the inhabitants as to their grievances;

(2) to the appointment of an Italian general to reorganize the gendarmerie;

(3) to consider the question of altering the administrative districts so as to establish a more regular grouping of the various nationalities;

(4) that neither race nor religion shall be a hindrance to official employment;

(5) that an amnesty shall be granted to all persons implicated in the insurrection, except those guilty of dynamite outrages; and

(6) to exempt the inhabitants of destroyed villages from all taxation for one year."

_Annual Register, 1904, page 318._

General De Giorgis, of Italy, was appointed to the command of the gendarmerie. Hostility to the arrangements of the Mürzsteg programme in Albania was carried to the extent of open warfare, and a number of serious engagements between Turkish and Albanian forces occurred. Other collisions between the various quarreling races—Greek, Bulgarian and Servian—were not stopped by the reorganized _gendarmerie_. Turkish action and inaction afforded about equal occasion for Bulgarian complaints; but in April the Bulgarian and Turkish governments came to mutual agreements, that the former would stop the work of revolutionary committees within her territory, and that the latter would carry out the reforms of the Mürzsteg programme in good faith. No effective performance of either engagement appears to have been secured.

{653}

TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904. Incursions of Armenian Revolutionists from Russia and Persia into Asiatic Turkey. Exaggerated accounts of retaliatory Massacre.

Many bands of revolutionary Armenians who crossed the frontiers from Russia and Persia during 1903 and 1904, making incursions into Armenian Turkey, and bringing upon the inhabitants there the tender mercies of Turkish troops, appear to have been acting generally in cooperation with the Bulgarian revolutionists in Macedonia. The consequent barbarities were dreadful enough, no doubt, but were found to be greatly exaggerated in the reports current at the time. This was the conclusion of the British Ambassador to Turkey, derived from investigations made on the ground by a consular officer who traversed it with care. In a despatch dated August 16, 1904, the Ambassador, Sir N. O’Conor, related a conversation on the subject that he had had with the Armenian Patriarch, Mgr. Ormanian, as follows:

"In the course of conversation I told his Beatitude that I had heard with deep concern the statements he had made to several newspaper correspondents, to the effect that he believed that between 6,000 and 9,000 persons had been massacred in the Sasun and Talori districts during the late troubles, and that I deeply regretted that upon my applying for precise information which would enable me to make earnest representations to the Grand Vizier, his Beatitude has sent me word that he was unable to indicate the places at which these massacres had taken place or to affirm that his reports were based on really trustworthy information. His Beatitude replied that he had had no means of controlling these reports, and that he had communicated them to others as he had received them. I said that, judging from the reports of His Majesty’s Consul at Van, who had visited many of the districts in question, the numbers of victims mentioned by his Beatitude was grossly exaggerated. Captain Tyrrell was more inclined to estimate the number at 900 than 9,000, and he had, moreover, been unable to confirm the statements in the public press that there had been any massacre of Armenians in the ordinary sense of these words, although, no doubt, many innocent persons had been killed both by the insurgents and the troops. … I did not despair of following to the end the investigations which had been set on foot by the Grand Vizier. If, however, his Beatitude could now furnish me with more definite information, I would do all in my power, in conjunction with my French and Russian colleagues, to bring about a searching investigation on the spot. Mgr. Ormanian replied that he was not in a position to give me this information."

TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1905. A "Holy War" in Arabia. The Sheik Hamid Eddin contesting the Caliphate with the Sultan.

"Under the obscure heading of ‘Rebellion in the Yemen,’ a series of brief telegrams has recently appeared in the British and American press, describing in skeleton language the exploits of Sheik Hamid Eddin, the Sovereign of Hadramaut, against the troops of the Turkish Sultan. Absorbed in the contemplation of the Far-Eastern struggle, neither the writers nor readers of the newspapers have yet found leisure to reflect upon the meaning of the movement, which the Lord of the Land of Frankincense is leading. … But the Government in Constantinople, though it would fain throw dust in the eyes of Europe, is itself painfully conscious of the menacing character of the challenge which has gone forth from Arabia. It is, indeed, impossible for it any longer to doubt that Hamid Eddin, the namesake of Abdul Hamid, is contesting not only the possession of Yemen, but also the spiritual supremacy of Islam. A Holy War, in fact, has started in Arabia, and upon its issue depend the fate of Mecca and the title of Caliph. …

"For several years, the propaganda proceeded on comparatively peaceful lines. Only occasionally it was marked by collisions with the Turkish troops. But, towards the end of 1903, the Sheik entered the northern district of the Yemen and laid siege to the Turkish garrison of Assyr. The engagement ended disastrously for the Turks. … For a whole year the Turks refrained from attempting any serious resistance to the Arabian movement. In February of this year, however, they succeeded in inflicting on Hamid Eddin a slight reverse, which the authorities in Constantinople, for political reasons, at once magnified into a disaster."

_W. F. Bullock, The Fight for the Caliphate (North American Review, August, 1905)._

TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1906. Demand in Crete for Union with Greece. Resignation of Prince George as High Commissioner. Appointment of M. Zaimis.

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

TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1906. Anti-British agitation in Egypt. Encroachments on the Sinai Frontier. The Tabah Incident.

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

TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908. Continued Reign of Terror in Macedonia. Financial Reform forced on Turkey by a Naval Demonstration. Barbaric Warfare of Greek and Bulgarian Bands. Efforts of Great Britain to secure further action by the Powers.

On the 17th of January, 1905, the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments proposed to supplement the Mürzsteg Programme by a measure of financial reform, which would empower the agencies of the Imperial Ottoman Bank to "act as Treasurer and Paymaster-General in the three vilayets of Salonika, Kossovo and Monastir," to receive the net revenues of those vilayets, and to "be intrusted with the issue of payments of whatever nature and in whatever form." The Turkish Government submitted a counter proposition, somewhat to the same purpose, on the 5th of March; and, after much discussion between the six great Powers, of Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy, they joined in a note to the Sublime Porte, on the 8th of May, accepting the Turkish project of financial reform, provided the Porte would consent to complete it by adding the following:

"To supervise the execution of the financial reforms and the application of the preceding Regulation, and to insure its observation, the Governments will each nominate a financial Delegate. These Delegates of the four Powers will act in concert with the Inspector-General and the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Civil Agents, whose functions were defined in the Mürzsteg programme. The Commission thus formed will have all the powers necessary for the accomplishment of its task, and particularly for the supervision of the regular collection of taxes, including also the tithe. {654} Before being finally settled, the budgets must be submitted to the Commission, which will have the right to amend, under the head of receipts and expenditure, any provision which may be inconsistent with the existing laws or unsuited to the economic and financial requirements of the country. With a view to facilitating its task, the Commission will have the power of nominating for each vilayet an inspector charged with the supervision of the agents employed in the different services of the Treasury."

The Porte declined to acquiesce in a proposal which it declared to be "contrary to the essential principles of the maintenance of the rights and independence of the Imperial Government." The demand was persisted in by the six Powers, inflexibly, and resisted as determinedly by the Sultan and his Ministers, during more than six months of parley. By that time the Powers had arranged for a joint naval demonstration, and landed forces at Mytilene on the 26th of November. This brought the Turkish Government to terms; details of the financial reform were settled on the 16th of December, 1905, and the international fleet was withdrawn.

Meantime conditions in the wretched country for which these attempted reforms of government were being so deliberately and laboriously prepared do not seem to have been much improved, if at all. On the 4th of September, the British Ambassador, Sir N. O’Conor, forwarded to his Government "a statistical résumé of the despatches recording occurrences in Macedonia" sent to him "by His Majesty’s Consuls at Salonica, Uskup, and Monastir between the 1st of January and the 27th of August," giving "the number of deaths for which the various nationalities and organizations are responsible" in those eight months of the year. The statistics were as follows:

Christians killed by Bulgarian Komitajis [Committees], 69; Moslems killed by Bulgarian Komitajis, 60; Christians killed by Greek Komitajis, 211; Moslems killed by Servian Komitajis, 12; Christians killed by Servian Komitajis, 10: total, 362.

Troops killed by various bands, 60; Bulgar Komitajis killed by troops, 145; Greek Komitajis killed by troops, 38; Serb Komitajis, killed by troops, 83; total 326.

Christians murdered by Moslems, 43; Christians killed during military operations, 54; total 97.

Throughout the next two years the monthly reports of British consular officers and the despatches of the Ambassador at Constantinople, as published in the British Blue Books, are monotonous in their sickening enumeration of single murders, wholesale massacres, destruction of villages, flights to the mountains of starving refugees,—outrages and miseries beyond description. On the 10th of June, 1906, the Consul-General at Salonika wrote:

"The general state of insecurity in the disturbed areas tends to grow worse rather than better, chiefly owing to the increase in the numbers and activity of the Greek bands and a slight recrudescence of Moslem crime, the most remarkable cases of which are attributed to a band of fifteen Albanians, who at the beginning of the month infested the forest country north of Niausta, where they robbed and murdered with impunity. The fact that their victims were nearly all Greeks has given rise to the belief in Greek circles that they have been acting in the interests of the Vlach and Bulgarian propagandas, though, so far as I know, there is no evidence whatever in support of this theory. The operations of Turkish troops have been on the whole very successful as against the small Bulgarian and Servian bands which still kept the field. Four of the former and two of the latter were totally destroyed, with comparatively small loss to the soldiery. It will be seen that the loss of life by violence again amounts to over 200 during the month. Of armed revolutionaries, about 40 Bulgarians, 19 Servians and 26 Greeks were accounted for, at a loss to the Turkish army of 23 killed. The great majority of the unarmed victims were Bulgarians, of whom 33 were killed by Greek bands, 15 by soldiers or in operation by the troops, about 15 by the Moslems, and 12 by Bulgarian Komitajis of rival factions; while 11 Vlachs were killed by Greek bands, 14 Greeks by Albanian brigands, 1 Greek by Bulgarian Komitajis, and 6 Mussulmans by Greek revolutionaries."

Conditions were still the same at the end of another year, and in December, 1907, the British Government addressed a memorandum on the subject to France and similarly to the other Powers, reciting some of the recent facts reported by its consular officers, and saying: "These facts and the circumstances of the outrages committed afford striking evidence of the manner in which the gradual extermination of the Christian inhabitants is being tolerated in Macedonia, where the Ottoman authorities have displayed an utter incapacity to maintain public tranquility. It therefore devolves upon the Powers to suggest the adoption of measures which will put an end to such a condition of affairs, and His Majesty’s Government earnestly hope that the French Government will give their most serious consideration to the proposals which they are about to put forward. … His Majesty’s Government are profoundly convinced that the time has now arrived when General Degiorgis and the foreign Staff Officers should be intrusted with a full measure of executive control, and when the force under his command should be properly qualified for effective action by a substantial increase in numbers and an adequate equipment."

To this communication there was no encouraging response from any other Government; and on the 3d of March, 1908, the British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, reopened the subject, expressing the regret with which His Majesty’s Government had received the replies made to their proposals.

"The situation is not beyond remedy, but it cannot be remedied by half-measures. Were a Governor of Macedonia to be appointed who would be given a free hand and be irremovable for a term of years except with the consent of the Powers, and were an adequate force of gendarmerie and European officers placed at his disposal, His Majesty’s Government are convinced that the country might be cleared of bands and pacified in a short time."

{655}

The measure proposed to other Powers by the British Government, in this communication of the 3d of March, 1908, obtained the assent of none, but it opened a discussion of the subject between London and St. Petersburg which brought Great Britain and Russia together, in joint action that gave promise of effective results. The negotiations ensuing, between the two Governments led to the drafting of two schemes of further reform in Macedonia, to be pressed upon the Porte. Great Britain accepted the Russian scheme, submitted in the form of an _aide mémoire_, dated July 2, 1908. Some inkling of this new programme, which the European Concert of Powers was about to be asked to support, had been given to the public by this time, and it seems to have precipitated a revolutionary conspiracy for the self-reformation of Turkish Government, which had been in the process of organization for many years, and which had now drawn near to the point of open action.

TURKEY: A. D. 1906. A Troublesome Punctilio removed. The United States represented at Constantinople by an Ambassador.

"According to usage in Constantinople, an Ambassador may obtain an audience at any time with the Sultan, and force many items through even against the influence of both the Palace and the Porte. But every representative lower than an Ambassador can never appear before the Sultan except when called for by His Gracious Majesty. This invitation can be secured sometimes by indirect means; but when, for any reason, the Sultan does not wish to see a Minister of any foreign Power, the Palace officials can baffle him, if necessary, for years. Now, the American representative is called ‘Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,’ and is outranked by every Ambassador to Turkey. Hence, he lacks the all-important privilege of approaching the Sultan uninvited."

_Americus, Some Phases of the Issues between the United States and Turkey (North American Review, May, 1906)._

The obstacle to American influence with the Turkish Government which is explained in the statement above was removed in 1906, by raising the diplomatic representative of the United States at Constantinople to the rank of Ambassador.

TURKEY: A. D. 1907-1909. The Cretan Situation as dealt with by the Four Protecting Powers.

See (in this Volume) CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.

TURKEY: A. D. 1908. Building the Damascus to Mecca Railway.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: ASIATIC: A. D. 1908.

TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (March). The Races in Macedonia. Struggle for Political Predominance. The Bulgarian Propaganda.

"Macedonia, although a country of numerous tribes and tongues, has a population of which the chief ethnic elements are Serbs, Bulgarians, and Greeks. The last-named are numerically the most important, while the Turks are, so to say, intruders. Between Bulgarians and Serbs, a bitter struggle has been waged for political predominance, each party being supported more or less effectively by its kindred in the kingdom of Servia or the Principality of Bulgaria. Both races in Macedonia speak almost the same language, profess the same religion, and inter-marry, so that the need of distinguishing between them did not arise until the Bulgarian Church, freeing itself from the Greek Patriarch, established an exarchate. Then all the flock of the Exarchate was deemed to consist of Bulgarians, although in reality many were Serbs; and the vigorous proselytising campaign carried on by agents from the Principality was successful in gathering many thousands more into the true fold.

"Bulgaria had luck from the outset. Before this people had been freed from the Mohammedan yoke the Turkish Government favoured them because it hated the Serbs, who were believed to be trying to gather together all Slavs and to found a powerful Slav state. After the creation of the Bulgarian Principality the Turks continued to wink at the Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia, because of Stambuloff’s anti-Russian and Turcophile policy. And in this way crowds of Macedonians were won over to the Bulgarian Exarchate. Moreover, the Prince’s Government warmly seconded the efforts of its agents. Money was spent liberally and judiciously. Many Macedonians who distinguished themselves at school were sent to finish their education at Sofia, where the most gifted among them received high places in the civil service or the army. In time, however, peaceful agitation gave way to filibustering expeditions, culminated in bloodshed, and drove the Turks to repressive measures against the Bulgarian element in Macedonia."

_E. J. Dillon, Foreign Affairs (Contemporary Review, March, 1908)._

TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (July-December). The Young Turk party and its Revolutionary organization. Its Plans hurried by the Anglo-Russian project of a new Macedonian Intervention. Beginning and Rapid Spread of Revolt. Proclamation of the Constitution of 1876. Yielding of the Sultan. Intense Joy in the Empire. Election of a Parliament.

Until July 3, 1908,—the day after M. Isvolsky, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, had dated (as stated above) his _aide mémoire_ of Macedonian Reform, which he and Sir Edward Grey were about to submit to the Powers,—the Turkish party since famous under the name of "the Young Turks" had attracted not much general attention, and, even in diplomatic circles, there does not seem to have been much known of the extraordinary work of revolutionary propagandism and organization it had done. Its leadership, seated at Salonika, had been in a Committee, named formerly the Committee of Liberty, but styled in later years the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress. Of the rise and origin of this Young Turk party, the following account was written some years before it leaped into public fame, by the veteran apostle of political liberty, Karl Blind:

"I remember its rise and origin in the sixties, when, between 1867 and 1868, a small group of Turkish exiles—namely, Zia Bey, Ali Suavi, and Aghaia Effendi—lived in London. They published here and in Paris an ably conducted journal, called the _Mukhbir_ (the ‘Advertiser’), copies of which are still in my library. That paper came out under the auspices of Mustafa Fazil Pasha, the well-known statesman who contributed so much to the spread of public instruction and of Liberal ideas by sending young students and others—among them, a distinguished poet, Kemal—to Paris and London. In the _Mukhbir_, parliamentary institutions and all other desirable reforms were advocated.

{666}

"In 1876, the Sofia rising at Constantinople at last brought about the introduction of a Charter under the young Sultan, who had just come to the throne—the present Abdul Hamid the Second. It was a popular movement, officered by the better educated class of Mohammedans. In a famous rescript, the Sultan said that ‘if his sire had lived longer, a constitutional era would have been inaugurated under him. Providence, however, had reserved for him (the son) the task of accomplishing this happy transformation, which is the highest guarantee of the welfare of his subjects.’ He went on to denounce ‘the abuses which are the result of the arbitrary rule of one or of some individuals.’ He then enumerated the various reforms to be accomplished by the National Assembly: responsibility of ministers; parliamentary right of control; independence of the courts of justice; equilibrium of the budget.

"All races and all creeds were represented in that Parliament, which sat during 1877-1878: Turks and Armenians, Bulgars, Greeks, Albanese, Syrians, and Arabs; Mohammedans, Greco-Catholics, Armenian Christians, Protestants, and Jews. Its debates, through the whole of which I went carefully at the time in the French text of the Constantinople press, exhibited a remarkable degree of ability. I learnt afterwards, from men conversant with Turkish, and who had repeatedly been present at the sittings, that these official reports had even considerably toned down the liveliness of the discussions.

"I need not refer to the activity of Midhat Pasha, nor go into the many useful reforms then debated, including freedom of the press; equality before the law; liberty in matters of public instruction; admission of all citizens, irrespective of race and creed, to the various public employments; an equal imposition of taxes; free exercise of every religious cult, and so forth. …

"How did that Assembly come to grief? When the Russian army arrived before the gates of Constantinople [in 1878], the Sultan, pressed close by the Czar, and being at issue with the representatives of the people on account of the exile of Midhat and about budget questions, suddenly _prorogued_ Parliament. Alexander the Second, the ‘Divine Figure from the North,’ was thus freed from the danger of hearing Liberal subjects of his own uttering the cry: ‘Let us, by way of reward for our sacrifices in blood and money in this war, have parliamentary government as in Turkey!’

"Prorogued the Turkish National Assembly was, let it well be remembered—not abolished; not dissolved even. Ever since, the Young Turkish party has called for its restoration."

_Karl Blind, Macedonia and England’s Policy (Nineteenth Century, November, 1903)._

When it came to be known, in the spring or early summer of 1908, that Great Britain and Russia were concerting a fresh proposal to the Powers of more thorough going intervention in Macedonian affairs, the Young Turk leaders are said to have been driven to a hurried rearrangement of their own plans. They had not expected, it seems, to be in readiness for a decisive movement until some months or a year hence; but they could not afford to have the Concert of Europe as well as the despotism of the Sultan to deal with in their revolutionary undertaking, contemplating as that did a state of government for Turkey which outside nations would have no right or need to be meddlesome with. Hence they hastened preparations for an explosion of the revolt they had organized so patiently, and its first outbreaks chanced to occur just as M. Isvolsky had signed and dated the statement of his scheme of intervention for communication to other Powers.

The beginnings, on the 3d of July, were in the vilayet of Monastir, where the officers and soldiers of two battalions, at Resna and Presba, with some officials of the district, formed themselves openly into a "Young Turk" band, seized arms and the military chest, and went into the mountains. Similar movements in the Kossovo and Salonika vilayets followed quickly. On the 7th, at the city of Monastir, General Shemsi Pasha, when setting forth to take command of operations against the insurgents, was shot, and the soldiers of his escort were reported to have allowed the assassins to escape by firing in the air. Other murders of officers who showed activity against the rebels were soon announced. The Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress had now issued a manifesto, announcing that the object of their League was to secure the restoration of the Constitution of 1876, and appealing to the Great Powers "to show their good will towards the peoples of Turkey by earnestly urging His Majesty, the Sultan, to yield to the legitimate demands of his subjects, who are loyal, though in revolt against the shameful situation of their country." The Committee protested solemnly that the League entertained no hostility to non-Moslems; that it would avoid useless bloodshed, and employ "energetic methods" only in extreme cases against the enemies of liberty.

By the 22d of the month the Sultan had become sufficiently alarmed to dismiss his Grand Vizier, Ferid Pasha, and call Kiamil Pasha, the former Grand Vizier, to his council again. Kiamil exacted conditions which his master was slow in yielding to, and he seems to have been Grand Vizier _de facto_ for a short time before he accepted the responsible title. Change of Ministry, however, did not check the deepening and spreading of revolt. On the 23d of July the Young Turks, having complete possession of the cities of Monastir and Salonica, and of several lesser towns, made solemn proclamation of the Constitution, with popular demonstrations and ceremonies of prayer and speech in which Moslems and Christians were joined. That night the Sultan held long counsel with his Ministers, at the Palace, and before morning the reestablishment of the suspended Constitution of 1876 was decided.

See (in this Volume) CONSTITUTION OF TURKEY.

The morning papers of the 24th gave the decree to the public of Constantinople and the news of it was flashed throughout the Empire and to the ends of the earth. This was the message that went from the Grand Vizier to Hilmi Pasha, Inspector General at Salonika:

"In compliance with the wish expressed by the people and by order of His Majesty the Sultan, the Constitution promulgated on the 11th (23d) December, 1876, which had for various reasons been withdrawn, has been again enforced. The General Assembly (Senate and Chamber of Deputies) may assemble on the terms prescribed by law. I beg you to convey this news to the public."

{657}

According to all accounts of the time, the feeling evoked by the announcement of a constitutionalized government—as soon as the long oppressed people could be persuaded of its actuality —was quite extraordinary, and it swept away temporarily, at least, the enmities of religion and race to a remarkable extent. What occurred, for example, at Beirut, in Syria, as described by a missionary, was probably not exceptional in that place. "Men gathered," he says, "in large groups. Audiences and orators sprung up like mushrooms. The torrent of eloquence that poured forth there was such as would put Niagara to shame. There were people mingling together there who during the past years had been bitterly antagonistic to each other, but who now were showing their friendship in public; Greek Orthodox and Mohammedan priests were embracing each other; branches were cut down from the trees; rugs were brought out from the houses; the streets were lined with people offering their hospitality to their new-found brothers; everywhere, even among the criminal classes, there were these evidences of good fellowship."

_Howard S. Bliss, Address to National Geographic Society, December 18, 1908._

On the night of the 26th of July the Sultan received a deputation, headed by the Sheikh-ul-Islam, who petitioned for the removal of certain obnoxious favorites of the "Palace camarilla," and especially for the dismissal of the notorious Izzet Pasha, one of his secretaries, who was hated and feared above all. Abdul Hamid refused at first; but three days later he ordered Izzet Pasha into exile and disgraced Ismail Pasha, his Aide-de-camp, who was said to be the chief spy of the military schools. Izzet succeeded, a few days later, in escaping from the country, and so, undoubtedly, saved his life.

On the 29th of July the British Ambassador at Constantinople, Sir G. Lowther, sent the following telegram to Sir Edward Grey:

"The Sultan has sworn on the Koran, as Caliph, not to repeal the Constitution, and the Sheikh-ul-Islam has officially notified the oath, which was registered at his Department, to the people. It religiously binds not only Abdul Hamid but also his successors in the Caliphate to govern in accordance with the Constitution, and becomes part of the Sheri law. This step was demanded by the Young Turkey and Constitutional party, in order to prevent the Constitution being put aside, as was that of 1876." On the 31st, announcement was made in the morning papers of Constantinople that "a Hatti Humayun which is binding on the successors of the Sultan will be publicly read at the Porte confirming the Constitution." Subsequently, on sending a copy of this instrument to his Government, Sir G. Lowther remarked that "a Hatti Humayun is the most binding form of legislation in the Ottoman Empire." In the present case it seems to have supplemented as well as confirmed the original Constitution, pledging equality of freedom and of rights to all subjects of every race and religion; supremacy of law; inviolability of the individual domicile; inviolability of the Post; freedom of the Press; freedom of Education, etc., etc.

The ministers and spies of the old regime of despotism and corruption were now proceeded against with celerity and vigor. Some escaped, some were imprisoned, some were killed by enraged crowds of people. The latter was the fate of Fehim Pasha, who had been at the head of the secret police. At the same time exiles of an opposite character were returning to their country and meeting with excited welcomes as they came.

Kiamil Pasha took his proper place as Grand Vizier on the 7th of August, and formed a new Cabinet, with Tewfik Pasha as President of the Council of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs. In announcing the composition of the Cabinet, Ambassador Lowther remarked: "Kiamil Pasha appears very wisely to have taken the League of Union and Progress into his counsels in forming his Ministry, all of whom were incorruptible opponents of the old regime, while two of them are Christians, in accordance with the principles of the Constitution."

While practically dominating the Imperial Government on one hand, the ruling Committee of the League was likewise bringing to terms the lawless Bulgarian, Greek, and other bands which had tortured and terrorized Macedonia so long, and was respectfully but plainly intimating its expectation that foreign management of the gendarmerie and the finances of that region would soon be withdrawn. Already, as early as the 25th of July, M. Isvolsky had withdrawn, for the time being, at least, his project of further intervention, saying that "Russia will follow with the most sympathetic attention the efforts of Turkey to insure the working of the new regime. She will abstain, for her part, from all interference calculated to complicate this task, and will exercise all her influence in order to obviate and prevent all disturbing action on the part of the Balkan States." Of course the British Government was moved by the same feeling, and, as the new order in Turkey gave more and more promise of stability, the willingness to suspend the foreign organization of gendarmerie in the Macedonian provinces became general among the Powers. A collective note, accordingly, was addressed to the Sublime Porte in September, asking if the Imperial Government had any objection to a provisional suspension of its contract with foreign officers, with leave of absence to them _sine die_. The Porte promptly acquiesced and the Macedonian intervention came to an end.

Preparations for the election of representatives in the new Parliament became active in October, the League of Union and Progress sending agents into the provinces to give much-needed instructions to officials and people as to what they must do and how. The elections were conducted under a complicated electoral law. Excepting foreign residents, natives in foreign service, soldiers not on furlough, bankrupts, criminals, and a few other classes, all male tax-payers twenty-five years of age were made "electors in the first degree." By their vote they chose, not the parliamentary representative, but "electors in the second degree" who would meet subsequently and make that choice. At the preliminary elections 250 to 750 voters were entitled to one elector; 750 to 1250 to two, and so on. The representation in Parliament was by one Deputy for 25,000 to 75,000 electors of the first degree; two for 75,000 to 125,000,—and further at that rate. Candidates for Parliament were to be not less than thirty years of age.

{658}

According to the Constitution the chosen Deputies to Parliament were to assemble at Constantinople on the 30th of October, old style; but inevitable delays in the elections postponed the meeting of Parliament until the 17th of December, on which day it was opened by the Sultan in person, good order prevailing in the city. In a written Speech from the Throne, read by his First Secretary, he offered as an explanation of the long suspension of the Constitution of 1876, that, in consequence of the difficulties encountered in operating the parliamentary system thirty years ago, it was thought best that "the execution of the said Constitution should be postponed until, by the progress of instruction in my Empire, the capacity of my people should be brought up to the desired level." As this was now believed to have been accomplished, he had "proclaimed the Constitution anew without hesitation, in spite of those who hold views and opinions opposed thereto." With marked abruptness the Sultan’s speech was then turned to some recent occurrences which have not yet been touched in this narrative of events. Its reference to them was in these words: "Whilst the Ministry formed under the Presidency of Kiamil Pasha, to whom the office of Grand Vizier was intrusted upon this change in the system of administration, was occupied with organizing the new Constitutional Administration, Prince Ferdinand, Prince of Bulgaria and Vali of the Province of Eastern Roumelia, departing, for whatever reason, from the loyalty due to our Empire, proclaimed the independence of Bulgaria; and immediately after this the Government of Austria-Hungary also announced to the Porte and to the Cabinets of the other Great Powers that it had decided to annex to the sphere of its dominion Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were subject to the temporary occupation and administration of Austria in accordance with the Treaty of Berlin. These two important events, which are prejudicial to existing legal rights and relations, are occurrences which have moved me to very great regret, and our Ministers have been intrusted with the task of taking the necessary action consequent on these encroachments and of safeguarding (he rights of the State. In regard to this matter, and under all circumstances, the help and support of Parliament are desired."

The concluding words of the Sultan’s brief speech were these:

"I open the Chamber of Deputies to-day with prayers for the happiness and prosperity of our Empire and country. I am happy to see in my presence the Deputies of my nation. My intention to govern our country under the Constitution is absolute and unalterable. Please God our Chamber of Deputies will accomplish good work for our Empire and our nation, and our fatherland will attain to happiness of every kind. May God make us all the objects of His divine grace!"

TURKEY: A. D. 1909. American Mission Schools.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: TURKEY AND THE NEAR EAST.

TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (January-May). Wise Moderation of the Young Turks. Gathering of Opposition to them. The Counter-Revolution of April 13. Treacherous Agency of the Sultan in it. Quick Recovery of Power by the Young Turks. Battle in Constantinople. Moslem attack on Armenians in Asiatic Turkey. Deposition of Abdul Hamid. Mohammed V. placed on the Throne.

The declaration of Bulgarian independence and the Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, protested against by the Sultan in his Speech from the Throne at the opening of the new Parliament, on the 17th of December, are recounted at some length in another place, with notice of the prolonged anxieties they produced in Europe at large.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

In Turkey itself the feeling roused by these offensive proceedings was overborne to a great extent by increasing excitements in home politics at the time. The first unity of welcome and support to the revolution, as organized by the League of Union and Progress, was now being broken, as always happens in such movements, by conflicts of ambition and differences of opinion and aim. In other words, contentions of party and faction were coming into play. The Young Turk leaders of the League had manifestly conducted the whole movement of revolution with extraordinary ability, self-effacement, and restraint. The President of Robert College, at Constantinople, Dr. C. Frank Gates, who must be accounted a trustworthy observer of events in the Ottoman capital, writing in _The Outlook_, November 7, 1908, of "Turkey under the New Regime," paid this high tribute to its chiefs:

"One of the most striking features of this movement to those who have lived long in the country is the moderation shown by the Young Turks. The regime which has been overthrown was oppressive in the extreme, and all the people had suffered terribly from it. The Turks have often said, ‘We suffer more than the Christians.’ Many have predicted a day of terrible retribution, when the old regime should fall into the hands of its victims. But there have been no reprisals. Officers of the army were killed in order to gain control of the army, a few spies fell into the hands of the people and were killed, the notorious Fehim Pasha was torn to pieces by the mob at Broussa, but most of the rascals have been held for regular trial, and the leaders of the new movement have firmly insisted that it is no time for vengeance or for the gratification of personal animosities; only one consideration can be admitted, and that is the good of the country. Their eyes are upon the future, not upon the past. This is wonderful. If one could have expected a reign of terror anywhere, here was the place to expect it, but it has not come.

"The Young Turks have shown a practical wisdom in dealing with the various parties and in solving the questions which have arisen which commands the admiration of all. A friend who is very well acquainted with the leaders in this movement said the other day, ‘The most wonderful thing of all is the committees.’ Properly speaking, there are no committees and no tangible organization. There are men who stand behind the present Government and practically guide and control it, but they are content to be unknown and to work in silence. They say, ‘It is the work of God,’ 'Do not congratulate us: thank God.’

{659}

"The difficulties which these men have to face are enormous. There is the difficulty of financing the Government, which is aggravated by the fact that some of the provinces have understood liberty as meaning freedom from taxes. Then there is the difficulty of forming a programme for the new regime. There have been two parties among the Young Turks, the Committee of Union and Progress, and the Party of Decentralization headed by Sebaheddin. … Sebaheddin has been explaining his programme to popular audiences. His plan is to have local assemblies in the provinces, to which shall be relegated many of the functions which have been centralized in Constantinople under the old regime."

The working of the new machinery of government went smoothly, in appearance, for some weeks after this was written. On the 1st of January the Sultan gave a banquet to the Deputies of Parliament at the Yildiz Kiosk, sitting with them at table and speaking to them with eloquent piety and patriotism; subsequently permitting a general kissing of his hands, which performance of affectionate reverence was much disapproved by some of the Turkish journals next day. A fortnight later Mr. Hagopian, special correspondent at Constantinople of the New York _Evening Post_, seemingly intimate in acquaintance with the inner circles of parties, began to be sharply critical of the Committee of Union and Progress, saying that their "arrogant programme" "has led more enlightened Turks to organize a new party, the Sons of Liberal Ottomans." Then he speaks of what appears to be another party, "the association of ‘Fedakiarans’ (Confederates), composed of all former political exiles and prisoners who became free after the establishment of the new regime. On the surface their aim is said to be to assist all their unfortunate members who have been brought to poverty, or disabled by the tortures of prison and exile. Their membership within the last four months has reached twenty thousand. …

"The mistake which the Young Turks committed in opposing Kiamil Pasha, and in persecuting the Confederates," this writer goes on to say, "has strengthened the cause of Sabakheddin Bey and his followers. All the oppressed Christian races, who welcomed the inauguration of a liberal government in Turkey, were alarmed when a part of the young Turks came forward as champions of Panislamism, and to-day they are inclined to be in the rank and file of this new liberal movement. The Young Turkish Parliament has shown a tendency to be a Moslem institution."

A fortnight later Kiamil Pasha, the Grand Vizier, or Prime Minister, as he preferred, it is said, to be called, dropped Ali Riza Pasha, Minister of War, and Aarif Pasha, Minister of Marine, from his Cabinet, appointing them to other posts, which they declined; and this completed his breach with the Committee of Union and Progress. Mr. Hagopian, in his next letter to the _Evening Post_, averred that the Grand Vizier had discovered a plot, organized by the Young Turks, to dethrone the Sultan and proclaim Youssuf-Izeddin, elder son of Abdul Aziz, the murdered former Sultan, and that he defeated their project by the sudden change he made in the Ministries of War and Marine. Other reporters from Constantinople to the Press do not seem to have given credit to this explanation. Whatever the inner facts may have been, the Young Turk Committee proved stronger than the Grand Vizier, and they forced his resignation on the 13th of February, by an overwhelming vote in the Chamber of Deputies, 198 to 8, that he "no longer possesses its confidence." He had commanded foreign confidence more, perhaps, than any other Turkish statesman, and his overthrow gave a serious shock for the moment to the hopefulness with which the Turkish constitutional experiment had come to be quite generally regarded.

Hilmi Pasha, who had been Minister of the Interior under Kiamil, was now called by the Sultan to be Grand Vizier, and a new Cabinet was formed, Ali Riza Pasha resuming the portfolio of the Ministry of War, and with it that of the Marine. The administration was now entirely in harmony with the Committee of Union and Progress. During the next two months there was not much in Turkish affairs to command attention abroad. But political hostility to the Committee of Union and Progress was evidently increasing. The correspondent of the London _Times_ wrote to his paper from Constantinople in March that "one of the most perplexing and disquieting features of the situation since the fall of the late Cabinet has been the persistent manner in which the Committee have denied that any extra-Parliamentary pressure was employed to effect that change, or that, since it was accomplished, extra-Parliamentary forces have exercised any influence on the conduct of affairs. Had they frankly admitted that such influences had been, and were still, brought to bear—as, indeed, the speech of the President of the Chamber implicitly acknowledges—but that such interference was justified by circumstances and would continue to be exercised until the country had safely emerged from the critical period through which it is passing, many who are now falling away from them would have been found to agree, and few persons capable of forming an unbiased opinion would have ventured to declare that their contention was altogether unreasonable and unjustifiable. By adopting a different course they have alienated much of the sympathy and confidence they hitherto commanded, and given rise to suspicions, quite possibly unfounded, as to the purity of their motives, with the result that the country, which needs and will long continue to need the united energies of all its ablest and most enlightened citizens, for the tremendous task of regeneration and reorganization, is now weakened by a fierce party struggle, and that many competent observers regard a fresh Ministerial crisis as an event which cannot be delayed for many weeks."

The anticipated crisis came about four weeks after this had been written, in a form much more serious than that of a mere Ministerial collapse. It was precipitated by excitements that followed the murder, on the 6th of April, of a political journalist, Hassan Fehmi Effendi, editor of the _Serbesti_, the organ of the Liberal party. As the murdered man had been a vigorous critic and opponent of the Committee of Union and Progress, that organization was accused at once of having brought about his death. {660} This gave the start to agitations and demonstrations that were secretly pushed for several days, until they culminated, on the 13th, in an outbreak of soldiers and city mobs which reversed for a time the Young Turk revolution of the previous July. That the crafty Abdul Hamid had more than lent his hand to the reactionary outbreak was universally believed; but when it had accomplished the overthrow of Hilmi Pasha and his Ministry the Sultan did not venture to call creatures of his own to take their place. On the contrary, he gave the office of Grand Vizier to Tewfik Pasha, one of the most respected and independent of the elder officials of the Empire, charging him, in an imperial rescript, "to form a Cabinet to conform more directly to the sacred law and to maintain the Constitution and guard public order." These words are indicative of the nature of the hostility to the regime of the Young Turks which had been worked up. Formerly, as appears in one of the quotations above from Mr. Hagopian, the Young Turks had been accused of being "champions of Pan-Islamism," and their Parliament of showing "a tendency to be a Moslem institution." Latterly, Moslem orthodoxy had been appealed to against them on the charge that they were unfaithful to "the sacred law" (the Sheriat), and that they were making the Constitution a mere cover for designs that boded evil to Islam. A fair inference from the contradictoriness of the charges brought against them is decidedly favorable to the party of the Young Turks.

At the outset of the revolutionary riot in Constantinople a few murders were committed and some fatal shooting at random was done, the victims including the Minister of Justice, an Albanian Deputy and a few officers of the riotous soldiery; but the mob-rising, as a whole, appears to have been kept under singular restraint. No important members of the League of Union and Progress are reported to have been killed. Those who were in Constantinople escaped, and their ruling Committee was soon established in activity at Salonika again, taking measures which resulted quickly in the recovery of more than the power that they had seemed for the moment to have lost.

That no reaction of substantial influences at Constantinople against constitutional and representative government was signified by what had occurred there was made plain by an important proclamation, issued on the 16th of April, by the Committee of the Ulema, the Moslem Doctors of the Sacred Law. It was addressed to the Deputies and the Nation, in these words:

"We are informed that certain Deputies, fearing for their lives, wish to resign, while, on the other hand, the public fears the return of despotic rule. The Committee of the Ulema, which has never doubted that the Constitution is in entire conformity with sacred law, and has not forgotten the burning of Islamic books at Gulhaneh in the days of absolutism, will defend the Constitution, which is in conformity with the Sheriat, to the last, aided by the army and Parliament. Its members consider it to be a religious duty to sacrifice their lives for this end. They and the nation preserve the confidence of Deputies, Moslem and non-Moslem alike, save such as have resigned, or have fled and are thereby considered to have resigned. Deputies, therefore, are informed that henceforth those who resign will be considered traitors. Let them do their duty justly and honourably, and they may be sure of the support of the nation and the spiritual aid of the Prophet. We beg the glorious army to maintain order and discipline, following the counsels of the Ulema, for it is thus that the Almighty will grant salvation to the country and happiness in this world and the next."

But Asiatic Turkey was easily made distrustful and suspicious of a change in government which appeared to lower the authority and dignity of the Sultan-Caliph; and news of the seeming triumph of that sacred sovereign in what had happened at Constantinople must have had not a little to do with the sudden outburst, on the 15th of April, of Moslem hostility to the Armenian Christians in parts of Asia Minor and Syria. The fighting and massacre then begun, and which continued for many days, was most fiercely carried on within a circle of towns at the corner where Syria and Asia Minor touch, and where the Gulf of Iskanderun runs far into the land. On the northern and western side, this piece of the Turkish dominion was the ancient province of Cilicia, which Pompey added to the empire of Rome; in which St. Paul was born, and which received its modern name of Adana from Haroun al Raschid, the most famous of the Caliphs of Bagdad,—thanks to "The Arabian Nights." In and around its three principal towns, of Adana, Mersina, and Tarsus, the first and worst of the atrocities occurred.

The League of Union and Progress had given way for an instant, only, to the outbreak at Constantinople, which must have taken its leaders by surprise. But the momentary reverse was a gift of opportunity, in fact, to prove the astonishing energy of ability that was in this remarkable body of men. They had been betrayed by a considerable part, at least, of the division of the army which garrisoned Constantinople, and which is said to have been heavily bribed with money that must have come from the Sultan’s purse. But the Second and Third Corps of the army in Macedonia were unshaken in fidelity to them and their cause. It was on Tuesday, the 13th of April, that their opponents at the capital had their triumph; on Wednesday, the 14th, the two trusted corps were under orders from Salonika to march on Constantinople. Nine days later Mahmud Shevket Pasha, who commanded the movement, was in full possession of the city, with the Sultan a prisoner, and the victorious general was about to publish the following brief report of what had been done in the interval:

"Our Second and Third Army Corps," he wrote, "being the nearest to Constantinople, undertook as the executive power of the whole Ottoman nation to shed the last drop of their blood in defence of the Constitutional _régime_. Having therefore taken counsel together and organized a force sufficient for the purpose, they marched to Constantinople, in order to counteract the effects of the despotic blow recently struck at that _régime_, to subdue and chastise the guilty, and to take the necessary measures for the prevention of similar attempts in the future. Leaving Salonika on Wednesday, I arrived the following day at San Stefano and gave orders for a general movement preparatory to entering the capital on Friday. {661} The troops quartered at the Ministry of War were compelled to surrender before they had time to defend themselves. Only the mutinous troops at Taslikishla and other barracks in Pera offered any resistance to the army of occupation. These barracks were accordingly bombarded and destroyed, their garrisons being disabled or forced to surrender. As our heroic army began operations at night and entered the town at dawn, and as the inhabitants remained in their houses and the shops were closed, there were no deaths in the civil population and no disorder took place. The losses on both sides were heavy, but the numbers are not yet known. I pray God that the hearts of all Ottomans may rejoice at the news of this great victory and that it may prove the dawn of a great future for our country."

Military observers who accompanied Shevket Pasha and his army are said to have been profoundly impressed by the masterly handling of the whole operation, from start to finish. His fellow Constitutionalists were equally impressed by the qualities that he had revealed. A Press despatch to New York, from Constantinople, April 26, reported:

"Schefket Pasha, commander of the Constitutional army, is the man of the hour. The leading civilian members of the Committee of Union and Progress desire him to be grand vizier in succession to Tewfik Pasha, and he has been assured that a majority of Parliament would gladly support a ministry under his leadership in succession to the Tewfik ministry, which resigned to-day. In reply to these proposals Schefket Pasha said that the premiership afforded such a splendid opportunity to assist in the political development of the country that he would have rejoiced to accept the honor had it come to him under any other circumstances, but that he could not accept it while still leader of the army. To do so would not accord with his ideas of civil and political liberty of action." This seems to have been a true exhibit of the fine spirit and intelligent patriotism of the man, and it added much to the hopefulness of the regenerative undertaking of the Young Turks. Shevket is an Arab, from Bagdad, who had his training as a soldier in Germany and had lived in Europe twelve years.

What to do with Abdul Hamid was a question over which the Committee of Union and Progress wasted very little time. He became their captive on the 24th. On the 26th it was known that he would be deposed and exiled to Salonika. His falsity in all that he had professed of a willing adoption of constitutional government, and his treacherous engineering of the conspiracy against it, were believed to be open to no doubt. It was probably not easy to save him from the doom of death which he feared: but the men of calmly tempered mind and will who had ruled the revolution from its beginning were still in control. On the morning of the 27th a _fetva_ or formal decision by the Sheik-ul-Islam, authorizing the deposition of Abdul Hamid from the Ottoman throne, was sent to the National Assembly and read. It was in the form of a question from that body, answered tersely by the supreme judge of the law of Islam,—as follows:

"What becomes of an Imam [the title of the Sultan of Turkey as head of the Orthodox faith] who has destroyed certain holy writings, who has seized property in contravention to the Sheri laws, who has committed cruelties in ordering the assassination and imprisonment of exiles without any justification under the Sheri laws, who has squandered the public money, who, having sworn to govern according to the Sheriat, has violated his oath, who, by gifts of money, has provoked internecine bloodshed and civil war, and who no longer is recognized in the provinces?" To this the Sheik-ul-Islam replied: "He must abdicate or be deposed." At once, by unanimous vote, the deposition of Abdul Hamid and the succession of his younger brother, Mohammed Reschad Effendi was pronounced by the National Assembly. The new Sultan was proclaimed with impromptu ceremony in the afternoon, at the Seraskierat, to which he went in the plain costume of a Turkish gentleman. He was received by Mahmud Shevket Pasha and his staff in the central court. The Grand Vizier, the Sheikh-ul-Islam, Said Pasha, President of the Senate, and Ahmed Riza, President of the Chamber, stood at the foot of the stairs. All kissed hands, and the whole group, headed by his Majesty, proceeded to a reserved chamber, the gallery above the court being in the meantime crowded with Senators, Deputies, officers, journalists, and ordinary sightseers. The Deputies and Senators were then admitted to kiss hands, and a prayer was recited. This ended the simple ceremony of the day; but one of more solemnity occurred on the 10th of May, when the Sultan received the sword of Osman—the equivalent of a coronation—in the Mosque Ayub, which Christians are never permitted to enter, and was conducted in an imposing procession through the streets of the city.

Mohammed Reschad Effendi, who reigns as Mohammed V., was in his sixty-fifth year when he came to the throne. Until the revolution of the previous July he had been practically a prisoner in one of the palaces on the Bosporus, surrounded by the creatures of his jealous and suspicious brother, without whose permission he could not leave the palace grounds. Latterly he had enjoyed some degree of personal freedom, for the first time in his life. An anonymous contributor to the _London Times_, who had had an opportunity to meet him since the revolution broke his bonds, wrote thus of the interview:

"I had the privilege of a long conversation with Reschad when I was in Constantinople in the autumn, on condition that the visit should be conducted with some secrecy and should remain secret until the return of Hamidianism was beyond the range of possibility. I believe I was the first European whom he had seen since the revolution of July mitigated the severity of the reclusion enforced for 30 years by Abdul Hamid. The Heir Apparent was still living in the Palace adjoining Dolma Baghche, which had been his prison throughout the reign, jealously guarded by the Sultan’s Pretorians at the entrances from the main road, and by a gunboat moored in the Bosporus opposite the water approach. …

"His Highness talked slowly and hesitatingly, often lowering his voice to a whisper and casting furtive glances round the room as if he was still haunted by the fear of spies, but he listened eagerly while I told him of my own many journeyings in Turkey, whose people I had known since the beginning of the Hamidian _régime_, occasionally interrupting me with an apposite remark, or asking for an explanation which showed both interest and intelligence. {662} There was something strangely pathetic in this desire for information about his own country, over which his Highness was soon destined to reign. A full hour’s conversation left the impression that, given favourable circumstances and good advisers, the Prince was well qualified to preside over a period of peaceful transition."

Punishment of the authors of the counter-revolution followed quickly on the reestablishment of constitutional authority, and it was sternly meted out. As Mr. Hagopian expressed the feeling of the Young Turks, in his letter of April 26 to the New York _Evening Post_, they "could not afford to be lenient. The conspiracy of April 13," he added, "was no longer a secret. In the last two days 15,000 soldiers and 6,000 _hodjas_ and spies had been arrested. In their possession over half a million dollars had been found. Where had this money come from? Who could deny any longer that Abdul Hamid drew from his bank about ten million dollars a month ago? His favored son, Burhaneddin Effendi, went from barrack to barrack and distributed the money among the soldiers. Former spies, disguised in Turkish clergymen’s garments, went among the troops and won them over with the Sultan’s bribes. Soldiers, when arrested, were found to have an average of one hundred dollars; some had two hundred, three hundred, and even five hundred. Indeed, Abdul Hamid was the head of the conspiracy, and the massacre in Adana was instigated by his emissaries sent from Constantinople. The old and the new Yildiz cliques were not less responsible." By the 12th of May thirty-eight executions had been reported, most of them by hanging in public places. "A member of the court-martial that sentenced these men to death explained the reason of the public hangings by saying that Constantinople was such a city of rumor and traditions of corruption that, had the announcement been made that these men had been executed in private, it would not have been believed by the masses. It was desired to impress the people with the fact that the guilty had been punished."

TURKEY: April-December. Outbreak of Massacre in Southeastern Asia Minor.

The first news of the outbreak of massacre in southeastern Asia Minor came to Europe and America in a telegram from Constantinople, dated April 15, saying: "A massacre of Armenians is in progress to-day at Mersina, a seaport of Asia Minor on the Mediterranean." In this report the outbreak was ascribed to the provocation of a murder of two Moslems by an Armenian; but nothing that appeared subsequently gave any confirmation to this. The Sultan has been accused of having instigated the rising, as a means of starting complications which might check the Young Turks; but that remains unproved.

Mersina, from which the first report of massacre came, is thirty-six miles by railway from Adana, the capital of the vilayet of that name and an important missionary station of several American missionary organizations. Adana was a city of about 45,000 inhabitants, mostly Mohammedans, but with Armenians in considerable numbers and a few Greeks. The Christian missions included important schools. In this city the murderous mob had begun its work on the 14th of April, a day prior to the Mersina report, and it is found to have been the center of the deadly outbreak throughout. The Moslem fury was directed against the Armenians, and, though two missionaries were among the killed, they do not appear to have been objects of attack, but to have suffered incidentally to the efforts they made for the protection of their Armenian neighbors and their schools. There were Turkish troops in the city from the beginning of the slaughter, but they did nothing to stop it for five days. According to some accounts the vali, or governor, kept them shut up in quarters; according to others they took part in the massacre. The Reverend Stephen Trowbridge, who was in Adana during these terrible days, declared a little later: "One man is responsible for the disorders here. This is the vali himself. He had it in his power to suppress lawlessness and massacre, but deliberately refrained from doing so. He said simply: ‘We are not responsible.’ The better class of Turks in Adana," Mr. Trowbridge continued, "the members of the Committee of Union and Progress, are deeply grieved and saddened at these dreadful events. Some of them are ready to join us in relief work for the Armenians. One Bey already has opened his house to refugees." This gives color to the belief that the outbreak was not mere mob-madness, but captained in some way from a higher center of Turkish authority. Such, indeed, was the firm conviction of many who were witnesses of what occurred. Writing on the 24th of April from Tarsus, which bore its share of the widespread attack, another missionary said: "The massacres all began on the same day, Wednesday, the 14th, showing, were there no other proof, that they were inaugurated by telegraphic orders from Adana, probably from Constantinople. The only places where the Christians took up arms for a short time to defend themselves were Adana, Hadjin, and near the battle-field of Issus; at the latter place they are still holding out. The statement by Turkish officials that there was an Armenian insurrection, that Turks were massacred, and houses burned by the Christians, etc., etc., are simply abominable lies. This cannot be put too strongly. … During fifty long hours, while battle and murder and burnings were going on all around our school and residence in Adana, the vali, though he had hundreds of soldiers at the Konak, sent not one to protect us and our property."

According to a report made some months later, after investigations under the new Turkish regime, and quoted from a Turkish newspaper, the number killed in all parts of the province was 20,008; 620 were Moslems, and the remaining 19,400 were non-Moslems. Of the non-Moslems killed, 418 were Old Chaldeans, 163 Chaldeans, 210 Armenian Catholics, 655 Protestants, 99 Greeks, and the remainder Gregorian Armenians. The same report estimated the destruction of property as having been equal to two-thirds of the entire wealth of the province. The appearance of Adana and of the surrounding country after the massacres were stopped was described by one who made the journey from Tarsus to Adana, and who wrote:

{663}

"Leaving behind us the ruins of Tarsus, and the hundreds of weeping widows and orphans there, we came by train to Adana. Near the city the road runs for miles through vineyards and gardens, in former days a beautiful sight. But now it is a waste of desolation; all the houses of the Christians are heaps of ruins; in and around those houses more than five hundred were slain during the three terrible days of April. The houses of Moslems have not been injured. We noted a like contrast as respects the numerous farms on the plain between Tarsus and Adana. And yet the charge is made, and believed, that the Armenians were the aggressors!

"In the once prosperous Adana, nothing but ruins; it is like the pictures I have seen of Pompeii. The wretched survivors wander by twos and threes around the places where once stood their happy homes; they look more like ghosts than human beings, these pale, dejected, barefooted widows and orphans."

On the 12th of May, after the Young Turks had recovered power at Constantinople, the Turkish Embassy at London gave out the following announcement: "Order and tranquillity prevail throughout the Sanjak of Djebel-i-Bereket. Troops are arriving gradually and are being distributed according to the necessities of each place. The local authorities at Adana are about to proceed at once to confiscate stolen property and to disarm Musulmans and non-Musulmans alike. This measure will be adopted generally in the other parts of the vilayet as soon as the troops which are coming from the various places have reached the positions to which they have been assigned. The authorities are very busily engaged in finding homes for people who are without shelter and in supplying them with food. A Commission for that purpose has been appointed at Adana."

A Court Martial and a Parliamentary Commission were now sent to Adana to investigate the massacre and punish the guilty. Their work was soon showing results. On the 24th of May a report came from Constantinople that "Ferid Pasha has informed a representative of the Tanin that several of the soldiers who took part in the recent massacres in Cilicia have been arrested. Nine persons have already been condemned to death by the Court-martial. With regard to the responsibility for the outbreak, the Minister said that, while he could not definitely ascribe it to official promptings, certain officials had failed to do their duty, among them the Mutesarrif of Jebel Bereket, who had been imprisoned pending an inquiry into his conduct. The reactionaries had certainly played a part in fomenting the outbreak, but other elements—which the Minister did not specify—had contributed thereto."

On the 13th of July it was reported that "an Imperial Iradeh has been issued ordering the arrest of the ex-Governors of Adana and Djebel Bereket, the commander of the Adana garrison, and a number of notables of Cilicia, among whom is the editor of the Itidal, the notorious Baghdadi."

Two days later it was said that "the ex-Governors of Adana and Djebel Bereket have been sent to Adana under a strong escort. Some 20 leading Moslem notables of Adana who have been arrested will be immediately brought before a Court-Martial. The Grand Vizier has given orders for a manifesto to be prepared by the Sheikh-ul-Islam, demonstrating by means of texts from the Koran and the Traditions that the duty of all good Moslems is to treat Christians with justice and to regard them as fellow-citizens with equal rights. It is to be distributed by the kadis, muftis, and hodjas in every town and village of the empire, and the most learned ulema are to take it as their text in the sermons to be preached during next Ramazan."

July 18th the court-martial was stated to have made a report which concluded as follows:

"‘Fifteen persons have been already hanged, 800 deserve death, 15,000 deserve hard labour for life, and 80,000 deserve minor sentences. If it is decided to proceed with the punishment, we will draw a cordon around the town and deal expeditiously with the matter.’ In view, however, of the general reconciliation between the various elements, the Court-martial recommends a general amnesty on the occasion of the National Fête."

The 11th of August brought accounts of the publication of a declaration by a Commission of three ministers in the Turkish Cabinet appointed to prepare it, acquitting the Armenians of all responsibility for the outbreak at Adana. This declaration, drawn up after a careful examination of the reports of the members of the Parliamentary Commission on the massacres and approved by the Council of Ministers, ascribes the massacre to the ignorance of the population. "In the reign of Abdul Hamid the people had become imbued with the idea that every Armenian was a separatist at heart, and were therefore averse from equality with the Armenian community. They had become in consequence the tools of religious or political agitators. The declaration censures severely the local officials for their failure, not only to quell the outbreak, but to warn the Government that the situation in Cilicia was critical."

One of the Deputies of the Parliamentary Commission which investigated matters at Adana gave, perhaps, a more distinct idea of the causes that worked to produce the massacres, in an interview published during August, when he said:

"The massacre in Adana had two strong causes: reaction and tyranny. The joy of the July demonstrations [of 1908] had scarcely passed when, at the beginning of August, tyrannical tendencies began to appear. The former Mufti of Bakhcheh went hither and thither declaring that liberty and the constitution were the work of the Christians, that the constitution was contrary to the Sheriat. In this way he stirred up Moslems against the Christians and the constitution. In place of the joy which appeared among all classes during the first days of the constitution, a spirit of revenge and enmity against non-Moslems began to spread."

Evidently the amnesty recommended by the Court-martial in July was not granted; for the following telegram was sent from Constantinople on the 12th of December to the London _Times_: "Twenty-six Moslems, who were sentenced to death in connexion with the Adana massacres in April last, were executed at Adana yesterday and to-day. Order was maintained, although the population was much moved, the women relatives of the condemned publicly manifesting their grief. One Armenian is awaiting execution."

{664}

Nevertheless the Armenians have not been satisfied with the punishments inflicted, and the Armenian Patriarch resigned in September, as a mark of protest, maintaining that the real instigators of the massacres went unpunished.

TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (May-December). Hilmi Pasha, Grand Vizier. Parliament opened by the new Sultan. Constitutional Amendments on Religion and Education. The Committee of Union and Progress. Change of Ministry.

From the 1st to the 5th of May Tewfik Pasha was Grand Vizier, by appointment from the new Sultan. Then, as had been expected, Hilmi Pasha was called to his place, and remained at the head of the Government until the last week of the year. On the 20th of the month the Sultan in person opened the session of Parliament, and, after a speech from the throne had been read by the Grand Vizier, pronounced the following words: "I have sworn to respect the Sheriat and the Constitution in its entirety, and not to transgress for one instant from safeguarding the national rights and interests of the country. You must now in return take the necessary oath." The oath was then taken by the Senators and Deputies in turn, his Majesty watching the proceedings from the Imperial box. On the 24th the Grand Vizier announced the programme of measures and general policy to be undertaken by his Ministry, and received, after debate, a vote of confidence by 190 to 5. The reconstituted Government was now a fully organized fact.

Questions concerning the attitude of the State towards religion and education, as it should be defined in the Constitution, were among the earliest of high importance to be brought before the Parliament. On the 8th of June it adopted an amendment to the article in the Constitution of 1876 reading as follows:

See, (in this Volume) CONSTITUTION OF TURKEY.

"Islam is the State religion.

"The State, while safeguarding this principle, guarantees the free exercise of all cults recognized in the Empire, and maintains the religious privileges granted to divers communities, provided public order and morality be not infringed."

On the subject of education the Constitution was amended to read:

"Education is free.

"All schools are placed under the control of the Government. The necessary measures shall be taken to assure to every Ottoman subject a uniform system of education. There shall be no interference with the religious education of the different communities."

The Christian communities, especially the Greek, objected strenuously to this, fearing that governmental control would be found to mean the imposition of the Turkish language in all schools, as an instrument of nationalization.

Another proposed amendment, making members of the Chamber of Deputies eligible for the posts of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, failed to secure the requisite two-thirds majority, and this was regarded as a defeat of the civilian leaders of the "Young Turk" Committee of Union and Progress, who were supposed to be desirous of holding the posts in question, while sitting also in the Chamber.

The firm control of affairs which the Committee in question had exercised throughout the revolutionary movement, while keeping itself mysteriously anonymous in the background, had been extraordinarily successful, indicative of high wisdom and a very genuine public spirit. But the forces thus handled by the Committee, especially in the military element of the revolution, were growing restive, it would appear, under the feeling of too much subordination, and gave increasing signs of discontent with the invisibility of the wires by which they were pulled. Without doubt, it was evidence of this which led the Committee, at a meeting at Salonika, in October, to resolve and announce that their organization should no longer be a secret society, but open to public knowledge and directed henceforth by a responsible executive. Whether the Committee did or did not strengthen itself by thus coming into the open, it has maintained its ascendancy and still exercises a controlling power.

The second session of Parliament was opened by the Sultan, on the 14th of November, with a speech of roseate contentedness in its contemplation of Turkish affairs. Late in December a change of Ministry occurred, in somewhat obscure connection with a consolidation of steamer lines on the Euphrates. A British line of steamers, known as the Lynch Line, which had been running on that river since 1860, was being consolidated with a Turkish line that the Turkish Government controlled, and something in the transaction which raised an issue between Parliament and the Grand Vizier. Hilmi Pasha, led the latter to resign December 28. Nobody seems to have doubted, however, that the real cause of his leaving office was in the willingness of the Committee that he should do so. General Mahmud Shevket, the able military leader of the Revolution, was invited to form a Cabinet, but declined, as he is said to have done before. The high office was then conferred on Hakki Bey, Turkish Ambassador at Rome, and Mahmud Shevket Pasha accepted office in his Cabinet as Minister of War.

TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (October). Railway and Irrigation Projects in the Tigris-Euphrates Delta.

Sir William Willcocks, the British engineer who has been engaged for some time past in surveys for the Turkish Government, having reference to irrigation and railway improvements for the reclamation of the great Mesopotamian region, made a report to the Ministry of Public Works at Constantinople in October, 1909, of which the following account was given to the Press through Reuter’s Agency:

"Sir William Willcocks advocates the construction of a railway from Baghdad to the Mediterranean. The proposed railway would start from Baghdad, cross the Euphrates at Feludia, and follow the Valley to Hit. At Hit the line would take the Euphrates Valley and traverse the flat desert in a straight line to El Kaim, near Abu Kemal, the northern limit of the cataracts. From El Kaim to Der Zor, the Euphrates has no cataracts, and the river Khabour, which joins the Euphrates at Mayadin, the ancient Rehoboth, is, like the Euphrates, navigable during the whole year. These parts of the Euphrates and Khabour could be extensively developed and all their products transported to El Kaim by boat and thence by rail. From El Kaim the railway would proceed to Tidmor (Palmyra) and follow the old trade route over a flat desert supplied with water. From Palmyra the line would go either to Homs or Damascus. The total length of the railway from Baghdad to Damascus is placed at 880 kilometres.

{665}

"The report next deals with the works of irrigation to be undertaken at once. These consist of barrages of the Hindich canal, dams on the Habbania and Sakhlawia, and works for the navigation on the Tigris. The total cost of the entire works on the Euphrates is estimated at £T1,034,000, while that of the works on the Tigris is placed at £T1,110,480. The cost of the works to be undertaken forthwith attains the following figures:—

On the Euphrates, £T822,700; on the Tigris, £T710,000; total, £T1,532,700.

The railway could be built in two years, while the irrigation works would take eight years to complete. To begin with, one million hectares of land would be restored to its former prosperity out of five million hectares which comprise the Tigris-Euphrates delta."

----------TURKEY: End--------

TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE: Its Twenty-fifth Anniversary.

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

TWEEDMOUTH, LORD: First Lord of the Admiralty.

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

TWO-HUNDRED-AND-THREE METRE HILL.

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

TWO POWER STANDARD, NAVAL.

See (in this Volume) War, The PREPARATIONS for.

TURNEY, DANIEL BRAXTON: Nominated for President of the United States.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

TYRREL, Father George: Writer of a Famous Letter on Questions of Religion. His death.

The Reverend George Tyrrel, widely known as Father Tyrrel, died on the 15th of July, 1909, at Storrington, Sussex, England. He was the writer of a letter which gave a notable impulse to the movement of thought in the Roman Catholic Church known as "Modernism," which Pope Pius X. condemned as heretical in his encyclical of 1907. The letter was addressed to an English man of science (supposed to have been Professor Mivart) who, being a Roman Catholic, found difficulty in reconciling his scientific convictions with the tenets of his Church. Parts of the letter obtained publication in Italy, and led to the expulsion of Father Tyrrel from the Society of Jesus. He then gave publication to the full text of the letter, under the title of "A Much Abused Letter." On the appearance of the encyclical against Modernism he criticised it with keenness, and was virtually excommunicated from the Church. The fact that on his death-bed, when stricken with speechlessness, he received the sacraments of the Church, gave rise to much controversy, as to his volition in the matter and as to the justification of the priest who ministered to him.

Father Tyrrel had entered the Roman Church in 1879, under the influence of the writings of Cardinal Newman.

TZE-HSI: Dowager-Empress of China. Her death.

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

U.

UGANDA: Its habitability by Whites.

See (in this Volume) AFRICA.

ULEMA, THE.

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

UNDERFED SCHOOL CHILDREN.

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

UNEMPLOYMENT, THE PROBLEM OF.

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

UNIFORM STATE LAWS.

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

UNITED DRY GOODS COMPANIES.

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

UNITED FREE CHURCH, OF SCOTLAND.

See (in this Volume) SCOTLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.

UNITED MINE-WORKERS, OF AMERICA.

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

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF SCOTLAND.

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

----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (September). The Assassination of President McKinley.

"On the sixth of September, President McKinley was shot by an anarchist while attending the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo, and died in that city on the fourteenth of that month. Of the last seven elected Presidents, he is the third who has been murdered, and the bare recital of this fact is sufficient to justify grave alarm among all loyal American citizens. Moreover, the circumstances of this, the third assassination of an American President, have a peculiarly sinister significance. Both President Lincoln and President Garfield were killed by assassins of types unfortunately not uncommon in history; President Lincoln falling a victim to the terrible passions aroused by four years of civil war, and President Garfield to the revengeful vanity of a disappointed office-seeker. President McKinley was killed by an utterly depraved criminal belonging to that body of criminals who object to all governments, good and bad alike, who are against any form of popular liberty if it is guaranteed by even the most just and liberal laws, and who are as hostile to the upright exponent of a free people’s sober will as to the tyrannical and irresponsible despot.

"It is not too much to say that at the time of President McKinley’s death he was the most widely loved man in all the United States; while we have never had any public man of his position who has been so wholly free from the bitter animosities incident to public life. His political opponents were the first to bear the heartiest and most generous tribute to the broad kindliness of nature, the sweetness and gentleness of character, which so endeared him to his close associates. {666} To a standard of lofty integrity in public life he united the tender affections and home virtues which are all-important in the make-up of national character. A gallant soldier in the great war for the Union, he also shone as an example to all our people because of his conduct in the most sacred and intimate of home relations. There could be no personal hatred of him, for he never acted with aught but consideration for the welfare of others. No one could fail to respect him who knew him in public or private life. The defenders of those murderous criminals who seek to excuse their criminality by asserting that it is exercised for political ends, inveigh against wealth and irresponsible power. But for this assassination even this base apology cannot be urged. …

"The blow was aimed not at this President, but at all Presidents; at every symbol of government. President McKinley was as emphatically the embodiment of the popular will of the Nation expressed through the forms of law as a New England town meeting is in similar fashion the embodiment of the law-abiding purpose and practice of the people of the town. On no conceivable theory could the murder of the President be accepted as due to protest against ‘inequalities in the social order,’ save as the murder of all the freemen engaged in a town meeting could be accepted as a protest against that social inequality which puts a malefactor in jail."

_Message of President Roosevelt to Congress, December 3, 1901._

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (September). Settlement of Boxer Indemnity from China.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (December). Communication of German Claims and Complaints against Venezuela. The President’s Reply. Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1902. The "Boom Years" in Trade and Investment of Capital.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1902. Efforts of Secretary Hay to maintain the "Open Door" in Manchuria.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1902 (October-January). The Second International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1902 (November-February). Negotiation and Ratification of the Second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, relative to a Ship Canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1903. Urgency of President Roosevelt for more Effective Legislation to control the Operation of so-called Trusts.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1903. Purchase of Franchises and Property of French Panama Canal Co. Failure of Canal Treaty with Colombia. Secession and recognized Independence of Panama. Treaty with the Republic of Panama. Undertaking of the Canal.

See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1905. The Cabinet of President Roosevelt during his First Term.

On succeeding the murdered President McKinley, to fill the unexpired term, President Roosevelt retained his predecessor’s Cabinet, three members of which remained in it throughout the term. These were John Hay, Secretary of State, Ethan Allen Hitchcock, Secretary of the Interior, and James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture. Lyman J. Gage, Secretary of the Treasury, resigned in 1902 and was succeeded by Leslie M. Shaw. Elihu Root, Secretary of War, was succeeded by William H. Taft in 1904. John D. Long, Secretary of the Navy, retired in 1902, to be succeeded by William H. Moody, who went two years later to the Department of Justice, as Attorney-General, taking the place of Philander C. Knox, and being followed in the Navy Department by Paul Morton. Charles E. Smith, Postmaster-General, left the Cabinet in 1902, and his place was taken by Henry C. Payne, who was succeeded in turn by Robert J. Wynne in 1904. The Department of Commerce and Labor, created in February, 1903, was filled first by George B. Cortelyou, until 1904, then by Victor H. Metcalf.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1905. Urgency of President Roosevelt for more effective Railway Rate Legislation.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1906. Governmental Action against Corporate Wrongdoing. A summary of Legislation, Litigation, and Court Decisions.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1909. Progress of Civil Service Reform under President Roosevelt.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901-1909. The great National Movement for an organized Conservation of Natural Resources.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902. Arbitration at The Hague of the Pious Fund Dispute with Mexico.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (August). Assertion to Germany of Principles involved in the Right of Expatriation.

See (in this Volume) NATURALIZATION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (January). Founding of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (February-March). Visit of Prince Henry of Prussia.

A visit by Prince Henry of Prussia, brother of the German Emperor, was an event of considerable importance, in what it signified of friendly relations between Germany and the United States. The Prince arrived on the 22d of February and remained in the country until the 11th of March, visiting and being entertained at Washington (and Mt. Vernon), Annapolis, West Point, Philadelphia, New York, and making a six days trip into the West.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (March). Creation of a Permanent Census Bureau.

After long urging, Congress, in February, 1902, passed a bill authorizing the organization of a permanent Census Bureau in the Department of the Interior.

{667}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (May). Unveiling of a Monument to Marshal de Rochambeau.

A joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, in the following words, was approved by the President on the 21st of March, 1902:

"That the President be, and is hereby, authorized and requested to extend to the Government and people of France and the family of Marshal de Rochambeau, commander in chief of the French forces in America during the war of independence, and to the family of Marquis de Lafayette, a cordial invitation to unite with the Government and people of the United States in a fit and appropriate dedication of the monument of Marshal de Rochambeau to be unveiled in the city of Washington on the twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and two; and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this resolution the sum of ten thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the same, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State."

The invitation was conveyed to the President of France by an autograph letter from President Roosevelt, while Secretary Hay, at the same time, communicated it officially, through the American Ambassador at Paris, to representatives of the families of Marshal de Rochambeau and the Marquis de Lafayette. France, in response, sent a battleship, the _Gaulois_, bearing a general and an admiral, with two aids each, and two officials from the foreign office. The invitation was accepted by the present Count and Countess de Rochambeau; and, as explained by Ambassador Porter in a despatch, "Mr. Gaston de Sahune de Lafayette and his wife, not being able to proceed to the United States, the invitation is accepted for Mr. Paul de Sahune de Lafayette, who has been living in the United States for the last two years and who speaks English. He is the brother of Mr. Gaston de Sahune de Lafayette."

The ceremonies of the unveiling of the monument took place at Washington on the 24th of May, and were followed by official hospitalities to the guests of the occasion at Washington, Annapolis, West Point, New York, Newport, and Boston. With the sailing of the _Gaulois_, on the 1st of June, the formalities of the visit came to an end.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (May). Establishment of the Republic of Cuba. Transfer of Executive Authority from U. S. Military Governor to President-elect Palma.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (May-November). The Restoration of the White House.

Until 1902 the residence and the executive offices of the President of the United States were crowded together in the historic White House, with increasing inconvenience and impropriety. Many projects for their separation had been discussed, involving generally the erection of a new mansion for the chief magistrate; but they had no result until President Roosevelt, with characteristic resolution, took the matter in hand. His emphatic pronouncement that "under no circumstances should the President live elsewhere than in the historic White House" appealed strongly to a very common public feeling, and smoothed the way for an undertaking which speedily cleared the White House of its secretarial and clerical offices and made it a fit and worthy residence for the chief citizen of the Republic and his family.

On consultation with the Park Commission of Washington, and especially with the architect, Mr. McKim, who was one of its members, as to the expenditure of the annual appropriations of Congress for repairs to the White House, it was decided to be thriftless policy "to patch a building that needed thorough reconstruction. When asked for his ideas as to such reconstruction, Mr. McKim advised that a temporary one-story building be located west of the White House, nearly on the site once occupied by Thomas Jefferson’s offices, and be distinctly subordinate to the main building; and that the White House be restored to its original uses as a residence. This solution commended itself to the President, but lateness in the session of Congress seemed to make the project impossible of immediate execution.

"The discussion was still in the academic stage when, one day [in May, 1902], Mr. McKim outlined his ideas to the late Senator McMillan, who straightway asked the cost of the proposed changes. Pressed for an immediate answer, Mr. McKim made a rough estimate. The Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill was then pending in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and within an hour from the time the figures were given that committee agreed to insert an item for the restoration of the White House and for the construction of temporary executive offices. To Senators Allison and Hale the President afterward submitted the architect’s scheme; and when the item was reached during the passage of the bill in the Senate, the plan was received with favor, and the appropriation was agreed to without objection."

It passed the House with equal promptitude. The President then stipulated that "the work should be completed in time for the next social season, and that the executive offices and the living portion of the White House should be ready in November, 1902. That meant a campaign. Stones for floors and stairways must be selected piece by piece at the distant quarry; steel must be found to replace the over-tired wooden floor-beams; velvets and silks must be woven; hardware must be fashioned; and a thousand and one details must be looked after, because in less than six months the White House was to be made over from cellar to garret, and every piece of woodwork, every item of furniture, each ceiling and panel and moulding, must be both architecturally correct and also befitting a house of the latter part of the eighteenth century. Such was the task which the architects, Messrs. McKim, Mead & White, took upon themselves. …

"The total amount which Congress placed in President Roosevelt’s hands for both the executive offices and the White House was $530,641, and he might expend the money either by contract or otherwise in his discretion. This amount was based on estimates furnished by the architects, with the understanding that any portion saved on one item might be used on others, a very happy proviso, as it turned out, because the electric wiring had to be entirely renewed, new heating apparatus provided, and even a new roof put on the house--all unforeseen requirements. …

"At the outset the architects discovered that simply by carrying out completely the early plans as to the exterior, and by making certain rearrangements in the interior, the … White House problems could be solved, at least for the immediate future, without destroying one single feature of the historic building. …

{668}

"By the restoration of the east and west terraces the White House now rises from a stylobate 460 feet in length, thus greatly enhancing the dignity of the structure. The roofs of these terraces (which are level with the ground on the north) are surrounded with stone balustrades bearing electric lamps."

_Charles Moore, The Restoration of the White House (Century Magazine, April, 1903)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (June). Reclamation (Irrigation) Act of Congress.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (October). Failure of Projected Purchase of the Danish West Indies.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902-1903. Friendly course of Germany in undertaking Proceedings, with Great Britain and Italy, against Venezuela. Recognition of the Monroe Doctrine. Intermediation of the United States.

"If any proof were needed of Germany’s purpose to maintain good relations with our country [the United States], her course in the Venezuela matter has amply supplied it.

See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904]

Indeed, the fact that Germany came to an understanding with our government before taking forcible measures against Venezuela is of most momentous significance. Why? Because this was the first explicit recognition of the Monroe Doctrine by any Continental Power. It is a notable milestone passed in the history of our country and its relations with European governments. It gives the Monroe Doctrine a validity no longer to be disputed. All this was instantly recognized in Germany. ‘America for the Americans,’ said a great Berlin daily, ‘has become an irreversible fact.’ German Jingo organs were dazed, and angrily exclaimed, ‘Must we ask permission at Washington to collect our claims from Venezuela?’ Papers of more rational temper, however, accepted Germany's course, as not only without detriment to her dignity, but as in harmony with her political interests. Indeed, this saner section of the German press was even pleased that the government had thus made such an emphatic disavowal of the aims and dreams of the noisy, fantastic Pan-Germans."

_W. C. Dreher, A Letter from Germany (Atlantic Monthly, March, 1902)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902-1903. Extension of Civil Service Classification to Rural Free Delivery Service. Order concerning Unclassified Laborers.

See (in this Volume) CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902-1905. Negotiation and Senatorial Destruction of the Hay-Bond Reciprocity Treaty with Newfoundland.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1902 (February). Creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor in the National Government. The Bureau of Corporations.

"The establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor, with the Bureau of Corporations thereunder, marks a real advance in the direction of doing all that is possible for the solution of the questions vitally affecting capitalist and wage-workers. The act creating the Department was approved on February 14, 1903, and two days later the head of the Department was nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Since then the work of organization has been pushed as rapidly as the initial appropriations permitted, and with due regard to thoroughness and the broad purposes which the Department is designed to serve. After the transfer of the various bureaus and branches to the department at the beginning of the current fiscal year, as provided for in the act, the personnel comprised 1,289 employees in Washington and 8,836 in the country at large. The scope of the Department’s duty and authority embraces the commercial and industrial interests of the Nation. It is not designed to restrict or control the fullest liberty of legitimate business action, but to secure exact and authentic information which will aid the Executive in enforcing existing laws, and which will enable the Congress to enact additional legislation, if any should be found necessary, in order to prevent the few from obtaining privileges at the expense of diminished opportunities for the many.

"The preliminary work of the Bureau of Corporations in the Department has shown the wisdom of its creation. Publicity in corporate affairs will tend to do away with ignorance, and will afford facts upon which intelligent action may be taken. Systematic, intelligent investigation is already developing facts the knowledge of which is essential to a right understanding of the needs and duties of the business World. The corporation which is honestly and fairly organized, whose managers in the conduct of its business recognize their obligation to deal squarely with their stockholders, their competitors, and the public, has nothing to fear from such supervision. The purpose of this Bureau is not to embarrass or assail legitimate business, but to aid in bringing about a better industrial condition—a condition under which there shall be obedience to law and recognition of public obligation by all corporations, great or small."

_Message of the President to Congress, December 7, 1903._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903 (February). Passage of the Act to further regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations and among the States, known commonly as the Elkins Anti-Rebate Law.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903 (FEBRUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903 (October). Settlement of the Alaska Boundary Question.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903 (October). Lease from Cuba of two Coaling and Naval Stations.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903 (October). New Treaty with China. Two Ports in Manchuria opened to Foreign Trade.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1903 (MAY-OCTOBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903 (October). Commercial Relations with Germany as affected by the new German Tariff Law.

See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (OCTOBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903-1904. The Financial Crisis.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903-1904. Contention against Canadian claims to Sovereignty over Land and Sea in Hudson Bay Region. Canadian Measures to establish it.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903-1905. Investigation and Prosecution of the "Beef Trust," so called.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.

{669}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1903-1906. Unearthing of Extensive Frauds in the Land Office.

Late in December, 1902, the Secretary of the Interior Department, the Honorable Ethan Allen Hitchcock, received information which led him, with the President’s approval, to demand the resignation of the Commissioner of the Land Office, Binger Hermann, of Oregon. Mr. Hermann was a man of importance in the Republican party, and he rallied powerful influences to his support. They could not anchor him durably in the Land Office, but they did delay his departure from it for about a mouth, during which time he is said to have destroyed thousands of letters and documents bearing on land frauds which he was under suspicion of having protected and promoted. Returning to Oregon from Washington he sought and obtained from his party an election to Congress, to fill a vacancy which death had caused opportunely, and this seemed to augment his political power. But agents of the Interior Department were in Oregon and other Western States at the same time, gathering evidence which soon removed all doubt of the huge conspiracy of fraud which Commissioner Hermann had been a party to, and which had wide ramifications wherever public lands of value were open to entry, under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, or the Timber and Stone Act.

The frauds were carried on under false appearances of compliance with the requirements of law, and the dismissal of Hermann had not cleared from the General Land Office all the treacherous connivance which made them possible. Other allies of the land-thieves were tracked to their official desks, some at Washington, some in the Interior Department, some in Congress, and some out in the land offices at the West. Then the Federal Grand Jury at Portland, Oregon, began to turn out indictments, on evidence handled by Francis J. Heney, now entering on a famous career, as special prosecutor for the Government. Mr. Heney was appointed by the President on the recommendation of Secretary Hitchcock and Attorney-General Knox, with neglect of advice from Oregon Senators and Congressmen. One of the first of the indictments found struck an Oregon Senator, John H. Mitchell, and brought him to a prison sentence, which death rescued him from. Another put a member of the House of Representatives, J. H. Williamson, on trial; a third put its brand on a recently removed United States District Attorney, John H. Hall. Binger Hermann, a State Senator, and several special agents of the Land Office were among the other subjects of prosecution, besides a large number of private operators in the land-thieves’ ring.

These proceedings were at the beginning of vigorous measures which have gone far towards, if not fully to the end of arresting the frauds which were rapidly robbing the nation of the last of its valuable public lands.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904. Representation in the Interparliamentary Union.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904 (May). Kidnapping of Mr. Ion Perdicaris at Tangier, for Ransom.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904 (May-October). The Louisiana Purchase Exposition.

See (in this Volume) ST. LOUIS: A. D. 1904.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904 (May-November). The Presidential Election. Parties, Candidates, and Platforms. Election of President Roosevelt.

The questions of leading interest and influence in the canvass preliminary to the Presidential election of 1904 were undoubtedly those relating to the governmental regulation of interstate railways and of the capitalistic combinations called "trusts"; but those questions had not yet acquired the height of importance in the public mind which they reached before the next quadrennial polling of the nation occurred. The question of tariff revision and a moderated protective system, in the interest of the great mass of consumers, was rising in interest, especially at the West; but that, too, was but mildly influential in the campaign. As for the imperialistic ambitions that had been excited for a time by the conquests of 1898, they had cooled to so great a degree as to offer no longer much challenge to opposition; opinion in the country now differing on little more than the length of time to which American guardianship over the Philippine Islands should be allowed to run. The voters of the United States, in fact, made their election between the men who were offered to it as candidates, far more than between the parties and the policies whom the candidates represented; and President Roosevelt was reelected on personal grounds, in the main, because the kind of vigorous character he had shown was greatly to the liking of a large part of the people.

The first nominating convention to be held was that of the Socialist party, whose delegates met at Chicago, May 2, and nominated for President Eugene V. Debs, of Indiana; for Vice-President Benjamin Hanford, of New York.

On the same day the United Christian Party, whose declaration of principles appears below, met at St. Louis.

The Convention of the Republican Party, also held at Chicago, came next in time, June 21, and, with Theodore Roosevelt, of New York, for reëlection as President, it named for Vice-President Charles Warren Fairbanks, of Indiana.

The Prohibition Party, in convention at Indianapolis, June 29, named Silas C. Swallow, of Pennsylvania, for President, and George W. Carroll, of Texas, for Vice-President.

On the 4th of July the People’s or Populist Party held convention at Springfield, Illinois, and nominated Thomas E. Watson, of Georgia, for President, with Thomas H. Tibbles, of Nebraska, for Vice-President.

Meeting two days earlier, in New York City, but in session some days longer, the Socialist Labor Party named for President Charles Hunter Corregan, of New York, and for Vice-President William Wesley Cox, of Illinois.

The convention of the Democratic Party opened its session, at St. Louis, on the 6th of July. Its nominee for President was Alton B. Parker, of New York; for Vice-President Henry G. Davis, of West Virginia.

The National Liberty Party met at St. Louis on the 7th of July and put forth its platform of principles.

The last of the nominations were presented on the 31st of August, at Chicago, by a convention representing a new party, the Continental, whose candidates then named declined and were subsequently replaced by Austin Holcomb, of Georgia, for President, and A. King, of Missouri, for Vice-President.

{670}

With some abridgment, the declarations of principles and pledges of party policy adopted by these several conventions on the main questions at issue are given conveniently for comparison in the following arrangement by subjects:

Trusts.

The Republican Party contented itself with a brief boast of "laws enacted by the Republican party which the Democratic party failed to enforce," but which "have been fearlessly enforced by a Republican President," and of "new laws insuring reasonable publicity as to the operations of great corporations and providing additional remedies for the prevention of discrimination in freight rates."

The Democratic Party condemned with vigor the failure of Republicans in Congress to prohibit contracts with convicted trusts; declared that "gigantic trusts and combinations" "are a menace to beneficial competition and an obstacle to permanent business prosperity;" denounced "rebates and discrimination by transportation companies as the most potent agency in promoting and strengthening these unlawful conspiracies against trade," demanded "an enlargement of the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission," "a strict enforcement of existing civil and criminal statutes against all such trusts, combinations and monopolies," and "the enactment of such further legislation as may be necessary to effectually suppress them."

The People’s Party set forth the proposition that, "to prevent unjust discrimination and monopoly the Government should own and control the railroads and those public utilities which in their nature are monopolies." It should "own and operate the general telegraph and telephone systems and provide a parcels post." Corporations "should be subjected to such governmental regulations and control as will adequately protect the public," and demand was made for "the taxation of monopoly privileges, while they remain in private hands, to the extent of the value of the privileges granted."

The Continental Party contended for a guarded chartering by Congress of "all railroad and other corporations doing business in two or more States," and for having the "creating of ‘corners’ and the establishing of exorbitant prices for products necessary to human existence … made a criminal offence."

The United Christian Party declared that "Christian government through direct legislation will regulate the trusts and labor problem according to the golden rule."

The Tariff.

The Republican Party declared "Protection" to be its "cardinal policy," maintenance of the principles of which policy is insisted upon; wherefore "rates of duty should be readjusted only when conditions have so changed that the public interest demands their alteration," and "this work cannot safely be committed to any other hands than those of the Republican party."

The Democratic Party, on the contrary, denounced "protection as a robbery of the many to enrich the few," favored "a tariff limited to the needs of the Government, economically administered," and called for a "revision and gradual reduction of the tariff by the friends of the masses, for the commonwealth, and not by the friends of its abuses, its extortions and its discriminations."

The People’s Party declared for a change in our laws that "will place tariff schedules in the hands of an omni-partisan commission."

The Continental Party limited its declaration on this subject to one pronouncing for an "adherence to the principles of reciprocity advocated by that eminent statesman, James G. Blaine, as applied to Canada and all American Republics."

Capital and Labor. Public Ownership. Socialism.

The Republican Party recognized "combinations of capital and labor" as "being the results of the economic movements of the age," but "neither must be permitted to infringe upon the rights and interests of the people"; "both are subject to the laws, and neither can be permitted to break them."

The Democratic Party expressed similar impartiality, in favoring "the enactment and administration of laws giving labor and capital impartially their just rights."

The People’s Party pledged its effort to "preserve inviolate" "the right of labor to organize for the benefit and protection of those who toil." It would seek "the enactment of legislation looking to the improvement of conditions for the wage-earners, the abolition of child labor, the suppression of sweat shops and of convict labor in competition with free labor"; also the "exclusion from American shores of foreign pauper labor," and "the shorter work day."

The Continental Party adopted these expressions of the People’s Party, in identical words.

The National Liberty Party asked "that the General Government own and control all public carriers in the United States."

The Prohibition Party declared itself "in favor of … the safeguarding of the people’s rights by a rigid application of the principles of justice to all combinations and organizations of capital and labor."

The United Christian Party pronounced simply for "Government ownership of coal mines, oil wells and public utilities."

The Socialist Party pledged itself "to watch and work, in both the economic and the political struggle, for each successive immediate interest of the working class": for "shortened days of labor and increases of wages"; for "insurance of the workers against accident, sickness and lack of employment"; for pensions; for "public ownership of the means of transportation, communication and exchange"; for graduated taxation of incomes, etc.; for "complete education of children and their freedom from the workshops"; for "free administration of justice"; for "the initiative, referendum, proportional representation, equal suffrage for men and women," etc.; and for "every gain or advantage for the workers that may be wrested from the capitalist system and that may relieve the suffering and strengthen the hands of labor"; but in so doing it proclaims that it is "using these remedial measures as means to the one great end of the co-operative commonwealth."

The Socialist Labor Party declared that "the existing contradiction between the theory of democratic government and the fact of a despotic economic system … perverts government to the exclusive benefit of the capitalist class"; wherefore, "against such a system the Socialist Labor Party raises the banner of revolt, and demands the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class."

{671}

Nomination and Election. Initiative and Referendum.

The Democratic Party declared for the election of United States Senators by direct popular vote.

he People’s Party demanded "that legal provision be made under which people may exercise the initiative and referendum, and proportional representation, and direct vote for all public officers, with the right of recall."

The Continental Party demanded "the enactment by the several States of a primary election law"; the "elimination of the party ‘boss’"; "direct legislation by the method known as the initiative and referendum," and the possession by each State of "the sole right to determine by legislation the qualifications required of voters within its jurisdiction, irrespective of race, color or sex."

The Prohibition Party expressed itself in favor of the popular election of United States Senators; of "a wise application of the principle of the initiative and referendum," and of making the right of suffrage "depend upon the mental and moral qualifications of the citizen."

Natural Resources. Land. Reclamation. Waterways.

The Republican Party pointed simply to the fact that it had "passed laws which will bring the arid lands of the United States within the area of cultivation."

The Democratic Party congratulated "our western citizens upon the passage of the law known as the Newlands Irrigation Act," claiming it as "a measure framed by a Democrat, passed in the Senate by a non-partisan vote, and passed in the House against the opposition of almost all Republican leaders, by a vote the majority of which was Democratic." It declared for "liberal appropriations for the improvement of waterways of the country," and pronounced its opposition to "the Republican policy of starving home development in order to feed the greed for conquest and the appetite for national prestige."

The People’s Party asserted that "Land, including all the natural sources of wealth, is a heritage of all the people, and should not be monopolized for speculative purposes; and alien ownership of land should be prohibited."

Each of the party platforms was fluent on many other topics, such as the protection of citizens at home and abroad, the Panama Canal, territories and dependencies, injunctions, public economy, taxation, monetary questions, pensions, the civil service, army and navy, merchant marine, liquor-licensing and prohibition (the specialty of the Prohibition Party), divorce, polygamy, etc.; but these entered so little into the canvass that the party declarations on them had small effect, if any, on the popular vote.

At the election, in November, the votes given to the Republican nominees numbered 7,623,486; to Democratic, 5,077,971; to Socialist, 402,283; to Prohibition, 258,536; to People’s, 117,183; to Socialist Labor, 31,249.

The electoral votes cast were 336 for Roosevelt and Fairbanks; 140 for Parker and Davis.

The States which gave Republican majorities were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming,—32.

Democratic majorities were given in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,—12.

In Maryland, where the electors are chosen by the Legislature, 6 votes were given to the Democratic candidates and 2 to the Republican.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904 (October). Initial invitation by the President to the holding of a Second Peace Conference.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904 (November). President Roosevelt’s Renunciation of any Third Term Candidacy.

On the evening of the day of election, as soon as the result was known to have given him a second term in the presidential office, President Roosevelt issued the following acknowledgment and announcement to the country:

"I am deeply sensible of the honor done me by the American people in thus expressing their confidence in what I have done and have tried to do. I appreciate to the full the solemn responsibility this confidence imposes upon me, and I shall do all that in my power lies not to forfeit it. On the Fourth of March next I shall have served three and one-half years, and this three and one-half years constitutes my first term. The wise custom which limits the President to two terms regards the substance and not the form. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904-1905. Beginning and Organization of Work on the Panama Canal.

See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1904-1905.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1904-1909. Progress of State, County, and Town Prohibition.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905. Arbitration Treaty with Mexico.

See (in this Volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905. Reopened Controversy over American Fishing Rights on the Newfoundland coast.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905. Assistance to San Domingo against threatening Creditors.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905 (February). Concentration of Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905 (February-June). Recovery from France of the body of Admiral John Paul Jones.

On the 13th of February, 1905, President Roosevelt addressed a Message to Congress which gave the following information:

"For a number of years efforts have been made to confirm the historical statement that the remains of Admiral John Paul Jones were interred in a certain piece of ground in the city of Paris then owned by the Government and used at the time as a burial place for foreign Protestants. These efforts have at last resulted in documentary proof that John Paul Jones was buried on July 20, 1792, between 8 and 9 o’clock P. M., in the now abandoned cemetery of St. Louis, in the northeastern section of Paris. About 500 bodies were interred there, and the body of the admiral was probably among the last hundred buried. It was encased in a leaden coffin, calculated to withstand the ravages of time.

{672}

"The cemetery was about 130 feet long by 120 feet wide. Since its disuse as a burial place the soil has been tilled to a level and covered almost completely by buildings, most of them of an inferior class. The American ambassador in Paris, being satisfied that it is practical to discover and identify the remains of John Paul Jones, has, after prolonged negotiations with the present holders of the property and the tenants thereof, secured from them options in writing which give him the right to dig in all parts of the property during a period of three months for the purpose of making the necessary excavations and searches, upon condition of a stated compensation for the damage and annoyance caused by the work. The actual search is to be conducted by the chief engineer of the municipal department of Paris having charge of subterranean works at a cost which has been carefully estimated. The ambassador gives the entire cost of the work, including the options, compensation, cost of excavating and caring for the remains as not exceeding 180,000 francs, or $35,000, on the supposition that the body may not be found until the whole area has been searched. If earlier discovered, the expense would be proportionately less."

The President recommended an appropriation of the sum named, "or so much thereof as may be necessary for the purposes above described, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State."

On the 14th of April following a telegram from the Ambassador at Paris, General Horace Porter, announced that his "six years’ search for the remains of Paul Jones" had resulted in success, and described the identification of the body. This had been verified by Doctors Capitan and Papillault, distinguished professors of the School of Anthropology, who had ample particulars of information from which to judge. Arrangements were made at once for sending a naval squadron, under Admiral Sigsbee, to France, to bring the remains to the United States. This was done in the following June, when the relics of the first of American naval heroes received the high honors that were due to his exploits. They were deposited in a vault on the grounds of the Naval Academy at Annapolis.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905 (June-October). Mediation by the President between Russia and Japan. The Peace Treaty of Portsmouth.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905 (July). Proclamation of the Death of John Hay, Secretary of State.

"John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States, died on July 1st. His death, a crushing sorrow to his friends, is to the people of this country a national bereavement; and it is in addition a serious loss to all mankind, for to him it was given to stand as a leader in the effort to better world conditions by striving to advance the cause of international peace and justice. He entered the public service as the trusted and intimate companion of Abraham Lincoln, and for well nigh forty-five years he served his country with loyal devotion and high ability in many positions of honor and trust, and finally he crowned his life work by serving as Secretary of State with such far-sighted reading of the future and such loyalty to lofty ideals as to confer lasting benefits not only upon our own country, but upon all the nations of the earth.

"As a suitable expression of national mourning, I direct that the diplomatic representatives of the United States in all foreign countries display the flags over their embassies and legations at half-mast for ten days; that for a like period the flag of the United States be displayed at half-mast at all forts and military posts and at all naval stations and on all vessels of the United States. I further order that on the day of the funeral the Executive Departments in the city of Washington be closed, and that on all public buildings throughout the United States the national flag be displayed at half-mast.

"Done at the city of Washington this third day of July, A. D. 1905, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and twenty-ninth. Theodore Roosevelt."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905-1906. American Claims against Venezuela.

See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1907-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905-1906. Part taken in the organization of the International Institute of Agriculture.

See (in this Volume) AGRICULTURE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905-1906. The new Period of Inflated Exploitation of Capital. Increased Cost of Living.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905-1907. Receivership of San Domingo Revenues. The "Modus Vivendi" and the Treaty.

See (in this Volume) SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1905-1907.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1905-1909. The Cabinet of President Roosevelt during his Second Term.

During the second term of President Roosevelt his Cabinet underwent the following changes: On the death of John Hay, in July, 1905, Elihu Root became Secretary of State, and continued in the office until January, 1909, when he resigned, and was succeeded by the Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Bacon. Leslie M. Shaw left the Treasury Department in 1907, and the secretaryship was given to George B. Cortelyou. William H. Taft continued in charge of the War Department until his nomination for President, in 1908, when General Luke E. Wright was called to his place. Charles J. Bonaparte, appointed Secretary of the Navy at the beginning of the President’s new term, was transferred in 1907 to the Department of Justice, succeeding Attorney-General Moody, appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court, and being succeeded in the Navy Department by Victor H. Metcalf, previously Secretary of Commerce and Labor. In the Department of the Interior, Secretary Hitchcock resigned in 1907, and James R. Garfield, previously Commissioner of Corporations, came into his place. George B. Cortelyou had been called to the Post Office Department at the beginning of the new presidential term, and transferred thence to the Treasury Department in 1907. His place in the Post Office was then filled by George von L. Meyer. The Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, remained at the head of that Department throughout the term. On the transfer of Mr. Metcalf from the Department of Commerce and Labor to that of the Treasury, in 1907, his place in the former was taken by Oscar S. Straus.

{673}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906. Joint Action with Mexico in Central American Mediation.

See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906. Act for the Preservation of the Scenic Grandeur of Niagara Falls.

See (in this Volume) NIAGARA FALLS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906. Dealings with Turkey facilitated by making the American Minister an Ambassador.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906. Enactment of a National Pure Food Law.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (January-April). Represented at the Algeciras Conference on the Morocco Question. Instructions to the Delegates. Declaration made on signing the Act of the Conference.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (March). Supreme Court Decision enforcing the Demand of the Government for the production of Books and Papers by the so-called Tobacco Trust before a Federal Grand Jury.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1906.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (April). Laying the Corner Stone of an Office Building for Congressmen.

On the 14th of April, 1906, the corner stone of a building designed to supply each member of the House of Representatives with an office was laid with ceremony, the President delivering an address. Besides 410 distinct offices, the design of the building contemplated a large assembly room for public hearings before committees of the House. Its estimated cost was something over $3,000,000. A corresponding office building for the Senate was also in view.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (April). Convention with British Government for Determining and Marking the Alaska Boundary Line.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (April-July). Long and Widespread Suspension of Coal Mining, both Anthracite and Bituminous.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (June). The Joint Statehood Act.

By the Joint Statehood Bill, approved by the President June 16, 1906, Indian Territory and Oklahoma were united to form the State of Oklahoma, the people being authorized to adopt a constitution. Arizona and New Mexico were proffered a similar union, in a State to be called Arizona. On the question of such union the Bill provided for a vote to be taken in each Territory, following which, if a majority in each should be found to favor the union, delegates to be chosen at the same election should meet and frame a constitution for submission to the people. The contemplated vote was taken at the election of November 6, and resulted in the rejection of the proposal by Arizona, while New Mexico gave assent. The project was thus defeated.

The plan of union was successful, however, in the creation of the State of Oklahoma. Delegates to a convention for framing its Constitution were elected November 6, 1906; the convention began its session on the 20th of the same month, and finished its labors on the 16th of July, 1907. By proclamation of the President the new State,—the 46th of the Federal family,—was admitted to the Union on the 16th of November following, under the Constitution which had been ratified by vote of a majority of the citizens of each of the Territories now united in it. For some account of the Constitution;

See (in this Volume) CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (July-August). The Third International Conference of American Republics, at Rio de Janeiro.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (August). The Brownsville Affair.

On the 13th of August, 1906, a riotous affair of a much-disputed nature occurred at Brownsville, Texas, in which one man was killed and two, at least, were wounded. The shooting was alleged to have been done by colored soldiers who formed part of a battalion of the Twenty-fifth Infantry, United States Army, stationed at Brownsville. An investigation of the affair convinced the President that some few soldiers of the battalion were guilty of what had been done, and that their comrades knew of their guilt, but were shielding them, by assertions to the contrary. On this belief he ordered the entire battalion to be discharged from the service, and angry controversy over his action arose at once. The negro soldiers were championed by a considerable part of the Press of the country, and by a section of Congress when it met. The evidence of their guilt was declared to be more than doubtful, and the authority of the President to issue the order of discharge was challenged.

In the annual report of the then Secretary of War, now President Taft, the action of President Roosevelt was firmly sustained. Secretary Taft’s version of the circumstances of the affair was substantially to the following effect: Some number of men, from a battalion of 170, formed a preconcerted plan to revenge themselves upon the people of a town for insults which they resented. They left their barracks about midnight and fired into the houses of the town for the purpose of killing those against whom they had a grievance. They did kill one man, wound another, and seriously injure the chief of police. There can be no doubt, therefore, that this squad of men were guilty; the purpose of one was the purpose of all. Within a few minutes after the crime was committed, the men returned to their places in the ranks (a call to arms having been sounded), and must have been among the last to take their places, for the firing continued after the formations had begun. The absence of their rifles from the racks could not have escaped the attention of the sergeants who had the keys; yet all the sergeants swear that the rifles were in the racks, untouched. It is impossible that many of the battalion who did not take part as active members of the conspiracy were not made aware, by one circumstance or another, of the identity of the persons who committed the offense, instead of giving to their officers or the inspectors the benefit of anything which they knew tending to lead to a conviction of the guilty men, there was a conspiracy of silence on the part of many who must have had some knowledge of importance. "These enlisted men," said Secretary Taft, "took the oath of allegiance to the Government, and were to be used under the law to maintain its supremacy. Can the Government properly, therefore, keep in its employ for the purpose of maintaining law and order any longer a body of men, from five to ten per cent. of whom can plan and commit murder, and rely upon the silence of a number of their companions to escape detection? "

{674}

Mr. Taft then called attention to the fact that "when a man enlists in the army he knows that, for the very purpose of protecting itself, the Government reserves to itself the absolute right of discharge, not as a punishment, but for the public safety or interest." He thus corrected the supposition that the discharge was a punishment either of the innocent or the guilty. He said further: "The discharge ‘without honor’ is merely the ending of a contract and separation from the service under a right reserved in the statute for the protection of the Government, which may work a hardship to the private discharged, but which, in the public interest, must sometimes be arbitrarily exercised."

Of the repeated investigations, Congressional and military, that ensued, and of the protracted disputation, led in Congress by Senator Foraker, and echoed in the newspapers, it is needless to attempt an account; for no greater certainty as to the facts in the case can be recognized to-day than when Secretary Taft's report was made.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (August-October). Insurrection in Cuba. American Intervention called for. The Cuban Government dissolved. Provisional Government established by Secretary-of-War Taft.

See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906 (October-November). Segregation of Orientals in San Francisco Schools. Resentment of the Japanese.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906-1909. The Provisional Government of Cuba. Reinstatement of the Republic.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1906-1909. The Reform of the Consular Service.

See CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1907. Monetary Panic. Distress among the Speculative Great Capitalists. Industrial Paralysis. Unemployment for Labor.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1907. Enactment of a new Law of Citizenship.

See (in this Volume) NATURALIZATION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1907 (January). Act to prohibit Corporations from making Contributions in connection with Political Elections.

The following Act of Congress was approved by the President, January 26, 1907.

"That it shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any State legislature of a United States Senator. Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."

According to a statement presented to the Senate in February, 1908, the laws of the following nineteen States and Territories contain provisions for the publicity of election contributions or expenditures originally enacted at the dates given:

Alabama, 1903; Arizona, 1895; California, 1893 Colorado, 1891; Connecticut, 1895; Iowa, 1907; Massachusetts, 1892; Minnesota, 1895; Missouri, 1893; Montana, 1895; Nebraska, 1897; New York, 1890; Pennsylvania, 1906; South Carolina, 1905; South Dakota, 1907; Texas, 1905; Virginia, 1903; Washington, 1907; Wisconsin, 1897.

The laws of the three following States, which contain no publicity provisions, forbid corporations to contribute in any manner for political purposes: Florida, 1897; Kentucky, 1897; Tennessee, 1897.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1907 (April). First National Peace Congress.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1907 (June-October). Represented at the Second Peace Conference.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1907-1909. The World-round Cruise of the Battleship Fleet.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908. Supreme Court Decision affirming right to specially limit the Hours of Labor for Women.

See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (April). Conditional Ratification, by the Senate of the Peace Conference Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (April). Treaty with Great Britain respecting the Demarcation of the International Boundary between the United States and Canada.

See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1908 (APRIL).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (April). Convention for the Preservation and Propagation of Food Fishes in waters contiguous to the United States and Canada.

See (in this Volume) FOOD FISHES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (April). Passage of Act relating to the Liability of Common Carriers by Railroad to their Employees.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (April-November). The Presidential Election. Parties, Candidates, and Platforms. Election of President Taft.

In the interval between the presidential elections of 1904 and 1908 the Trust and the Tariff questions had both received an increase of attention and of real study, and were factors of more influence in the latter than in the former election. The energy with which President Roosevelt had pressed both legislative and executive action, towards a more effective restraint and regulation of monopolistic combinations, had greatly strengthened his party in public favor. His extraordinary personal force, moreover, had made itself felt in many quickenings and stimulations of public spirit and of governmental action, which gave a cheering experience to the country. {675} The various ends to which this worked, and especially on the lines which looked to the rescuing of the rich natural resources of the country from private monopoly and reckless waste became associated in thought with the President, and widely talked of as belonging to "the Roosevelt policies." Popular satisfaction with these policies and their champion would have given Mr. Roosevelt a renomination by his party, if he had not emphatically reiterated his pledge of four years before, that "under no circumstances" would he "be a candidate for or accept another nomination." There were some who strove to persuade him to be false to that pledge; but they were not the people who esteemed him most truly. Naturally the nomination that would have gone again to Mr. Roosevelt if he had been free to accept it sought a candidate so closely identified with what he had stood for and labored for that no departure from the favored "policies" need be feared. Quite as naturally that candidate won a large majority of the popular votes.

The first nominating convention held in 1904 was that of the People’s or Populist Party, which sat in St. Louis April 2-3, and again named its old leader, Thomas E. Watson, of Georgia, for President, with Samuel W. Williams, of Indiana, for the second place.

Reverend Daniel Braxton Turney, of Illinois, was the next to be named for President, and L. S. Coffin, of Iowa, for Vice-President, by the United Christian Party, at Rock Island, Illinois, May 1.

On the 10th of May the Socialist Party met in convention at Chicago and was in session until the 18th, again nominating Eugene V. Debs, of Indiana, and Benjamin Hanford, of New York, for President and Vice-President.

The Republican convention was assembled at Chicago, June 16-19, and its nominees were William Howard Taft, of Ohio, for President, and James Schoolcraft Sherman, of New York, for Vice-President.

The Socialist Labor Party, at New York, July 24, nominated, for President, August Gillhaus, of New York; for Vice-President, Donald L. Munro, of Virginia.

At Denver, July 7-10, the Convention of the Democratic Party named, for the third time, William Jennings Bryan, of Nebraska, for President, and for Vice-President John Worth Kern, of Indiana.

The Prohibitionists convened at Columbus, Ohio, July 15-16, and the candidates named by them for President and Vice President were Eugene W. Chafin, of Illinois, and Aaron S. Watkins, of Ohio.

The last of the parties to meet in convention was that organized by William R. Hearst and named the Independence Party. The candidates put forward were Thomas L. Hisgen, of Massachusetts, and John Temple Graves, of Georgia.

Of the eight political parties which offered candidates to the voters of the nation, four presented them on special grounds, aside from which their standing on other questions of public policy was but slightly and incidentally made known. The "platforms" of the remaining four were of the scope of general politics, defining positions taken on all or most of the political discussions of the time. The declarations of these latter on the questions which enlisted real interest in the country will be given, as in the treatment of the party platforms of 1904, under a dissected arrangement, by subjects, for convenient comparison; while the former cannot easily be dealt with in that analytic way. In both cases the distinctly declaratory text of the platforms, only, will be given, with some abridgment, as follows:

Trusts.

"The Republican Party," it asserted, "passed the Sherman anti-trust law over Democratic opposition, and enforced it after Democratic dereliction. … But experience has shown that its effectiveness can be strengthened and its real objects better attained by such amendments as will give to the Federal Government greater supervision and control over, and secure greater publicity in, the management of that class of corporations engaged in interstate commerce having power and opportunity to effect monopolies."

The Democratic Party demanded "the enactment of such additional legislation as may be necessary to make it impossible for a private monopoly to exist in the United States." Among the additional remedies required it specified three:

(1) "A law preventing a duplication of directors among competing corporations";

(2) requirement of a federal license for a manufacturing or trading corporation, "before it shall be permitted to control as much as 25 per cent. of the product in which it deals, the license to protect the public from watered stock, and to prohibit the control by such corporation of more than 50 per cent. of the total amount of any product consumed in the United States"; and

(3) " a law compelling such licensed corporation to sell to all purchasers in all parts of the country on the same terms, after making due allowance for the cost of transportation."

The People’s Party declared that "the Government should own and control the railroads and those public utilities which in their nature are monopolies," including the telegraph and telephone systems, and should provide a parcels post. From those trusts and monopolies which are not public utilities or national monopolies it demanded a withdrawal of the special privileges they enjoy; taxation of all such privileges while they remain in private hands, and "a general law uniformly regulating the powers and duties of all incorporated companies doing interstate business."

The Independence Party denounced all combinations which "are not combinations for production, but for extortion," and demanded "the enforcement of a prison penalty against the guilty and responsible individuals controlling the management of the offending corporations." It advocated, "as a primary necessity for sounder business conditions and improved public service, the enactment of laws, State and National, to prevent watering of stock, dishonest issues of bonds and other forms of corporation frauds."

Tariff.

The declarations of the Republican and Democratic national conventions touching a revision of the tariff have been quoted already in this Volume.

See (in this Volume) TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.

The Independence Party, like the Democratic, demanded a revision of the tariff, not by its friends, but by the friends of the people, and declared for a gradual reduction of tariff duties.

{676}

Capital and Labor. Injunctions.

The Republican Party recited the enactments of the existing Congress in the interest of labor, and pledged "its continued devotion to every cause that makes for safety and the betterment of conditions among those whose labor contributes to the progress and welfare of the country." On the burning question of the interference of courts of law, by writ of injunction, with labor "strikes," it declared that, while "the Republican Party will uphold at all times the authority and integrity of the courts," it believes "that the rules of procedure in the writ of injunction should be more accurately defined by statute, and that no injunction or temporary restraining order should be issued without notice, except where irreparable injury would result from delay, in which case a speedy hearing thereafter should be granted."

The Democratic Party gave expression to the same desire to maintain the dignity of the courts, but had seen that "experience has proven the necessity of a modification of the present law relating to injunctions," and added: "we reiterate the pledges of our national platforms of 1896 and 1904 in favor of the measure which passed the United States Senate in 1896, but which a Republican Congress has ever since refused to enact, relating to contempts in Federal courts and providing for trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt. … We deem … that injunctions should not be issued in any case in which injunctions would not issue if no industrial dispute were involved." Its further declarations were against any "abridgment of the right of wage-earners and producers to organize for the protection of wages and the improvement of labor conditions"; for "the eight hour law on all government work"; for the enactment by Congress of a "general employers’ liability act," and for the creation of "a department of labor, represented separately in the President’s cabinet."

The Independence Party denounced "the so-called labor planks of the Republican and Democratic platforms as political buncombe and contemptible clap trap," and asserted "that in all actions growing out of a dispute between employers and employees concerning terms and conditions of employment no injunction should issue until after a trial upon the merits; that such trial should be held before a jury, and that in no case of alleged contempt should any person be deprived of liberty without a trial by jury." In further declarations the party indorsed "those organizations among farmers and workers which tend to bring about a just distribution of wealth," and favored legislation to "remove them from the operation of the Sherman anti-trust law"; endorsed the eight-hour work day, and would have it applied to all work done for the Government; called for legislation to prohibit "any combination or conspiracy to blacklist employees"; demanded "protection for workmen through enforced use of standard safety appliances and provision of hygienic conditions"; advocated State and Federal inspection of railways to secure a greater safety for employees and the travelling public; condemned the manufacture and sale of prison-made goods; favored a Federal department of labor, with its chief in the Cabinet; and called for a Federal inspection of grain.

The People’s Party condemned "all unwarranted assumption of authority by inferior Federal courts in annulling by injunction the laws of the States," and demanded legislation to "restrict to the Supreme Court of the United States the exercise of power in cases involving State legislation"; condemned the "attempt to destroy the power of trades unions through the unjust use of the Federal injunction"; demanded the abolition of child labor in factories and mines, suppression of sweat shops, exclusion of foreign pauper labor, the enactment of an employers’ liability act and measures against carelessness in the operation of mines; opposed the use of convict labor; favored the eight-hour work-day, and "legislation protecting the lives and limbs of workmen through the use of safety appliances"; declared that when working men are thrown into enforced idleness works of public improvement should be inaugurated.

Banking and Currency.

The Republican Party approved "the emergency measures adopted by the government during the recent financial disturbances" and declared the party to be "committed to the development of a permanent currency system, responding to our greater needs." It favored the establishment of a postal savings bank system.

The Democratic Party pointed to the panic of 1907, "coming without any legitimate excuse," as furnishing additional proof that the Republican party "is either unwilling or incompetent to protect the interests of the general public," having "so linked the country to Wall Street that the sins of the speculators are visited upon the whole people." It declared the belief that "in so far as the needs of commerce require an emergency currency, such currency should be issued, controlled by the Federal Government and loaned on adequate security to National and State banks." It pledged itself "to legislation under which the national banks should be required to establish a guarantee fund for the prompt payment of the depositors of any insolvent national bank under an equitable system which shall be available to all State banking institutions wishing to use it." It favored a postal savings bank "if the guaranteed bank can not be secured, and believed that it should be so constituted as to keep the deposited money in the community where the depositors live."

The People’s Party reiterated its belief that "the issuance of money is a function of government and should not be delegated to corporation or individual." It therefore demanded "that all money should be issued by the Government direct to the people, without the intervention of banks, and shall be a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and in quantities sufficient to supply the needs of the country." It also demanded postal savings banks.

The Independence Party made a similar declaration, "that the right to issue money is inherent in the Government," and it favored "the establishment of a central governmental bank, through which the money so issued shall be put into general circulation." It also called for an extension of the parcels post system and for postal savings banks, the deposits in which should "be loaned to the people in the locality of the several banks."

Railroads.

The Republican Party approved the railroad rate law and "the vigorous enforcement by the present administration of the statutes against rebates and discriminations"; believing, "however, that the interstate commerce law should be further amended so as to give railroads the right to make and publish traffic agreements subject to the approval of the commission." It declared for legislation and supervision to "prevent the future overissue of stocks and bonds by interstate carriers."

{677}

The Democratic Party asserted "the right of Congress to exercise complete control over interstate commerce, and the right of each State to exercise like control over commerce within its borders"; and it demanded a needed enlargement of the powers of the interstate commerce commission. It recommended a valuation of railroads by the commission. It favored legislation to "prohibit the railroads from engaging in business which brings them into competition with their shippers"; to prevent the overissue of stocks and bonds, and to "assure such reduction in transportation rates as conditions will permit." It approved the laws prohibiting the pass and the rebate. It favored giving to the interstate commerce commission "the initiative with reference to rates and transportation charges," also permitting it, "on its own initiative to declare a rate illegal," and otherwise enhancing its efficiency.

The Independence Party advocated "a bill empowering shippers in time of need to compel railroads to provide sufficient cars for freight and passenger traffic and other railroad facilities through summary appeal to the courts." It also favored "the creation of an Interstate Commerce Court, whose sole function it shall be to review speedily and enforce summarily the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission," and it urged that the Commission "should proceed at once with a physical valuation of railroads engaged in interstate commerce."

Natural Resources. Public Lands. Waterways.

The Republican Party indorsed "the movement inaugurated by the administration for the conservation of natural resources"; commended "the work now going on for the reclamation of arid lands"; reaffirmed "the Republican policy of the free distribution of the available … public domain to the landless settler," and declared it to be "the further duty, equally imperative, to enter upon a systematic improvement, upon a large and comprehensive plan, just to all portions of the country, of the water harbors and Great Lakes."

The Democratic Party repeated "the demand for internal development and for the conservation of our national resources contained in previous platforms," covering lines of policy the same as above, and adding "the development of water power and the preservation of electric power generated by this natural force from the control of monopoly." It insisted upon "a policy of administration of our forest reserve which shall … enable homesteaders as of right to occupy and acquire title to all portions thereof which are especially adapted to agriculture, and which shall furnish a system of timber sales available as well to the private citizen as to the larger manufacturer and consumer." It called for regulations "in relation to free grazing upon the public lands outside of forest or other reservations until the same shall eventually be disposed of." It favored the "immediate adoption of a liberal and comprehensive plan for improving every water course in the Union which is justified by the needs of commerce," with "the creation of an ample fund for continuous work."

The People’s Party declared that the public domain is a sacred heritage of all the people, and should be held for homesteads for actual settlers only; alien ownership should be forbidden.

The Independence Party rejoiced "in the adoption in both the Democratic and Republican platforms of the demand of the Independence party for improved national waterways." It declared for the reclamation of arid lands and generally for the conservation of the country’s natural resources. It called for provision to be made for free grazing on public lands outside of forest or other reservations. It protested against the sale of water and electric light power derived from public works to private corporations.

On other subjects touched in their platforms the declarations of these parties varied little from those of 1904, and cannot be regarded as having much historical significance.

Of the remaining parties, which are organizations with special objects, the Socialist set forth the most elaborate programme of demands, under three headings,—General, Industrial, and Political. The first included "immediate Government relief for the unemployed" by public works of many descriptions; collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, etc., and all lands; "collective ownership of all industries which are organized on a national scale and in which competition has virtually ceased to exist"; inclusion of mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water-power in the public domain. Industrial demands included improved industrial conditions; shortened work days; a weekly rest-period of not less than a day and a half; effective inspection of factories and shops: no child labor under sixteen years of age; no interstate transportation of products of child labor; substitution of compulsory insurance against unemployment, illness, age, etc., for all official charity. Political demands were for extended and graduated inheritance taxes; a graduated income tax; equal suffrage for men and women; the initiative, referendum, recall, and proportional representation; abolition of the Senate; abolition of power in the Supreme Court to pass on the constitutionality of legislation; amendability of the Constitution by a majority vote, election of all judges for short terms; free administration of justice; further measures for general education and conservation of health.

The Socialist Labor Party repeated in substantially the same words its general declarations of 1904, against a "despotic economic system," as quoted above, under the heading "Capital and Labor."

The Prohibition Party embodied its fundamental object in demands for the submission of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, sale, etc., of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes; suppression of the liquor traffic in all places under the jurisdiction of the National Government, and repeal of the internal revenue tax on alcoholic liquors. To this it added demands for a popular election of United States Senators; graduated income and inheritance taxes; postal savings banks; guarantee of deposits in banks; regulation of corporations doing an interstate business; a permanent tariff commission; uniform marriage and divorce laws; enforcement of law against the social evil; an equitable employers’ liability act; court review of post office decisions; prohibition of child labor in mines, workshops and factories; suffrage based on ability to read and write the English language; preservation of the resources of the country, and improvement of highways and waterways.

{678}

The United Christian Party, basing its platform, as before, on the ten commandments and the golden rule, favored "direct primary elections, the initiative, referendum, recall, uniform marriage and divorce laws, equal rights for men and women, government ownership of coal mines, oil wells and public utilities; the regulation of trusts and the election of the president and vice-president and senators of the United States by the direct vote of the people."

The votes cast at the popular election, November 3, numbered 7,637,676 for the Republican nominees; 6,393,182 for the Democratic; 420,464 for the Socialist; 231,252 for the Prohibitionist; 83,183 for the Independence; 33,871 for the Populist; 15,421 for the Socialist Labor. The total of votes polled, including a few thousands to other than party nominees, was reported to be 14,863,711.

The States which gave Republican majorities were California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming,—29.

The States which gave Democratic majorities were Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,—16.

Maryland, where the electors are chosen by the Legislature, divided its vote, giving 6 to the Democratic nominees and 2 to the Republican.

The total vote in the Electoral College was 326 for Taft and Sherman and 157 for Bryan and Kern.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (May). The Emergency Currency Act.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE; UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (July). Remission to China of Part of Boxer Indemnity.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (October). Reply of Secretary Root to the announcement from Belgium of the Annexation of the Congo State. Recognition of the Annexation reserved.

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

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

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (November). Exchange of Notes with Japan embodying a Declaration of Common Policy in the East.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (December). Extension of the Competitive System of Appointment to Fourth Class Postmasters in a large section of the Country.

See (in this Volume) CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908 (December). Relief for the Survivors of the Earthquake at and around Messina.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: ITALY.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908-1909. Diminished Consumption of Whiskey and Beer.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908-1909. The Government giving attention to Liberian Affairs.

See (in this Volume) LIBERIA: A. D. 1907-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908-1909 (August-February). The Country Life Commission, and its Report.

On the 10th of August, 1908, President Roosevelt addressed a letter to five gentlemen whom he asked to serve upon a Commission on Country Life. The five thus addressed were Professor L. H. Bailey, New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca (named as Chairman of the Commission); Mr. Henry Wallace, of _Wallace’s Farmer_, Des Moines, Iowa; President Kenyon L. Butterfield, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst; Mr. Gilford Pinchot, of the United States Forest Service; Mr. Walter H. Page, of _The World's Work_, New York. Subsequently, Mr. Charles S. Barrett, of Georgia, and Mr. William A. Beard, of California, were added to the Commission.

In his letter to the original appointees the President wrote: "I doubt if any other nation can bear comparison with our own in the amount of attention given by the Government, both Federal and State, to agricultural matters. But practically the whole of this effort has hitherto been directed toward increasing the production of crops. Our attention has been concentrated almost exclusively on getting better farming. In the beginning this was unquestionably the right thing to do. The farmer must first of all grow good crops in order to support himself and his family. But when this has been secured the effort for better farming should cease to stand alone, and should be accompanied by the effort for better business and better living on the farm. It is at least as important that the farmer should get the largest possible return in money, comfort, and social advantages from the crops he grows as that he should get the largest possible return in crops from the land he farms. Agriculture is not the whole of country life. The great rural interests are human interests, and good crops are of little value to the farmer unless they open the door to a good kind of life on the farm. … The farmers have hitherto had less than their full share of public attention along the lines of business and social life. There is too much belief among all our people that the prizes of life lie away from the farm."

The Commission entered promptly on its task, of obtaining wide and exact information as to the existing conditions of farm life and work in the country, as to homes and schools; means of communication and intercourse, by postal service, telephone, highway, electric railway and other railways; neighborhood organizations to promote mutual advantages in buying and selling; profitable sale of products; supply of labor; facilities for business in banking, credit, insurance; sanitary conditions; social entertainment; meetings for mutual improvement, etc., etc.

{679}

This was sought, in the first instance, by a circular of questions, about 550,000 copies of which were sent to names supplied by the United States Department of Agriculture, state experiment stations, farmers’ societies, women’s clubs, to rural free deliverymen, country physicians and ministers, and others. To these inquiries about 115,000 persons have replied before the report of the Commission was made, "mostly with much care and with every evidence of good faith."

In addition to the replies given to the circular questions, a great number of persons sent carefully written letters and statements that were invaluable. At thirty places, in all sections of the country, the Commission, or part of it, held appointed hearings in November and December, and obtained much light from those. Its report of the conclusions to which it had been led was presented to the President on the 23d of January, 1909, and transmitted by him to Congress on February 9th.

The Commission found an unquestionable lack in the country of a well organized rural society, and came to clear conclusions concerning the many causes therefor, which are fully discussed in its report. The leading specific causes are summarized with brevity at the outset, as follows.

"A lack of knowledge on the part of farmers of the exact agricultural conditions and possibilities of their regions;

"Lack of good training for country life in the schools;

"The disadvantage or handicap of the farmer as against the established business systems and interests, preventing him from securing adequate returns for his products, depriving him of the benefits that would result from unmonopolized rivers and the conservation of forests, and depriving the community, in many cases, of the good that would come from the use of great tracts of agricultural land that are now held for speculative purposes;

"Lack of good highway facilities;

"The widespread continuing depletion of soils, with the injurious effect on rural life;

"A general need of new and active leadership.

"Other causes contributing to the general result are: Lack of any adequate system of agricultural credit, whereby the farmer may readily secure loans on fair terms; the shortage of labor, a condition that is often complicated by intemperance among workmen; lack of institutions and incentives that tie the laboring man to the soil; the burdens and the narrow life of farm women; lack of adequate supervision of public health."

To this summary of main deficiencies the Commission adds the following, of chief remedies:

"Congress can remove some of the handicaps of the farmer, and it can also set some kinds of work in motion, such as:

"The encouragement of a system of thorough-going surveys of all agricultural regions, in order to take stock and collect local fact, with the idea of providing a basis on which to develop a scientifically and economically sound country life;

"The encouragement of a system of extension work in rural communities, through all the land-grant colleges, to the people at their homes and on their farms;

"A thorough investigation by experts of the middleman system of handling farm products, coupled with a general inquiry into the farmer’s disadvantages in respect to taxation, transportation rates, cooperative organizations and credit, and the general business system;

"An inquiry into the control and use of the streams of the United States, with the object of protecting the people in their ownership and of saving to agricultural uses such benefits as should be reserved for these purposes;

"The establishing of a highway engineering service, or equivalent organization, to be at the call of the States in working out effective and economical highway systems;

"The establishing of a system of parcel posts and postal savings banks;

"Providing some means or agency for the guidance of public opinion toward the development of a real rural society that shall rest directly on the land. …

"Remedies of a more general nature are: A broad campaign of publicity, that must be undertaken until all the people are informed on the whole subject of rural life, and until there is an awakened appreciation of the necessity of giving this phase of our national development as much attention as has been given to other phases or interests; a quickened sense of responsibility in all country people, to the community and to the State, in the conserving of soil fertility, and in the necessity for diversifying farming in order to conserve this fertility and to develop a better rural society, and also in the better safe-guarding of the strength and happiness of the farm women; a more widespread conviction of the necessity for organization, not only for economic but for social purposes, this organization to be more or less cooperative, so that all the people may share equally in the benefits and have voice in the essential affairs of the community; a realization on the part of the farmer that he has a distinct natural responsibility toward the laborer in providing him with good living facilities and in helping him in every way to be a man among men; and a realization on the part of all the people of the obligation to protect and develop the natural scenery and attractiveness of the open country.

"Certain remedies lie with voluntary organizations and institutions. All organized forces, both in town and country, should understand that there are country phases as well as city phases of our civilization, and that one phase needs help as much as the other."

In his Message communicating the reports of the Commission to Congress the President focussed attention on four "great general and immediate needs of country life" which stand out of the exhibit before all others:

"First, effective coöperation among farmers, to put them on a level with the organized interests with which they do business.

"Second, a new kind of schools in the country, which shall teach the children as much outdoors as indoors and perhaps more, so that they will prepare for country life, and not as at present, mainly for life in town.

"Third, better means of communication, including good roads and a parcels post, which the country people are everywhere, and rightly, unanimous in demanding.

{680}

"To these may well be added better sanitation: for easily preventable diseases hold several million country people in the slavery of continuous ill health.

"The commission points out, and I concur in the conclusion, that the most important help that the Government, whether National or State, can give is to show the people how to go about these tasks of organization, education, and communication with the best and quickest results. This can be done by the collection and spread of information."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908-1909. Spasmodic Process of Recovery from the Financial Crisis of 1907.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1908-1909. Second Conference of State Governors and Report of National Conservation Commission. Its Inventory of Natural Resources.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909. Existing Treaties with China and existing Enactments relative to the Admission of Chinamen to the United States. The Question of their Consistency with each other. Chinese Complaints. The present Status of the Question.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909. The Census Bill and the President’s Veto. he Amended Bill, which became Law.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909. Protest against the Russo-Chinese Agreement of May, relative to Municipalities on the line of the Chinese Eastern Railway.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909. Trouble with Nicaragua.

See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (January). The Waterways Treaty with Great Britain, concerning Waters between the United States and Canada.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (February). Anti-Opium Act.

See (in this Volume) OPIUM PROBLEM.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (February). Initiative in securing International Opium Commission at Shanghai.

See (in this Volume) OPIUM PROBLEM.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (February). Invitation of Canada and Mexico to a Conference on the Conservation of Natural Resources.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: NORTH AMERICA.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (March). The Inauguration of President Taft. Intimations of Policy in his Inaugural Address. His Cabinet.

The ceremonies of the inauguration of President Taft on the 4th of March were performed under singularly unfavorable circumstances, in consequence of one of the most dreadful storms that ever visited the Capital. Trains blocked by it contained thousands of people who reached Washington too late for what they had travelled far to witness or to take part in, while those who did arrive on the scene were hardly gladdened by their success. The President, however, accepted the untoward conditions with a characteristic high-hearted equanimity. His inaugural address, delivered in the Senate Chamber, instead of in the open air at the East front of the Capitol, opened with the following words:

"Any one who takes the oath I have just taken must feel a heavy weight of responsibility. If not, he has no conception of the powers and duties of the office upon which he is about to enter, or he is lacking in a proper sense of the obligation which the oath imposes.

"The office of an inaugural address is to give a summary outline of the main policies of the new Administration, so far as they can be anticipated. I have had the honor to be one of the advisers of my distinguished predecessor, and as such, to hold up his hands in the reforms he has initiated. I should be untrue to myself, to my promises, and to the declarations of the party platform upon which I was elected to office, if I did not make the maintenance and enforcement of those reforms a most important feature of my administration. They were directed to the suppression of the lawlessness and abuses of power of the great combinations of capital invested in railroads and in industrial enterprises carrying on interstate commerce. The steps which my predecessor took and the legislation passed on his recommendation have accomplished much, have caused a general halt in the vicious policies which created popular alarm, and have brought about, in the business affected, a much higher regard for existing law. To render the reforms lasting, however, and to secure at the same time freedom from alarm on the part of those pursuing proper and progressive business methods, further legislative and executive action are needed."

From this general intimation of the course to which his mind was turned, the incoming President went on to a more specific unfolding of his views on many subjects of governmental care. The following is a summary of the suggestions of future policy conveyed in the Address:

Reorganization of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Corporations of the Department of Commerce and Labor and of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Tariff revision in accord with the promises made in the national platform adopted at Chicago.

A continuation of scientific experiments in the Department of Agriculture for the improvement of agricultural conditions.

The enactment and carrying out of laws for the conservation of the resources of the country.

Maintenance of the army and navy in such a state of preparation as will insure a continuance of peace with other countries.

A continuation of that treatment of aliens which will insure for the people of the United States respect and fair treatment among the peoples of other countries.

The enactment of legislation which will empower the Federal government to enforce treaty promises made to other countries within every State.

Such changes in the monetary and banking laws as will insure a greater elasticity of the currency.

The enactment of a law providing for postal savings banks.

The encouragement of American shipping through the use of mail subsidies.

A continuation of work on the Panama canal along the plans which have been adopted for a lock type with such energy as will insure the earliest possible completion of the work.

The continuation of a colonial policy which will still further increase the business prosperity of our dependencies.

{681}

The betterment of the condition of the negro in the South through observance of principles laid down in the Fifteenth Amendment.

The promotion of legislation for the protection of labor and the betterment of labor conditions.

On the day following his inauguration the President named his chosen Cabinet to the Senate, and the nominations were duly confirmed, as follows.

Philander C. Knox of Pennsylvania, to be Secretary of State.

Franklin MacVeagh of Illinois, to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Jacob M. Dickinson of Tennessee, to be Secretary of War.

George W. Wickersham of New York, to be Attorney-General.

Frank H. Hitchcock of Massachusetts, to be Postmaster-General.

George von L. Meyer of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of the Navy.

Richard A. Ballinger of Washington, to be Secretary of the Interior.

James Wilson of Iowa, to be Secretary of Agriculture.

Charles Nagel of Missouri, to be Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

A few days after the appointment of the Cabinet, Mr. Dickinson, the new Secretary of War, in a speech at Chicago, explained why President Taft had chosen him, a Democrat, for a place in a Republican Cabinet, and why he had accepted it. He said that Mr. Taft, as President of the whole country, desired to have a representative of the South among his counsellors. To have chosen a Southern Republican would have been to perpetuate the bitter sectionalism which it was Mr. Taft's desire to obliterate. He had therefore chosen a Democrat who had voted against him. Mr. Dickinson continued:—

"That his purpose was broad, magnanimous, and patriotic none can question. The wisdom both of his purpose and his selection must be tried by time, but I have every assurance that his action in appointing me, and my action in accepting, are approved by the South, and, having this approval, I can bear with equanimity any criticism from individual Democrats elsewhere."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (March). Passage of new Copyright Act.

See (in this Volume) COPYRIGHT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (March-August). Tariff Revision. The Payne-Aldrich Tariff-Act.

See (in this Volume) TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (May). Creation of the Senate Committee on Public Expenditures.

An important incident of the Special Session of Congress which was called by President Taft immediately after his inauguration, was the creation by the Senate of a new Standing Committee, on Public Expenditures, the function of which was indicated in the following resolution of the Senate, adopted May 29:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Public Expenditures be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed, by subcommittee or otherwise, to make investigations as to the amount of the annual revenues of the Government, and as to the expenditures and business methods of the several departments, divisions, and branches of the Government, and to report to the Senate from time to time the result of such investigations and their recommendations as to the relation between expenditures and revenues and possible improvements in Government methods; and for this purpose they are authorized to sit, by subcommittees or otherwise, during the recesses or sessions of the Senate, at such times and places as, they may deem advisable, to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, and to employ such stenographic, clerical, expert, and other assistance as may be necessary, and to have such printing and binding done as may be necessary, the expense of such investigations to be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate."

Seven members of the Committee are the chairmen of the seven committees in the Senate to some one of which every bill providing for revenue or carrying an appropriation is submitted. "Thus," as has been remarked, "is provided a medium for better co-ordination and co-operation between what may be termed the revenue and appropriation committees. The powers of existing committees are not affected, but an avenue is provided for concentration and distribution of information—a committee forum for the discussion and recommendation of fundamentals affecting the Government."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (May). Establishment in the Government of a General Supply Committee.

On the 13th of May the President issued an Executive Order establishing an Administrative General Supply Committee, which is to purchase all supplies for Government use, paying one price instead of several prices for the same supplies.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (May). Second National Peace Congress.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (July). Proposed Constitutional Amendment authorizing the Levying of an Income Tax.

Without a dissenting vote, on the 5th of July, 1909, the Senate adopted a joint resolution providing for the submission to the several States of a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as follows:

"Article XVI. The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without any apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In reporting this action, a newspaper correspondent of considerable sagacity remarked that the ease with which the resolution glided through the Senate, and would with certainty pass the House, must be regarded as "an indication of the expectation of the representatives of capital and of high protection that twelve states can be found among the forty-six in the union to refuse their assent to the amendment, in which event it will fail."

The endorsement of the House to the resolution was given on the 12th, by a vote of 317 to 14, the negative votes being all from Republicans. An attempt to have the resolution amended so that the constitutional amendment would be submitted to state conventions for ratification instead of to legislatures was ruled out of order, and an appeal from Speaker Cannon’s ruling was voted down, 185 to 143, on a strict party division.

{682}

The first State to act on the proposed amendment was Alabama, where it was ratified by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, August 17.

In the State of New York, on the 5th of January, 1910, Governor Hughes addressed a special message to the Legislature, recommending that the amendment in its proposed form should not be ratified. He said: "I am in favor of conferring upon the Federal government the power to lay and collect an income tax without apportionment among the States according to population. I believe that this power should be held by the Federal government so as properly to equip it with the means of meeting national exigencies.

"But the power to tax incomes should not be granted in such terms as to subject to Federal taxation the incomes derived from bonds issued by the State itself, or those issued by municipal governments organized under the State’s authority. To place the borrowing capacity of the State and of its governmental agencies at the mercy of the Federal taxing power would be an impairment of the essential rights of the State, which, as its officers, we are bound to defend. …

"The comprehensive words, 'from whatever source derived,' if taken in their natural sense, would include not only incomes from ordinary real or personal property, but also incomes derived from State and municipal securities. It may be urged that the amendment would be limited by construction. But there can be no satisfactory assurance of this. The words in terms are all-inclusive. …

"In order that a market may be provided for State bonds, and for municipal bonds, and that thus means may be afforded for State and local administration, such securities from time to time are excepted from taxation. In this way lower rates of interest are paid than otherwise would be possible. To permit such securities to be the subject of Federal taxation is to place such limitations upon the borrowing power of the State as to make the performance of the functions of local government a matter of Federal grace."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (July). The Question of American Participation in the Hankau-Szechuan Railway Loan.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (September). Visit of a Commercial Commission from Japan.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (September-October). Tour of President Taft. Meeting with President Diaz on Mexican Soil.

In the fall of 1909 President Taft made an extended tour of the country, from New England to the Pacific Coast and southward to Mexico and the Gulf, speaking to great assemblies at many points on all the important questions, political and economical, that were then before the country. In the course of the tour a meeting between President Diaz of Mexico and himself was arranged, and took place on the 16th of October, first at El Paso, on the Texas side of the Rio Grande, and then at Ciudad Juarez, on the Mexican side, formal visits being thus exchanged. Finally, in the evening, President Taft was entertained at dinner in the Mexican city by President Diaz. This was a second time that a President of the United States had left the soil of his own country while in office, President Roosevelt having done the same at Panama in 1906.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (October-November). Further Disclosures of Corruption in the Customs Service.

The shameful disclosure in 1907-1908 of Sugar Trust frauds on the Federal Treasury afforded glimpses of a state of corruption in the Customs Service of the Government, at the port of New York especially, which were more than verified within the next year and a half.

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

The Collector of Customs, Mr. William Loeb, Jr., who took charge of the New York office in the spring of 1909, exercised a watchfulness which soon put him on the traces of fraud, and he pursued them with an energy and determination that cannot have been brought into action before. The first case brought to light was that of a cheese-importing firm, the members of which, father and son, were found to have paid bribes to weighers of the Custom House for false reports of the quantities on which duties were paid. Conviction was obtained by means of evidence from some of the guilty officials, who were given immunity and retained in service, in order to secure information without which, it was said, the well-covered corruption in the service could not be successfully probed. In his annual report, made in December, 1909, Secretary MacVeagh, of the Treasury Department, had this to say of the vigorous reformatory measures thus undertaken at the port of New York, and of the significance of the consequent revelations:

"The revelations made and proven were so startling and impressive that opposition was silenced; and in this silence the necessary, clear-cut measures could be carried out without meeting serious obstructions.

"It soon developed that the frauds of the American Sugar Refining Company, while, perhaps, the most important instances, were as had been apprehended, symptoms of a diseased condition, not universal by any means, but almost general. And difficult as it always is to sufficiently bring to light the facts of such a condition to afford a basis for rehabilitation, this has been already largely accomplished. Much has been discovered to afford an understanding of the situation, with the result of numerous seizures, of numerous prosecutions made or projected, and of important and successful beginnings of a complete rehabilitation. While the recovery of evaded duties, and the prosecution of individuals have been of large significance, the greatest asset to the government of these disgraceful conditions is the knowledge and the light which guarantee in time a wholesome reorganization.

"The study of the causes of the demoralization which has been revealed is still incomplete, but the main causes are evident. It is clear, for instance, that the influence of local politics and politicians upon the customs service has been most deleterious, and has promoted that laxity and low tone which prepare and furnish an inviting soil for dishonesty and fraud. Unless the customs service can be released from the payment of political debts and exactions, and from meeting the supposed exigencies of political organizations, big and little, it will be impossible to have an honest service for any length of time. Any considerable share of the present cost of this demoralization to the public revenues, to the efficiency of the service, and to public and private morality is a tremendous amount to pay in mere liquidation of the small debts of political leaders.

{683}

"It is also clear that the widespread disposition of returning American travellers to evade the payment of legal duties has greatly helped to create the conditions which have become intolerable. Those Americans who travel abroad belong to the sections of the people which most readily create public sentiment, and are most responsible for it; and the fact that in so many instances these travellers are willing to defraud the government out of considerable or even small sums creates an atmosphere on the docks that strongly tends to affect the morale of the entire customs service. And when to this is added the frequent willingness upon the part of these responsible citizens to specifically corrupt the government's men, then the demoralization is further accentuated."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (November). Arbitration of the Alsop Claim against Chile.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1909 (December). Proposal to neutralize Manchurian Railways.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1910 (January). President’s Message on Legislation relating to "Trusts" and Interstate Commerce.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1910, and RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1910.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Movements of Reform in Municipal Government.

See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The Interchange of People between the United States and Canada.

See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1896-1909.

----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------

UNITED STATES SENATORS: Proposed Election by Direct Popular Vote.

"On December 3, 1895, the State of Idaho, taking advantage of that provision of article 5, which permits States to apply to Congress for authority to hold a constitutional convention, passed a resolution requesting Congress to call such a convention. Since then the States of Wyoming, Ohio, Minnesota, Montana, Utah, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, Washington, Tennessee, South Dakota, Colorado, Oregon, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas, California, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Alabama, have taken legislative action in some form or other expressing either a demand similar to that of the State of Idaho, or a sympathy with the intent of the Idaho resolution. These thirty-one States form a constitutional two-thirds of the forty-six States of the Union.

"One of the complications which have arisen in connection with these resolutions is the fact that only twenty-four of them are of record as having been actually received by the Senate of the United States. One of them, that of the State of Ohio, which was the third State to act, was only recently discovered to be in the Senate files. It is possible therefore, that since the question of submitting the proposed amendment has become a live issue, a further search of the files may increase the number of State resolutions on this subject which are actually on hand.

"A legal quibble is bound to ensue over the form of some of these resolutions. Nine of the resolutions now on file in the Senate are already held to be of doubtful legality, but the ground on which they are held doubtful will appeal to most people as a mere splitting of legal hairs. Nevertheless, the Senate of the United States, at least, is, as a whole, a notorious legal hair-splitter, and this fact must be taken into account.

"It is, of course, a matter of record, that the House of Representatives has four times sent to the Senate a proposed joint resolution calling for the direct election of United States Senators."

_Washington Correspondent of the New York Evening Post, October 13, 1909._

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION: Its conflict with the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Plate Workers.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901.

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION: The Placing of its Stock among its Employés.

See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.

UNIVERSITIES.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION.

URIBE-URIBE, RAFAEL.

See (in this Volume) COLOMBIA: A. D. 1898-1902.

URUGUAY: A. D. 1901-1906. Participation in Second and Third International Conferences of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

URUGUAY: A. D. 1904. Rebellion and prolonged Civil War.

On the 8th of January, 1904, the American Minister at Montevideo reported by telegram to the State Department at Washington "that another crisis is at hand in Uruguay; that encounters have taken place between groups of ‘Blanco,’ and the Government forces, and that the former, who were neither concentrated nor well organized, have been dispersed. A number were killed and wounded. The Government is making an aggressive campaign and demands obedience to the constituted authority as a condition before peace negotiations will be entered into."

This was the beginning of a state of civil war that was prolonged through nine months, with infinite harm to the country.

When peace came, at the end of September, it was practically bought from the insurgents, the terms of submission, as officially announced, including the following: "Sixth, incorporation into the army of all the chiefs and officers included in the amnesty law. Seventh. A mixed committee appointed by agreement by the Government and insurgents will distribute the sum of $100,000 between the chiefs, officers, and soldiers of the rebel forces."

URUGUAY: A. D. 1910. Agreement with Argentina concerning the River Plate.

See (in this Volume) ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1910.

URUSSOFF, PRINCE: Speech in the Duma.

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

URYU, ADMIRAL.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

UTAH: Law limiting Hours of Adult Labor in Mines.

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

UTILITIES, PUBLIC.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC UTILITIES.

{684}

V.

VACUUM OIL COMPANY.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES. A. D. 1904-1909.

VALIAHD, The: Heir to the Persian throne.

See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

VANNOVSKY, GENERAL.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.

VALPARAISO, DESTRUCTIVE EARTHQUAKE AT.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: CHILE.

VEHEMENTER NOS, THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL.

See (in this Volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (FEBRUARY).

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1901. Claims and Complaints of Germany. Memorandum presented to the Government of the United States. Its Reply. Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.

On the 11th of December, 1901, the German Embassy at Washington presented to the State Department of the Government of the United States a memorandum of the claims and complaints of Germany against the Government of Venezuela. The principal claim recited was that of the Berlin Company of Discount, "on account of the non-performance of engagements which the Venezuelan Government has undertaken in connection with the great Venezuelan Railway which has been built by the said Government." In respect to this it is remarked that the "behaviour of the Venezuelan Government could, perhaps, to a certain degree, be explained and be excused by the bad situation of the finances of the State; but our further reclamations against Venezuela, which date from the Venezuelan civil wars of the years 1898 until 1900, have taken during these last months a more serious character. Through those wars many German merchants living in Venezuela and many German land-owners have been seriously damaged"; and the treatment of claims for these damages is characterized as "a frivolous attempt to avoid just obligations." After some recital of circumstances in these cases, the memorandum proceeds to announce that "the Imperial Government believes that further negotiations with Venezuela on the present base are hopeless," and that measures of coercion are contemplated. "But we consider it of importance to let first of all the Government of the United States know about our purposes, so that we can prove that we have nothing else in view than to help those of our citizens who have suffered damages. … We declare especially that under no circumstances do we consider in our proceedings the acquisition or the permanent occupation of Venezuelan territory."

In reply, the Department of State returned a memorandum, in part as follows:

"The President in his Message of the 3d of December, 1901, used the following language: ‘The Monroe Doctrine is a declaration that there must be no territorial aggrandizement by any non-American Power at the expense of any American Power on American soil. It is in no wise intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World.’ The President further said: ‘This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American Power, save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires. … We do not guarantee any State against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American Power. … The President of the United States, appreciating the courtesy of the German Government in making him acquainted with the state of affairs referred to, and not regarding himself as called upon to enter into the consideration of the claims in question, believes that no measures will be taken in this matter by the agents of the German Government which are not in accordance with the well-known purpose, above set forth, of His Majesty the German Emperor."

_Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (House Doc’s, 57th Congress 1st Session, Volume 1), pages 192-195_

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1901. Delegates withdrawn from Second International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904. Concerted Action by Great Britain, Germany, and Italy to enforce Claims. Blockade of Ports and seizure of Warships. Intermediation of the United States. Agreements Secured. Reference to the Tribunal at The Hague.

The rebellion and revolution in Venezuela which gave control of the government to General Cipriano Castro, in 1899, and the speedy outbreak of revolt against his self-assumed administration, are told of in Volume VI. of this work.

See, also, (in this Volume) COLOMBIA: A. D. 1898-1902.

The first insurrection was overcome in May, 1900; but other risings, concentrated in leadership finally under Manuel A. Matos, followed in 1901-1902. Partly growing out of the disturbances in the country and partly due to the arbitrary and wayward conduct of Castro (who obtained election to the Presidency in 1902, for six years) many claims for indemnity and debt against that Government accumulated and citizens of many countries were interested in them. As no satisfaction could be obtained from President Castro by diplomatic methods, peremptory proceedings against Venezuela were concerted in 1902 by Great Britain, Germany and Italy. A blockade of Venezuelan ports and seizure of war vessels was undertaken by the three Powers, with results which are narrated as follows in the Message of President Roosevelt to the Congress of the United States, on its meeting in December, 1903:

The "employment of force for the collection of these claims was terminated by an agreement brought about through the offices of the diplomatic representatives of the United States at Caracas and the Government at Washington, thereby ending a situation which was bound to cause increasing friction, and which jeoparded the peace of the continent. Under this agreement Venezuela agreed to set apart a certain percentage of the customs receipts of two of her ports to be applied to the payment of whatever obligations might be ascertained by mixed commissions appointed for that purpose to be due from her, not only to the three powers already mentioned, whose proceedings against her had resulted in a state of war, but also to the United States, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and Mexico, who had not employed force for the collection of the claims alleged to be due to certain of their citizens.

{685}

"A demand was then made by the so-called blockading powers that the sums ascertained to be due to their citizens by such mixed commissions should be accorded payment in full before anything was paid upon the claims of any of the so-called peace powers. Venezuela, on the other hand, insisted that all her creditors should be paid upon a basis of exact equality. During the efforts to adjust this dispute it was suggested by the powers in interest that it should be referred to me for decision, but I was clearly of the opinion that a far wiser course would be to submit the question to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. It seemed to me to offer an admirable opportunity to advance the practice of the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations and to secure for the Hague Tribunal a memorable increase of its practical importance. The nations interested in the controversy were so numerous and in many instances so powerful as to make it evident that beneficent results would follow from their appearance at the same time before the bar of that august tribunal of peace.

"Our hopes in that regard have been realized. Russia and Austria are represented in the persons of the learned and distinguished jurists who compose the Tribunal, while Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, Mexico, the United States, and Venezuela are represented by their respective agents and counsel. Such an imposing concourse of nations presenting their arguments to and invoking the decision of that high court of international justice and international peace can hardly fail to secure a like submission of many future controversies. The nations now appearing there will find it far easier to appear there a second time, while no nation can imagine its just pride will be lessened by following the example now presented. This triumph of the principle of international arbitration is a subject of warm congratulation and offers a happy augury for the peace of the world."

_Message of President Roosevelt, December 7, 1903._

The claims of the Powers against Venezuela, presented in September, summed up as follows:

France, $16,040,000; United States, $10,900,000; Italy, $9,300,000; Belgium, $3,003,000; Great Britain, $2,500,000; Germany, $1,417,300; Holland, $1,048,451; Spain, $600,000; Mexico, $500,000; Sweden, $200,000.

The claim of Great Britain, Germany, and Italy to a right of priority in payment, because of their action which compelled the Government of Venezuela to arrange a settlement, was submitted to the Tribunal at The Hague in November. The decision, rendered in the following January, affirmed the right of the three Powers which had exercised coercion in the case to priority in the payment of their claims, and it imposed on the United States the duty of overseeing the fulfilment of the agreements which Venezuela had made. In this last particular the decision of the Tribunal could be regarded as an international affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine, and of signal importance in that view.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1905. A short Period of Comparative Tranquility.

"After the blockade instituted in December, 1902, by Germany, Great Britain and Italy, had been raised, and protocols had been signed for the settlement of all duly recognized claims of foreign nations against Venezuela, Venezuela enjoyed a short period of tranquility; but, by the beginning of 1905, every legation in Caracas had a list of grievances founded on alleged unfair awards of arbitrators, on denials of justice on the part of the Venezuelan courts and on the diminution by President Castro of the percentage he had agreed to pay to the creditor nations from the receipts of his custom-houses. Moreover, Germany and Great Britain began to show signs of restlessness, because President Castro had not provided, as had been agreed in the protocols, for the payment of interest to British and German bondholders. The situation looked even worse than before the blockade, for the principal nation aggrieved was the United States, and it had the moral support of all other nations represented in Caracas by legations.

"The main issue between the United States and Venezuela was the asphalt case. In July, 1904, President Castro had demanded ten million dollars from the American Company, known as the ‘New York and Bermudez Asphalt Company,’ and had threatened, if that amount was not paid immediately, that the whole asphalt lake and the property of the Company would be seized. He based his demand on the alleged support given by the Asphalt Company to the Matos revolution of 1902; but, as he did not demand anything from the countless other supporters of the revolution, it was clear that his demand on the Asphalt Company was piratical."

_H. W. Bowen, Queer Diplomacy with Castro (North American Review, March 15, 1907)._

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1904. Adoption of a new Constitution.

The following summary of the provisions of a new Constitution, adopted in Venezuela, on the 27th of April, 1904, was communicated to the State Department at Washington by United States Minister Bowen:

It reduces the number of States to thirteen—Aragua, Bermudez, Bolivar, Carabobo, Falcon, Guarico, Lara, Merida, Miranda, Tachira, Trujillo, Zamora, and Zulia—and provides for five Territories—Amazonas, Cristobal Colon, Colon, Delta Amacuro, and Yururari—and the Federal District, which is composed of the Departments Libertador, Varagas, Guaicaipuro, and Sucre, and the island of Margarita.

The States enjoy equality and autonomy, having all rights not delegated to the central Government. The Territories are administered by the President.

The Government is divided into three branches—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

The legislative branch is called the Congress, and is composed of two bodies—the Senate and the House of Deputies. One deputy will be elected by every 40,000 inhabitants, and all deputies, as well as senators (two from every State) and the President, will serve for six years. Deputies must be 21 years of age, senators 30, and the President over 30. No extraordinary powers are given to the Congress, except that 14 of its members shall be chosen by itself to elect every sixth year a President, a first and a second vice-president, and to elect a successor to the second vice-president.

{686}

The President, besides being charged with the usual executive duties, is authorized to declare war, arrest, imprison, or expel natives or aliens who are opposed to the reëstablishment of peace, to issue letters of marque and reprisal, to permit aliens to enter the public service, to prohibit the immigration into the Republic of objectionable religious teachers, and to establish rules for the postal, telegraph, and telephone services.

The judicial power is vested in the Corte Federal y de Casacion (seven judges elected by the Congress) and the lower courts (appointed by the State governments).

All Venezuelans over 21 years of age may vote, and aliens can obtain that right by getting naturalized. No length of time is prescribed for an alien to live in the Republic before he can become naturalized.

Article 15 of the constitution denies the right of natives or aliens to present claims to the nation or States for damages caused by revolutionists.

Article 17 abolishes the death penalty.

And article 120 provides that all of Venezuela’s international treaties shall hereafter contain the clause, "All differences between the contracting parties shall be decided by arbitration, without going to war."

In conclusion, the constitution provides that the next constitutional terms shall begin May 23, 1905. Up to that date General Castro will be Provisional President. He took his oath of office as such on the 5th instant, and on the same day Juan Vicente Gomez was made first vice-president and Jose Antonio Velutini second vice-president.

As Provisional President, General Castro has been authorized to name the presidents of the States, to organize the Federal Territories, to fix the estimates for the public expenses, and, in short, to exercise the fullest powers.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1906. Troubles with the United States and France. President Castro’s Vacation.

Both France and the United States had troubles which became acute in 1905 with the arrogant President of Venezuela, growing out of his high-handed treatment of French and American business interests and rights in that country. In the case of the United States, the most serious grievance, as stated above, was that of the New York and Bermudez Company, which had a concession dating back to 1883, and a later mining title, under Venezuela laws, to the asphalt deposit known as Bermudez Lake, together with the fee-simple ownership of land surrounding the lake. Ever since the advent of Castro, the company had been harassed by litigious proceedings, behind which the Government was said to be always in action. In 1905 these were carried to the point of putting the whole property into the hands of a receiver or "depositary," practically transferring its capital and plant to its rivals in business. A little later, a judicial decision, pronounced by a Venezuela court, annulled the company’s concession. The main ground of this confiscation appears to have been the charge that the company had contributed funds to the support of the Matos revolt, in 1901.

The same accusation was brought against the French Cable Company, whose franchise was annulled and its property confiscated in like manner. In both cases, the matter was a proper one for arbitration, and this Castro refused, maintaining the finality of the decision of the Venezuela courts. Neither France nor the United States could afford to permit such a penalty of confiscation to be imposed on its citizens without a searching investigation of the justice of the act. Under instructions from Secretary Hay, the American Minister to Venezuela informed the Government of that country that if it refused to arbitrate the questions involved in this and other American claims, "the Government of the United States may be regretfully compelled to take such measures as it may find necessary to effect complete redress without resort to arbitration"; and France, about the same time, made a significant movement of armored cruisers to the French Antilles. Not contented with the strain thus brought on the relations of his Government with those of two considerable Powers in the world, the Venezuelan President soon—in January, 1906—gave a fresh and quite wanton provocation to France. The French _Chargé d’ Affaires_ in Venezuela had gone on board a French steamer without official permit, and was refused permission to return to shore, on the pretence that he might bring yellow fever infection. France at once dismissed the Venezuelan _Chargé_ from Paris, and added a demand for apologies to her other claims.

Having brought his country into this interesting situation, the eccentric Castro, of incalculable mind and temper, found the occasion opportune for a vacation, and announced it, April 9, 1906, in a proclamation which opened as follows:

"Fatigue, produced by constant labor, and which I have been endeavoring to overcome for some time past, makes it imperative for me now, in order to restore my broken health, to retire from the exercise of the office of prime magistrate.

"In accordance with a provision of the constitution I have called to power General Juan Vincente Gomez, a very meritorious citizen of well-known civic virtues, who in my absence will fulfill strictly the duties of his office. You all know him, and you know perfectly well that in view of his character you must support him without any hesitation whatever, in order that the administration may continue, as it has up to now, under the surest bases of stability, order, and progress, thus making the action of the executive the most expeditious possible.

"On retiring from power I wish you to take into consideration my effort and my sacrifices for the country’s cause, which has been, and still is, the cause of the people, of reason, justice, and right, so that you will agree with me that he who has thus labored has a right to even a slight rest, and this cannot be taken except in retirement and solitude.

"On the other hand, our present international situation, completely defined and clear, gives us reason to hope that everything will continue harmoniously and on a basis of mutual respect and consideration."

{687}

The next morning he left quietly for Los Teques, where he has a private estate; his late cabinet resigned, and a new Ministry was formed by the acting President, Gomez. Six weeks later, on the 23d of May, the President-on-vacation, from his retirement, issued a second proclamation, announcing his wish to withdraw permanently from public life, and his intention to resign the presidency at the next session of Congress. But differences appear to have arisen soon after this between the retired President and his substitute, General Gomez, over cabinet appointments, and presently there was a delegation sent to request the former to abandon his intended resignation. The delegation succeeded in its mission, and on the 4th of July the now rested and refreshed Chief Magistrate returned to Caracas and reburdened himself with the cares of state.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1909. Trouble given to Colombia over the Navigation of Rivers flowing through both countries.

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

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1906. No participation in Third International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1907-1909. President Castro’s obstinate Provocations to France and the United States. His Quarrel with Holland. His unwary venture Abroad. The Triumph of his Enemies in Venezuela. The Foreign Governments he Quarrelled with take part in Preventing his Return.

President Castro, practically Dictator in Venezuela, continued obstinate in his provocative attitude towards both France and the United States, and added Holland at length to the list of exasperated nations which were questioning and studying how to deal with insolence from so petty a source. His courts, after confiscating the franchises and seizing the property of the French Cable Company and the American asphalt concessionaries, imposed fines of $5,000,000 on each. Of the five claims for redress or indemnity which the American Government pressed upon him he refused to submit any to arbitration, in any form, at The Hague or elsewhere. This situation continued until the American Legation was withdrawn from Caracas, in June, 1908, to signify that negotiation was ended, and the whole correspondence of the State Department with Venezuela was laid before Congress, for such action as it might see fit to take.

Castro had opened his quarrel with Holland in a characteristic way. The bubonic plague had got a footing at the Venezuelan port of La Guayra, and he refused to allow his own medical officers, who reported the fact, to take measures for preventing the spread of the disease. Then, when his Dutch neighbors at Curaçao protected themselves by a quarantine against La Guayra he retaliated by an embargo on commerce with Curaçao, exchanged angry letters with the Dutch Minister at Caracas, and ordered him finally to quit the country. The Netherland Government acted slowly, with deliberation, on the matter, despatching a battle-ship, at length, to the scene, and otherwise manifesting serious intentions.

But now the domestic situation in Venezuela underwent a sudden change; or, rather, a recurrence to the situation in 1906, when Castro had found it easy to lay down the reins of authority and take them up again at his pleasure. He was afflicted with some ailment, for which he went abroad to seek treatment, appointing Vice-President Gomez to conduct the Government in his absence. Landing at Bordeaux on the 10th of December, 1908, he made a short visit to Paris, receiving no official recognition or entertainment, and went thence to Berlin. In Germany he stayed with his family and suite for about three months, undergoing a surgical operation with subsequent treatment for his malady. Meantime, in Venezuela, his enemies, or the opponents of his rule, had acquired the upper hand, and were prepared to resist his return. On the 16th of December a mob at Caracas, crying "Down with Castro," wrecked considerable property of his friends. A few days later some of his partisans were arrested on the charge of having plotted the death of Acting-President Gomez, and that trusted representative of the absent President became openly antagonistic to him. The Castro Cabinet was dismissed, and an anti-Castro Ministry was formed.

Pacific overtures were now made to the foreign governments with which Castro had quarrelled. The Honorable William I. Buchanan, an able diplomat, of much experience in Spanish-America, was sent from the United States to reopen negotiations at Caracas, where he arrived on the 20th December, and the late Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs went abroad as an agent of President Gomez to treat with the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France. Mr. Buchanan found difficulty in arranging modes of settlement in the case of two American claims, that of the New York and Bermudez Company, and that of the Orinoco Corporation, which claimed very extensive concessions; but the obstacles were overcome and a satisfactory protocol signed, February 13, 1909.

Before this time, criminal proceedings had been instituted against Castro, on the charge that he had instigated the assassination of Vice-President Gomez, and the High Federal Court had decided that adequate evidence had been adduced to warrant the action. To this accusation Castro made answer from Dresden, February 27, saying: "The only charge that has been raised against me is that I tried to instigate the murder of Gomez. It is incredible that, after having shown my interest in him in so many ways, I should try to cause him to be murdered. If Gomez had given me occasion to suspect him, I would have given orders regarding him before my departure from Venezuela, and I would not have been so stupid as to send such an order by cable. Whoever knows me knows also that I am incapable of such disgraceful cowardice. I give this declaration in the interest of truth to the press and to the foreign countries, in order to set at rest in places where I am not known all doubts and suspicions regarding my behavior."

Having no apparent doubt that he could master the adverse situation in Venezuela, Castro was now making his arrangements to return. On the 24th of March he arrived at Paris, on his way to Bordeaux, to take passage on the Steamer _Guadeloupe_. There he was met by a statement from the steamship company, "that it had been informed by the Venezuelan government that Señor Castro will not be permitted to land in Venezuela; that he will be arrested on board the Guadeloupe if this vessel calls at a Venezuelan port, and that even the movement of the _Guadeloupe_ in Venezuelan ports will be controlled by the authorities, if Castro is a passenger. {688} As a result of this communication the company will embark Castro only on condition that he leave the _Guadeloupe_ before reaching Venezuela, either at Martinique or Trinidad. This official notification to the steamship company was handed in by José de Jesus Paul, the special Venezuelan envoy to Europe. Señor Paul says in part:

"‘Cipriano Castro is under criminal prosecution in Venezuela, and the High Federal Court having suspended his function as President, he is liable, in accordance with the laws of Venezuela, to imprisonment pending the result of the trial. A warrant of arrest can be executed even on board the _Guadeloupe_ at the first Venezuelan port.’ "

At Bordeaux he was forced to take passage with the understanding that he must leave the ship before she reached a Venezuelan port, and he accepted tickets to Port-au-Spain, Trinidad. On leaving Paris his parting words had been: "I believe that God and destiny call me back to Venezuela. I intend to accomplish my mission there, even though it involves revolution." But he mistook the call, and mere earthly authority sufficed to frustrate the mission he had in mind. The British Government, after consultation with the United States and other Powers most interested in the avoidance of fresh disturbances in Venezuela, forbade his landing at Trinidad, and he found no port to receive him but that of Fort de France, Martinique. From that French soil, too, he was ordered away the next day, and look passage back to France, ultimately settling himself with his family in Spain. If he has made further efforts or plans to recover a footing in Venezuela, the public has not learned of them.

As soon as the out-cast President had been thus eliminated from Venezuelan politics, he was cleared, May 21, of the charge of plotting to assassinate General Gomez, by decision of the Criminal Court. Both Holland and France had settled, by this time, their differences with Venezuela, and restored diplomatic relations. On the 12th of August, Vice-President Gomez was formally elected Provisional President by Congress in the exercise of powers claimed under the new Constitution. On the 11th of September announcement was made that all but one of the five American claims for which Mr. Buchanan had arranged modes of settlement had been settled, and that one—of the Orinoco Steamship Company—was before the tribunal at The Hague.

VENICE: A. D. 1902. Fall of the Campanile of St. Marks.

On the morning of July 14, 1902, the Campanile or bell-tower of the cathedral of St. Marks fell to the ground. An attentive architect had been calling attention for several years to signs of danger in its walls, but nothing had been done to avert the destruction of the most interesting monument of antiquity in the city. The building of the tower was begun in the year 888, and underwent a reconstruction in 1329. Its height was 322 feet.

"At 9 o’clock, according to the story of an American architect who witnessed the fall of the tower from the neighborhood of the Rialto, he saw the golden angel slowly sink directly downward behind a line of roofs, and a dense gray dust arose in clouds. Instantly, from all parts of the city, a crowd rushed toward the Piazza, to find on their arrival that nothing was left of all that splendid nave but a mound of white dust, 80 feet high." A press telegram from Venice, January 4, 1910, announced that "the Campanile, after seven years’ work, is now approaching completion. The shaft is finished, and only lacks the belfry, the separate pieces of which are ready to be set in place."

VEREENIGING, BOER-BRITISH TREATY OF PEACE AT.

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

VERESTCHAGIN, VASILI, DEATH OF.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

VERNON-HARCOURT, LOUIS: First Commissioner of Works.

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

VESUVIUS, MOUNT: Violent Eruption in 1906.

See (in this Volume) VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS.

VETO, CIVIL, IN PAPAL ELECTIONS.

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

VIBORG CONFERENCE.

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

VICTOR EMMANUEL III., KING OF ITALY: His Agency in founding the International Institute of Agriculture.

See (in this Volume) AGRICULTURE.

VILHENA, SENHOR.

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

VILLAZON, ELIDORO: President of Bolivia.

See (in this Volume) ACRE DISPUTES.

VIRCHOW, RUDOLPH: Celebration of his Eightieth Birthday.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1907. The Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition.

See (in this Volume) JAMESTOWN.

VITHÖFT, ADMIRAL.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

"VLADIMIR’S DAY."

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

VLADIVOSTOCK: In the Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS: ITALY: A. D. 1906 (April). Great Outburst of Vesuvius. The Most Violent since 1631.

"At a meeting of the Geological Society, London, on May 9, a paper giving a scientific account of the recent great eruption of Mount Vesuvius was read by Professor Giuseppe de Lorenzo, of the Mineralogical Museum in the Royal University of Naples, a foreign correspondent of the society. According to the report in the London _Times_ Professor de Lorenzo stated that after the great eruption of 1872 Vesuvius lapsed into repose, marked by merely solfataric phenomena, for three years. Fissuring of the cone and slight outpourings of lava began in May, 1905, and continued until April 5, 1906, when the fourth great outburst from the principal crater occurred, accompanied by the formation of deeper and larger fissures in the south-eastern wall of the cone, from which a great mass of fluid and scoriaceous lava was erupted. After a pause the maximum outburst took place during the night of April 7 and 8, and blew 3,000 feet into the air scoriæ and lapilli of lava as fragments derived from the wreckage of the cone. {689} The southwesterly wind carried this ash to Ottajano and San Giuseppe, which were buried under three feet of it, and even swept it on to the Adriatic and Montenegro. At this time the lava which reached Torre Annunziato was erupted. The decrescent phase began on April 8, but the collapse of the cone of the principal crater was accompanied by the ejection of steam and dust to a height of from 22,000 to 26,000 feet. On April 9 and 10 the wind was northeast, and the dust was carried over Torre del Greco and as far as Spain; but on April 11 the cloud was again impelled northward. The ash in the earlier eruptions was dark in color and made of materials derived directly from the usual type of leucotephritic magma; but later it became grayer and mixed with weathered elastic material from the cone. The great cone had an almost horizontal rim on April 13, very little higher than Monte Somma, and with a crater possibly exceeding 1,300 feet in diameter; this cone was almost snow white from the deposit of sublimates. Many deaths, Professor de Lorenzo states, were due to asphyxia, but the collapse of roofs weighted with dust was a source of much danger, as was the case at Pompeii in A. D. 79. The lava streams surrounded trees, many of which still stood in the hot lava with their leaves and blossoms apparently uninjured. The sea level during April 7 and 8 was lowered six inches near Pozzuoli, and as much as twelve inches near Portici, and had not returned to its former level on April 13. The maximum activity conformed almost exactly with full moon, and at the time the volcanoes of the Phlegræan Fields and of the islands remained in their normal condition. Professor de Lorenzo believes that this eruption of Vesuvius is greater than any of those recorded in history with two exceptions—those of A. D. 79, the historic eruption which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and of 1631, when Torre del Greco was overwhelmed and 4,000 persons perished."

_Scientific Notes and News (Science, May 25, 1906)._

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS: WEST INDIES: A. D. 1902 (May). Of Mont Pelee and La Souffrière, on the islands of Martinique and St. Vincent. Destruction of the City of St. Pierre.

The most appalling catastrophe in the annals of the Western Hemisphere is that which burst from the long torpid volcano of Mont Pelée, overlooking the city of St. Pierre, on the French island of Martinique, and from its slumbering neighbor, La Souffrière, of the British island of St. Vincent, on the morning of the 8th of May, 1902. The following particulars of the frightful volcanic explosion are borrowed from a graphic account prepared for _The American Review of Reviews_ by W. J. McGee, of the Smithsonian Institution.

"The outbreak of Mont Pelée seems to have been second only to that of Krakatoa in explosive violence in the written history of the world. Nor was the catastrophe confined to a mountain and a city, or even to an island: the towns and villages of northern Martinique were devastated or utterly destroyed as far southward as Fort de France, while the scant 400 square miles of the whole island were at once shaken from below and showered from above with uncounted tons of hot rock-powder, scorching what it touched, and desolating the tropical luxuriance of one of the fairest among the gems of the Antilles. At the same time the Vulcanian spasm thrilled afar through subterranean nerves and stirred into sympathetic resurrection other long-dead volcanoes; and one of these,—La Souffrière, on the island of St. Vincent, over a hundred miles away,—sprang into baleful activity, poured out vast sheets of viscid lava, showered land and sea with its own scorching rock-powder, devastated another gem in the Antillean necklace, and slew its thousands. The vigor of such volcanic outbursts as those of Martinique and St. Vincent, and the vastness of their products, are beyond realization. The governor of Barbados, Sir Frederick Hodgson, estimates that ‘two million tons of volcanic dust’ fell on his island, which is 110 miles from La Souffrière, and still farther from Mont Pelée. …

"About the middle of April of the present year the inhabitants of Martinique and passing seafarers began to note the appearance of ‘smoke’ about the crest of the mountain; and within a few days the report spread that Mont Pelée was in an ugly mood. The smoky columns and clouds increased at intervals, and anxiety deepened both at St. Pierre and Fort de France; but as the days went by without other manifestations, apprehension faded. On May 5, detonations were heard and a tremor shook St. Pierre, while a mass of mud was violently erupted from the old crater. The indications are that this eruption was occasioned by the rise of viscous lava, accompanied by steam and other gases attending its formation, probably through the old vent, in sufficient quantity and with sufficient violence to blow the lake out of the ancient crater and vaporize the water. Portions of the lava were apparently blown into dust by the flashing into steam of water imprisoned in its interstices, after the manner of volcanic ejecta generally; and this material (better called ‘lapilli’ than ‘ashes’) hastened condensation of the aqueous vapor in the air already overcharged by the addition of that cast up from the lake. The consequence was a shower of mud, apparently of limited extent. Some of the accounts indicate that the greater part of this mud was not vomited into the air, but that it welled up in such wise as to fill and overflow the old crater, and send scalding streams down the gorges seaming the rugged sides of Mont Pelée; one of these flooded a sugar factory and enveloped a score or more of the employees; others mingled with the rivers, converting them into hot and muddy torrents, carrying destruction down their channels to the sea. … So matters rested, with Pelée still grumbling, until the evening and night of May 7, when the black vapor-clouds and subterranean groanings grew more terrifying; but it was too late to escape before another day.

"About 7:50 A. M. on May 8 came the great shock, of which that of May 5 was the precursor; and within ten minutes St. Pierre and the smaller towns of Martinique were in ruins. Few witnesses were left to describe the event, and the accounts of these vary so widely as to require interpretation through the testimony of other witnesses of similar eruptions elsewhere. Briefly it seems evident that the lava mass, of which the uppermost portion exploded on May 5, had continued to rise in the vent after the temporary shock due to the recoil of the initial explosion, and that by the morning of May 8 it had reached such a height in the throat as to find relief from the stupendous pressure of the lower earth-crust. {690} Coming up with the high temperature of subterranean depths, the mass was, like other rocks in a state of nature, saturated with water held in liquid state by the pressure, and charged with other mineral substances ready to flash into gas or to oxidize on contact with the air; and these more volatile materials, being of less density than the average, were more abundant in the upper portions of the mass.

"As the viscid plug of red-hot rock forced its way upward, the mighty mountain travailed, the interior rocks were rent, and the groaning and trembling were conveyed through the outer strata to the surface and strange shakings of the shores and quiverings of the sea marked the approach of the culmination. Then the plug passed above the zone of rock-pressure great enough to compress steam into water whatsoever the heat,—and with this relief the liquid flashed into steam and the superheated rock-matter into gases, while the unoxidized compounds leaped into flame and smoke as they caught the oxygen of the outer air. The lava was probably acidic, and hence highly viscous; and when the imprisoned droplets of water expanded, they formed bubbles, or vesicles, often much larger than the Volume of rock-matter; doubtless some of this matter remains in the form of vesicular pumice; but unquestionably immense quantities were blown completely into fragments representing the walls of the bubbles and the angular spicules and thickenings between bubbles. Of these fragments lapilli, or so-called volcanic ashes, consists; and the Mont Pelée explosion was so violent that much of the matter was dust-fine, and drifted hundreds of miles before it settled from the upper air to the sea or land below. When the imprisoned water burst into steam, the heavier gases were evolved, also, with explosive violence; and while the steam shot skyward, carrying lapilli in vast dust-clouds, these gases rolled down the slopes, burning (at least in part) as they went; and at the same time the heavier lava fragments, together with rock-masses torn from the throat of the crater by the viscid flood, were dropped for miles around. …

"Both press dispatches and physical principles indicate that it was the debacle of burning gas that consumed St. Pierre even before the red-hot rocks reached the roofs and balconies. Meantime the aerial disturbance was marked by electrical discharges, with continuous peal of thunder and glare of lightning, while portions of the hot rock-powder were washed down from the clouds by scalding rains. The heat of millions of tons of red-hot lava and of the earth-rending explosion, as well as of the burning gases, fell on Martinique; green things crumbled to black powder, dry wood fell into smoke and ashes, clothing flashed into flame, and the very bodies of men and beasts burst with the fervent heat. Such, in brief, were the evil events of Pelée and St. Pierre for May 8."

Simultaneously, on St. Vincent’s Island, the outbreak of La Souffrière occurred that day. "The accounts are vague or conflicting as to the hour and as to the precise nature of the initial and later throes; yet it would appear, from the burden of the testimony, that the outbreak quickly succeeded that of Pelée. Apparently, too, the extravasation of rock-matter, both of liquid and lava, exceeded that of the northern neighbor; yet the indications are that the explosion was feebler, and that the formation of gases was proportionately less abundant. Lapilli are reported to cover the entire island to depths ranging from an inch or more to several feet, several roofs,—like those of Pompeii of old,—being crushed in by the weight; the estimates of human mortality ranged from a few hundreds in the early reports to over two thousand, and were afterward slightly reduced, while the destruction of property seems to have been relatively greater than on Martinique. So far as the accounts of the two outbursts go, they indicate that the Pelée eruption was primarily an explosion due to the flashing of water and other gases on relief from pressure, with attendant heat and meteorologic disturbances, followed by a limited and quiet outflow of lava from the deeper and drier portion of the lava plug; but that the upwelling lava of Souffrière was in some way nearer equilibrium,—perhaps drier, perhaps cooler, perhaps from less depth and pressure,—and hence poured out in broad sheets of viscid rock-matter, likened by some observers to burning sealing wax.

"Such, in brief, is the record of La Souffrière on May 8,—a record that would have appalled the nations had it not been eclipsed by the ghastly tale of Mont Pelée and St. Pierre."

In the case of St. Pierre almost the entire population had remained in the town, not sufficiently warned by the outbreak of May 5, and was, in consequence, destroyed. It is estimated that 30,000 people perished in or near that town alone. Death came to them almost instantaneously,—not from the flow of lava or the showers of hot ashes that fell to the depth of perhaps two feet, but from such a fierce current of burning gases that men breathed flames instead of air.

On the English island, there was no large town close to the mountain, and therefore not as great loss of life as in Martinique, but nearly two thousand persons in the rural districts lost their lives. These were burned to death by hot sand or were killed by lightning, there being no suffocation, as in St. Pierre. A layer of ashes fell over the entire island, and in the northeastern part the land was buried in ashes and stones to the depth of eighteen inches. As a consequence, all the crops were destroyed.

Repeated outbreaks of both Mont Pelée and La Souffrière occurred at intervals during more than a year following the great explosion, adding much to the destruction of the means of living on large parts of the islands and to the misery of the inhabitants remaining in the regions affected, though not greatly to the loss of life. Of the relief in money and supplies from all sources that was poured into the two afflicted islands no full reckoning can be obtained; but the Governor of the Windward Islands reported to the Colonial Office at London on the 20th of June, 1903, that total receipts for the Eruption Fund to that date were £77,000, and expenditures £42,787. "I shall have sufficient funds left in the Colony," he added, "to meet all present needs, unless any further unforeseen misfortune takes place."

VULGATE, REVISION OF THE.

See (in this Volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1907-1909.

{691}

W.

WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.

See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES, &c.

WAI-WU-PU.

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

WALDECK-ROUSSEAU, PIERRE MARIE: Resignation of Ministry.

See (in this Volume ) FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

WALLER, DR. AUGUSTUS.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: OPSONINS.

WALL STREET INVESTIGATION, THE.

See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.

----------WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Start--------

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: At Large: Contradictory Feeling and Action in the World. Its Causes. International Barbarism with Inter-Personal Civilization. The Two Main Knots of Difficulty in the Situation. The British and the German Posture.

There was never before in the world so wide-spread and so passionate a hatred of War, among civilized peoples, or so earnest and determined an endeavor to supplant it by rational methods of composing international disputes. At the same time, there was never so frenzied a rivalry of preparation among the nations for Warfare, by monstrous accumulation of its horrible engines and tools. How can the glaring inconsistency be accounted for without impeaching the general sanity of mankind?

The strangeness of the situation was described most graphically and feelingly, not long since, by Lord Rosebery, in speaking at a banquet given to the delegates attending the British Imperial Press Conference, at London, in June, 1909, and his own feeling that went into the description of it affords an explanation of the anomaly. "I do not know," said the eloquent Earl, "that in some ways I have ever seen a condition of things in Europe so remarkable, so peaceful, and in some respects so ominous as the condition which exists at this moment. There is a hush in Europe, a hush in which you may almost hear a leaf fall to the ground. There is an absolute absence of any questions which ordinarily lead to war. One of the great Empires which is sometimes supposed to menace peace is entirely engrossed with its own internal affairs. Another great Eastern empire which furnished a perpetual problem to statesmen has taken a new lease of life and youth in searching for constitutional peace and reform.

"All forebodes peace; and yet at the same time, combined with this total absence of all questions of friction, there never was in the history of the world so threatening and so overpowering a preparation for war. That is a sign which I confess I regard as most ominous. For 40 years it has been a platitude to say that Europe is an armed camp, and for 40 years it has been true that all the nations have been facing each other armed to the teeth, and that has been in some respects a guarantee of peace. Now, what do we see? Without any tangible reason we see the nations preparing new armaments. They cannot arm any more men on land, so they have to seek new armaments upon the sea, piling up these enormous preparations as if for some great Armageddon—and that in a time of profoundest peace. We live in the midst of what I think was called by Petrarch _tacens bellum_—a silent warfare, in which not a drop of blood is shed in anger, but in which, however, the last drop is extracted from the living body by the lancets of the European statesmen. There are features in this general preparation for war which must cause special anxiety to the friends of Great Britain and the British Empire, but I will not dwell upon these. I will only ask you who have come to this country to compare carefully the armaments of Europe with our preparations to meet them, and give your impressions to the Empire in return. (Cheers.) I myself feel confident in the resolution and power of this country to meet any reasonable conjunction of forces. But when I see this bursting out of navies everywhere, when I see one country alone asking for 25 millions of extra taxation for warlike preparation, when I see the absolutely unprecedented sacrifices which are asked from us on the same ground, I do begin to feel uneasy at the outcome of it all and wonder where it will stop, or if it is nearly going to bring back Europe into a state of barbarism, (hear, hear), or whether it will cause a catastrophe in which the working men of the world will say, ‘We will have no more of this madness, this foolery which is grinding us to powder.’ (Cheers.)

"We can and we will build Dreadnoughts—or whatever the newest type of ship may be (loud cheers)—as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them. (Loud cheers.) All that we can and will do; but I am not sure that even that will be enough, and I think it may be your duty to take back to your young dominions across the seas this message and this impression—that some personal duty and responsibility for national defence rests on every man and citizen. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) Yes, take that message back with you. Tell your people—if they can believe it—the deplorable way in which Europe is lapsing into militarism and the pressure which is put upon this little island to defend its liberties—and yours. (Cheers.) But take this message also back with you—that the old country is right at heart, that there is no failing or weakness in heart, and that she rejoices in renewing her youth in her giant dominions beyond the seas. (Loud cheers.) For her own salvation she must look to herself, and that failing her she must look to you. (Cheers.)"

{692}

Here, in the feeling of one superlatively civilized man, is the feeling of more than half the world epitomized. It shrinks with horror from the enormity of preparations that are "as if for some great Armageddon," and shudders over what seems to be "nearly going to bring back Europe into a state of barbarism"; but suspicion, distrust, fear impel it nevertheless, to cry with Lord Rosebery: "We can and we will build Dreadnoughts as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them—because others are building them who may use them against us." There is senselessness in this predicament of mind, but it is the senselessness of a persisting international barbarism, which keeps nation-neighbors still standing in attitudes toward one another which became foolishness to individual neighbors a thousand years ago. It means, simply, that the society of nations is as barbaric as it was when Englishmen and Normans fought at Senlac; and that it is only in little street-neighborhoods that men have arrived at the rational relationships which offer an appearance of civilization in some parts of the world.

Two principal knots of difficulty must be cut in some way, before an international civilization can be developed, by the rational and moral processes which have civilized us interpersonally in some considerable degree. The hardest of these knots is tightened upon England, by the weight and the strain of her great world-wide empire on the little island to which it is bound. Not only the whole exterior fabric of British Empire, but the bare subsistence of the people of the small island at its center, depends on the uninterrupted use of the surrounding seas for trade and travel between its parts. To lose freedom in that use means the downfall of Great Britain, not merely as a militant power, but in everything that could carry her past importance into the future of the world. It means so much as this, because the resources of the island-home of the nation, within themselves, are so small. There can be no wonder, then, that Englishmen reckon nothing else so important to them as an indisputable free use of the seas. Nor can there be wonder that they learned in the past to look on an indisputable free use of the seas as implying a mastery of the sea. Until within the last generation or two this was the sole condition on which there could be security in ocean trade. That it remains so still is the continued belief of all the Governments which put millions on millions into bigger and bigger steel-clad battleships, and of the publics behind the Governments, which cry with Rosebery, "We can and we will build Dreadnoughts as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them." England differs from the rest only in the imperativeness to her of what is simply important to them. If security in the use of the seas is still impossible of attainment without the supremacy over them of an irresistible sea-power, then England has justifications for the enormity of her naval armament which no other nation can claim.

So long as a majority of Englishmen feel constrained to believe that their ocean trade is made secure from hostile obstruction by nothing but their naval strength, so long they will strive to maintain a navy that shall be equal to the combined navies of any other two Powers; and so long as that "Two Power Standard" of British naval policy remains inflexible, it seems forbidding to the hope of a common agreement among the maritime nations to reduce their building of battleships. With other Powers than Germany there might be possibilities of such an agreement, even subject to a concession of British naval supremacy, because of the exceptionality of circumstance in England’s case; but it is here that we come to the second of the two principal knots of difficulty which hinder the international civilization of the world, now so flagrantly over-due. Germany, coming late, by a tardy unification, into the national career which the German people are entitled to, by their energy of spirit and capacity of brain, is impatient in the ambitions that were repressed so long. Her industries, her commerce, her maritime undertakings have been pushed in the last generation, against the older competitions of Europe and America, with an impassioned determination that has won extraordinary triumphs on every line. Here, again, as in the case of England, there is an exceptional exposure of the nation to those perils from war which the state of international barbarism still keeps in suspense. Germany elbows so many close neighbors in Europe that nothing but a perfectly trusting friendship or a perfectly organized reign of law among them can make safety for any. In the absence of both friendly trust and authoritative law, they stand on guard against each other in the twentieth century as they did in the tenth; but with arms a hundred-fold more hellish and a thousand-fold more ruinous in cost. Under the pressure of her long-pent ambitions and energies, Germany has beaten all her neighbors in this as in other fields of exertion. She commands the best trained, the best organized, the best equipped army in the world, and stands admittedly the first among military Powers. But military power does not give "world power," in the accepted meaning of that term, and Germany is impelled by all the strong motives of our time to acquire that. She is competing with England in commerce, in shipping, in exploitations of enterprise, everywhere, and she manifestly hopes yet to make good the lateness of her coming into the field of colonial plantation. By everything in the prevailing theories of statesmanship, this calls for a development of naval power to mate the military; and Germany has been zealously obedient to the call,—so zealously that England has taken alarm. Since about the year 1900 a German navy has been created so fast that the "two power standard" of Great Britain has begun of late to be a seriously difficult, because a frightfully costly, naval standard to maintain. Yet England more than ever believes that she must maintain it at any cost; because the strenuousness of the German navy-building inspires her with a new distrust. Hence these two Powers are setting a new pace to the increase of naval armament, all other Governments catching some infection from the new temper of suspicion and distrust which works in theirs.

And this, mainly, at least, is why the world is busier to-day than it was ever busy before in building monstrous ships and guns and horrible inventions of a thousand sorts for battle, while it loathes battle and war as they were never loathed by mankind before.

{693}

One of the most impressive of recent utterances on this grave subject fell from the lips of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Great Britain, Sir Edward Grey, on the 29th of March, 1909, when he said in Parliament: "Sir, the martial spirit, I should be the last to deny, has its place, and its proper place, in the life of a nation. That the nation should take pride in its power to resist force by force is a natural and wholesome thing. It is a source of perfectly healthy pride to have soundness of wind and limb and physical strength, and it has no unworthy part in the national spirit. That I sympathize with entirely, but I would ask the people to consider to what consequences the growth of armaments has led. The great countries of Europe are raising enormous revenues and something like one-half of them is being spent on naval and military preparations. You may call it national insurance, that is perfectly true; but it is equally true that one-half of the national revenue of the great countries in Europe is being spent on what are, after all, preparations to kill each other. Surely the extent to which this expenditure has grown really becomes a satire and a reflection upon civilization. (Cheers.) Not in our generation, perhaps, but if it goes on at the rate at which it has recently increased, sooner or later I believe it will submerge that civilization. The burden already shows itself in national credit—less in our national credit than in the national credit of other nations—but sooner or later, if it goes on at this rate, it must lead to national bankruptcy. Is it to be wondered that the hopes and aspirations of the best men in the leading countries are devoted to trying to find some means of checking it? (Cheers.) Surely that is a statement of the case in which, however attached a man may be to what I may call the martial spirit, he may at least see that the whole of Europe is in the presence of a great danger. But, Sir, no country alone can save that."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: At Large: Lord Morley on the Responsibility of the Press.

Speaking to the Imperial Press Conference, at London, in June, 1909, and referring to the "rebarbarism of Europe—the rattling back into arms and the preparation to use arms," Lord Morley said he thought the Press was more answerable for this than all the ministers, officers, and diplomatists taken together, and he pleaded for a systematic and persevering work on the part of newspapers in behalf of peace among the nations.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Military: Average Cost of the Armies of the Great Military Powers.

In his report on the French army budget of 1909 M. Gervais made a calculation of the average military expenditure of the six Powers—namely, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Japan, which can mobilize the largest armies, and found the total amount spent annually to be no less than 5,037 million francs (more than $1,000,000,000), and the number of men which they could put into the field to be 31,700,000. The army which England can mobilize comes seventh, and is given as 555,000 men, though her average annual expenditure is the same as that of France—namely, 700 million francs ($140,000,000). Comparing next the expenditure and the effectives of France and Germany, the report states that the German army estimates show an increase in 1909 to 69 million francs, being fixed at 1,067,862,437f., of which 838,037,151f., belong to the ordinary budget and 229,825,226f. to the extraordinary budget. The French army estimates for the year were 742,443,745f. ($150,000,000). The totals on either side were: Germany, 34,118 officers and 602,670 men; France, 27,310 officers and 511,930 men. The average cost per man in Germany is l,398f. and in France 1,150f.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Belgian Military Service Stiffened. Substitution Abolished. Personal Service Exacted.

Conscription of a mild type has existed in Belgium for some years, supplemented by voluntary enlistments and ameliorated by hired substitution, which released the well-to-do from military service if they wished to escape it. The Liberals and Socialists have for a long time been advocating the abolition of the practice of substitution in favor of a system of personal and universal military service; and, latterly they were joined in the demand by a section of the Catholics. The question became a dominant one in politics, and brought about an extraordinary session of the Belgian Chamber in October, 1909, for discussion of a comprehensive measure of military reform, for strengthening the self-defense of the kingdom. It resulted in a decision that "general personal service restricted to one son per family should be introduced, that the annual contingent should be raised to 18,000 men, that the peace strength should stand at 48,400, and that the eventual war strength should be 250,000 men. It was also agreed that, the ecclesiastics should be exempt."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Brazilian Military Service.

Service in the Brazilian army was made obligatory by legislation in 1907.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The British Territorial Force. The Reorganization of 1907-1908. Lord Roberts’ Criticism. His Bill for Compulsory Training.

The volunteer or militia forces of the United Kingdom, for home service, underwent an important reorganization in 1907, according to the provisions of an Act entitled the "Territorial and Reserve Forces Act," the general scheme of which may be learned from the following clauses, taken out of the text of the Act:

"For the purposes of the reorganisation under this Act of His Majesty’s military forces other than the regulars and their reserves, and of the administration of those forces when so reorganised, and for such other purposes as are mentioned in this Act, an association may be established for any county in the United Kingdom, with such powers and duties in connection with the purposes aforesaid as may be conferred on it by or under this Act. Associations shall be constituted, and the members thereof shall be appointed and hold office in accordance with schemes to be made by the Army Council."

"It shall be the duty of an association when constituted to make itself acquainted with and conform to the plan of the Army Council for the organisation of the Territorial Force within the county and to ascertain the military resources and capabilities of the county, and to render advice and assistance to the Army Council and to such officers as the Army Council may direct, and an association shall have, exercise, and discharge such powers and duties connected with the organisation and administration of His Majesty’s military forces as may for the time being be transferred or assigned to it by order of His Majesty signified under the hand of a Secretary of State or, subject thereto, by regulations under this Act, but an association shall not have any powers of command or training over any part of His Majesty’s military forces."

{694}

"The Army Council shall pay to an association, out of money voted by Parliament for army services, such sums as, in the opinion of the Army Council, are required to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties.

"All men of the Territorial Force shall be enlisted by such persons and in such manner and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed: Provided that every man enlisted under this Part of this Act—

(_a_) Shall be enlisted for a county for which an association has been established under this Act and shall be appointed to serve in such corps for that county or for an area comprising the whole or part of that county as he may select, and, if that corps comprises more than one unit within the county, shall be posted to such one of those units as he may select:

(_b_) Shall be enlisted to serve for such a period as may be prescribed, not exceeding four years, reckoned from the date of his attestation:

(_c_) May be re-engaged within twelve months before the end of his current term of service for such a period as may be prescribed not exceeding four years from the end of that term."

"Any part of the Territorial Force shall be liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, but no part of the Territorial Force shall be carried or ordered to go out of the United Kingdom. Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, if he thinks fit, to accept the offer of any part or men of the Territorial Force, signified through their commanding officer, to subject themselves to the liability to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom."

"Subject to the provisions of this section, every man of the Territorial Force shall, by way of annual training—

(_a_) Be trained for not less than eight nor more than fifteen, or in the case of the mounted branch eighteen, days in every year at such times and at such places in any part of the United Kingdom as may be prescribed, and may for that purpose be called out once or oftener in every year:

(_b_) Attend the number of drills and fulfill the other conditions relating to training prescribed for his arm or branch of the service":

"His Majesty in Council may—Order that the period of annual training in any year of all or any part of the Territorial Force be extended, but so that the whole period of annual training be not more than thirty days in any year."

The King is empowered to make orders with respect to pay and allowances of the Territorial Force, as well as concerning its government and discipline.

Under this Act the Territorial Force assumed form on the 1st of April, 1908. The former organizations of Yeomanry and Volunteers were given until 30th June to transfer to the new Force. The strength of the Yeomanry and Volunteers on 31st March had been 9,174 officers and 241,085 men. On 1st July the strength of the new Force, including both transfers and recruits, was about 8,000 officers and 176,500 men. Of these some 112,000 men had joined for one year.

The latest published statement of the enrollment in the Territorial Force (that can be referred to, here) was made on the 26th of April, 1909, in the House of Lords, by Lord Lucas, speaking for the Government, in reply to questions as to "how many of the 315,000 men required to complete the Territorial Force had been enrolled up to date; how many of these now serving in the force were under 20 years of age; what was the lowest age at which they had been and were now accepted; and how many Territorials now serving had engaged for one year only." The answer was: "the strength of the Territorial Force on the first of this month was 8,938 officers out of an establishment of 11,267, or 79 percent.; 254,524 men out of a strength of 302,047; or a total of 263,462 out of an establishment of 313,314, which came out at 84 per cent. In answer to the second question he was sorry that they had not got later particulars than October 1, 1908, but on that day there were 188,785 men on the strength of the Territorial Force of whom 62,288 were under 20. The answer to the third question was that the limit of age for men was 17, and for boys 14. In answer to the fourth, he could not give the noble earl the actual number of men serving at the present time for one year, but the figures he could give would make it pretty clear. They had last year 107,857 one-year men serving in the force—Volunteers who had transferred for one year. On April 1 last out of these 107,857 men 56,238 had already reengaged for one year or more. That was to say, that these men had signified their intention of re-engaging before their year was actually up."

Lord Roberts has no confidence in the efficiency of the Territorial Force, as a voluntary organization. In a letter read to the House of Lords on the 17th of May, 1909, when a motion expressive of this opinion was to be made and he found himself unable to attend and support it personally, he wrote:

"On July 10, 1905, I said that ‘I have no hesitation in stating that our armed forces as a body are as absolutely unfitted and unprepared for war as they were in 1899-1900. Close upon four years have passed since then, and I have no hesitation in reaffirming my conviction."

Subsequently Lord Roberts introduced in the House of Lords a "National Service (Training and Home Defence) Bill," on which he spoke with great earnestness on the 12th of July. His Bill imposed on all male subjects the obligation of serving in the Territorial Force between the ages of 18 and 30, excepting officers of the Regular and Reserve Forces, naval and military, and some others; but subject to this and other modifications every person who came under the Bill would be in the same position as a person who voluntarily joins the existing Territorial Force. The liability to training would not extend over the whole term of service, but be limited to four years. The Bill provided for absolute equality of treatment of all classes, no purchase of discharge or of exemption from service being allowed; but in the matter of training various exemptions were provided for.

The Bill encountered more opposition than support in the debate on it, and did not secure a second reading.

{695}

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: British Army Reorganization. Creation of a General Staff. Result of the Report of the Esher Army Commission. Work of the Defence Committee.

Speaking, in April, at the Imperial Conference of 1907, Mr. Haldane, the Secretary for War in the British Ministry, gave a brief but clear account of the reforms in the organization of the Army which had been in progress since 1904. "The effect of the war in South Africa," he said, "made a profound impression on the minds of our advisers here. We realized that we had gone into the war without adequate preparation for war on a great scale, and that we had never fully apprehended the importance of the maxim that all preparation in time of peace must be preparation for war; it is of no use unless it is designed for that; it is the only justification for the maintenance of armies—the preparation for war. In consequence, when the war was over, the then Government set to work—and the present Government has continued to work—to endeavour to put the modern military organization into shape. In 1904 a very important committee sat. It was presided over by a civilian who had given great attention to the study of military organization, Lord Esher, and it contained on it two very distinguished exponents of naval and military views, Sir John Fisher and Sir George Clarke, as its other members. The committee reported, and its report contained a complete scheme for the reorganization of the War Office and of the Army. That scheme was adopted by the late Government and has been carried on by the present Government. One broad feature is this, that our naval organization has been the one with which we have been conspicuously successful in the history of this country, as distinguished from our military organization, and, therefore, as far as was possible, the naval organization was taken as a type. But the broad feature which emerged with regard to military preparations was this—Count Moltke was able to organize victory for the Prussian and German armies in 1866, and again in 1870, because he and the General Staff working under him were free to apply their minds wholly to war preparation. That he was able to do this was due to the fact that the organization and business administration of the Army in peace were kept entirely distinct from the service which consisted in the study of war problems and in the higher training of the Staff and of the troops. That was the principle recommended by the Esher Committee, and it culminated in the provision of a brain for the Army in the shape of a General Staff. That General Staff we have been at work on for a long time past in endeavouring to get together. The task was not as difficult as it seemed at first, because the effect of the war was to bring to the front a number of young officers who had shown remarkable capacity, and who constituted the nucleus of a serious and thoughtful military school. They were got together under the Esher reorganization, and virtually there has been a General Staff in existence for some time. But it was not until last September that it received formal and complete shape in the Army Order of that month."

Besides this fundamental reform, the Esher Commission pointed the way to other important changes or effective improvements in the administrative system of the Army. In place of the commander-in-chief, a new post, that of inspector-general, with a term of five years, was proposed, the principal duty of the office being to inspect and report on the efficiency of the military forces. Earl Roberts had just retired from the position of commander-in-chief, and the Duke of Connaught became inspector-general under the new regime. The existing Defence Committee, instituted in 1902, was to be enlarged by the addition of a permanent secretary, holding office for five years; two naval officers, selected by the admiralty; two military officers, chosen by the Viceroy of India; and, if possible, other colonial representatives, holding office for two years.

Of the importance of this Defence Committee, and of its work, Prime Minister Asquith took occasion to speak recently in Parliament (July 29, 1909). "Under the present Government," he said, "during the four years we have been in office the full Committee constituted by my predecessor, and which has since rendered the same service to myself, has consisted of six Cabinet Ministers in addition to the Prime Minister—namely, the four Secretaries of State other than the Home Secretary, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has consisted next, as representing the Navy, of the First Sea Lord and the Director of Naval Intelligence, and as representing the Army the Chief of the General Staff and the Director of Military Operations; and in addition to these official members it has had the services and the coöperation of the Inspector-General of the Forces (Sir John French), who occupies an independent position; of Lord Esher, who is a great expert in all these matters; and latterly, at my nomination, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson. That has been the composition of the full Committee, but from time to time we were able to add to it, and we ought to add to it, members _ad hoc_. …

"The functions of the Defence Committee arise out of the necessity felt, I think, in almost all the great countries of the world, but which is nowhere so pressing as it is here owing to our geographical and economic conditions—the necessity of coordinating the work of the Navy and Army. It is the primary business of the Defence Committee to study and determine what is the best provision that can from time to time be made for the military and naval requirements of the Empire as a whole, to keep both naval and military requirements, and their due relation to each other, constantly in view." Giving examples of the subjects which the committee had discussed, he said they had had under consideration the military needs of the Empire with reference to recent changes in Army organization; its military requirements as affected by the defence of India; the strategical aspects of the Firth of Clyde Canal; aerial navigation in view of the present and prospective developments; our policy in regard to the Channel tunnel and to the means of transit across the Channel; the standard of fixed defences and garrisons in various parts of the Empire, and the scale of reinforcements.

{696}

"In 1905 Mr. Balfour, who was then Prime Minister, made a statement of the highest importance in regard to the possibility of an invasion of these islands. Since then Lord Roberts had asked for a reinvestigation of the problem in the light of new facts and of the changed situation, and in 1907 a special committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was appointed to go into the whole matter. In arriving at their conclusion the committee conceded to those who were apprehensive of invasion that it would take place when our Regular Forces were absent upon some foreign expedition and that the attack might be a surprise attack. The view unanimously arrived at was, in the first place, that as long as the naval supremacy of the country was adequately assured, invasion on a large scale, involving the transport of 150,000 men, was an absolutely impracticable operation. The committee held, on the other hand, that if we were permanently to lose command of the sea, whatever might be the strength and organization of our military forces at the moment—even if we had an army like that of Germany—the subjection of the country by the enemy would be inevitable. It followed from this that it was the business of the Admiralty to maintain our naval supremacy at such a height as would enable us to retain command of the sea against any reasonably possible combination. The second conclusion arrived at was that we ought to have an Army for home defence sufficient in numbers and organization to repel raids and to compel an enemy who contemplated invasion to embark a force so considerable that it could not possibly evade our Fleet. The belief of the Admiralty was that a force of 70,000 men could not get through; but an ample margin must be allowed for safety, and it therefore became the business of the War Office to see that we had a force capable of dealing effectively with 70,000 men. For this country, then, to be secure against invasion we ought to have an unassailable supremacy at sea and a home Army ready to cope with a force of the dimensions he had named. It was upon these conclusions that both the military and naval policy of the country during his administration would be carried on."

Speaking in Parliament, in June, 1909, of the peculiar character and efficient quality of the Regular Army of Great Britain, Mr. Haldane, the Secretary for War, described it as "an Army of the kind which no other Power in the world possesses to the same extent as we do. It is customary," he said, "to speak of the small British Army; but what Power in the world has 80,000 white soldiers raised in their own country stationed in a country like India, and 40,000 in other parts of the Empire, and a further large force at home which is tending to increase—and more and more the overseas Dominions are tending to undertake their own defence? Now that force is not primarily for use at home, though it may be used for that; its real purpose is to work with the Navy overseas and to undertake wars there. The great armies of the Continent can only be mobilized for a limited time, and they cannot undertake wars which last for two or five or ten years, as ours can because it is a professional Army and leaves the resources of the nation unaffected. That kind of overseas Army is a peculiarity of the military organization of this country, a peculiarity which is too often overlooked, but which is just as essential as the command of the sea."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: German Emperor’s Speech.

The following speech by the Emperor William was made at Karlsruhe, September 11, 1909, after a military review in Baden: "We Germans are a people glad to bear arms and proud of the game of war (_kriegsspielfreudiy_). We carry the burden of our defence lightly and willingly, for we know that, we must preserve and maintain our peace in which alone our labour can prosper. At the review from which I have just come I have seen that portion of the warrior sons of our Fatherland which springs from the land of Baden. Today, under the command of their illustrious lord, they have given me the most complete satisfaction. So long as there are peoples there will be enemies and envious folk; and so long as there are enemies and envious folk it will be necessary to be on one’s guard against them. Consequently there will continue to be prospects of war, and even war itself, and we must be ready for everything. Hence our army before all forms the _rocher de bronze_ on which the peace of Europe is based and with which no one intends to pick a quarrel. It is to preserve this peace, to maintain the position in the world which is our due, that our army serves; this also is the aim of the strenuous days which are expected of it. But I am firmly convinced that it will stand its test successfully and that our German Fatherland may rest in confidence that we are on guard and that with God’s help and under God’s protection nothing will befall us."

MILITARY AND NAVAL;

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: British Imperial Defence Conference of 1909. Its Agreements for an Imperial System. Compulsory Military Training contemplated in Australia.

In connection with the doubts that were awakened in Great Britain, and throughout the British Empire, in 1909, as to the adequacy of their general preparations for defence, the Premier announced in the House of Commons, on the 3d of May, that steps had "been taken to ascertain whether the Governments of the self-governing Dominions are prepared to favour a conference at an early date for the discussion of Imperial co-operation for defence. The Government had suggested, he said, that the conference should be held this summer—if possible, in July." The proposal was approved throughout the Empire, and delegates to the Conference from each of the self-governing Dominions came to London and held sessions with representatives of the Home Government, beginning on the 28th of July. The delegates in attendance were the following;

Commonwealth of Australia.— Colonel J. F. Foxton, Minister without portfolio, assisted by Captain Creswell and Colonel Bridges, naval and military experts.

New Zealand.— Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister and Minister of Defence.

Canada.— Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence, Mr. L. Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, these Ministers being assisted by Admiral Kingsmill and General Sir Percy Lake, as naval and military advisers.

Newfoundland.— Sir E. P. Morris, Prime Minister.

Cape Colony.— Mr. J. F. X. Merriman, Prime Minister.

Natal.— Mr. J. R. Moor, Prime Minister, assisted by Colonel Greene, Minister of Railways.

The Transvaal.— General J. C. Smuts, Colonial Secretary.

Orange River Colony.— General Hertzog, Colonial Secretary.

{697}

The discussions of the Conference were unreported, but on the 26th of August, after its adjournment, the Premier, in a statement to the House of Commons, summarized its main conclusions as follows: "First as regards military defence: after the main Conference at the Foreign Office, a military Conference took place at the War Office, and resulted in an agreement on the fundamental principles set out in papers which had been prepared by the General Staff for consideration by the delegates. The substance of these papers, which will be included among the papers to be published, was the recommendation that, without impairing the complete control of the Government of each Dominion over the military forces raised within it, those forces should be standardized, the formation of units, the arrangements for transport, the patterns of weapons, and so forth, being as far as possible assimilated to those which have been recently worked out for the British Army. Thus while the Dominion troops would in each case be raised for the defence of the Dominion concerned, it would be made readily practicable in case of need for that Dominion to mobilize and use them for the defence of the Empire as a whole. The military Conference then entrusted to a sub-Conference, consisting of military experts at headquarters and from the various Dominions, and presided over by Sir William Nicholson, acting for the first time in the capacity of Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the duty of working out the detailed application of these principles. I may point out here that the creation early this year of an Imperial General Staff thus brought into active working is a result of the discussions and resolutions of the Conference of 1907. Complete agreement was reached by the members of the sub-Conference, and their conclusions were finally approved by the main Conference and by the Committee of Imperial Defence, which sat for the purpose under the presidency of the Prime Minister. The result was a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are that while preserving the complete autonomy of each Dominion, should these Dominions desire to assist in the defence of the Empire, in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homogeneous Imperial Army.

"Naval defence was discussed at meetings of the Conference held at the Foreign Office on August 3, 5, and 6. The Admiralty memorandum which had been circulated to the Dominion representatives formed the basis of the preliminary conference. The alternative methods which might be adopted by Dominion Governments in co-operating in Imperial naval defence were discussed. New Zealand preferred to adhere to her present policy of contribution; Canada and Australia preferred to lay the foundation of fleets of their own. It was recognized that in building up a fleet a number of conditions should be conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size in order to offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in the service: the _personnel_ should be trained and disciplined under regulations similar to those established in the Royal Navy, in order to allow of both interchange and union between the British and the Dominion services, and with the same object the standard of vessels and armaments should be uniform. A remodelling of the squadrons maintained in Far Eastern waters was considered on the basis of establishing a Pacific Fleet, to consist of three units in the East Indies, Australia, and the China Seas. … The generous offer of New Zealand and then of the Commonwealth Government to contribute to Imperial naval defence by the gift each of a battleship was accepted with the substitution of cruisers of the new ‘Indomitable’ type for battleships, these two ships to be maintained one on the China and one on the Australian station. Separate meetings took place at the Admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and general statements were agreed to in each case for further consideration by their respective Governments.

"As regards Australia, the suggested arrangement is that with some temporary assistance from Imperial funds the Commonwealth Government should provide and maintain the Australian unit of the Pacific Fleet. The contribution of the New Zealand Government would be applied towards the maintenance of the China unit, of which some of the smaller vessels would have New Zealand waters as their headquarters. The New Zealand armoured cruiser would be stationed in China waters. As regards Canada, it was considered that her double seaboard rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed according to the amount of money that might be available that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the ‘Bristol’ class and destroyers of the improved ‘River’ class, a part to be stationed on the Atlantic seaboard and a part on the Pacific. In accordance with an arrangement already made, the Canadian Government would undertake the maintenance of dockyards at Halifax and Esquimault, and it was a part of the arrangement proposed by the Australian representatives that the Commonwealth Government should eventually undertake the maintenance of the dockyard at Sydney. Papers containing all the material documents will be laid before Parliament in due course, and it is hoped before the conclusion of the Session."

In Australia and New Zealand there had been eagerness for some time to take a more effective part in the defence of the Empire, their remote position and their contiguity to swarming alien populations giving their people some special anxieties which are reasonable enough. They are lonely communities of Europeans, planted on the edge of the prodigious populations of the Asiatic world. They have learned suddenly that some, at least, of those populations can do things, in war and otherwise, that were supposed to be reserved especially for effective performance by the white variety of the human race. What disposition of mind will move the Eastern folk in the exercise of these powers of action—which are discoveries as new to them as to us—has yet to be learned. It is doubtful if they themselves know what the inclination of their career will be, when they have really digested the new contents of their minds and have fully surveyed their new position in the world. Meantime, Australia has good reason to think anxiously of what Japan certainly and China most probably can do, if they are moved by imperialistic ambitions to an aggressive career.

{698}

If anywhere in the British Empire there was reason for the lively stir of increased preparation for defence, it was Far East Australasia. New Zealand, in March, had put a heavy strain on its resources by offering to build a _Dreadnought_ for the Imperial Navy, and Australia had followed quickly by the proffer of another. When, subsequently, these projects were superseded by the arrangement made at the London Conference, funds raised by private subscription for the Australian _Dreadnought_ were applied partly to the foundation of a naval college near Sydney for the training of officers of the Australian squadron, and partly to the establishment of at least two farms for the training of young British immigrants, who will be specially selected by the county colonization societies.

In acting promptly to realize the plans of military organization that were formed at the London Conference, Australia went far beyond anything that is likely to be done by any other of the British Dominions, unless it may be New Zealand; for that Commonwealth has undertaken to organize a system of compulsory military training. A Defence Bill introduced in the Federal Parliament on the 21st of September applies compulsory training to all males from the age of 12 to that of 20. "Junior cadets are to have annually 120 hours’ physical drill, elementary marching, and practice with miniature rifles, for two years. Senior cadets will have 96 hours’ annually, including four whole-day drills, elementary naval or military exercises, and musketry practice at ranges up to 500 yards, for four years. The citizen forces are to have 16 whole-day drills or their equivalent annually, including eight days in camp for two years. Those who are to undergo naval, artillery, and engineer training will have 25 days instead of 16. Males from the age of 20 to 26 will remain enrolled, attending only one muster parade each year. Exemptions will be made only on the ground of unfitness or in the case of persons of non-European descent. The latter, however, will be trained in non-combatant duties. Sparsely populated districts may be exempted temporarily. Persons failing to attend the training will be fined from £5 to £500 according to the culprit’s wealth, or may be confined and trained till they have performed the duties they have shirked. Persons failing to reach efficiency must undergo another year’s training. The cadet training begins in 1911, and the citizen training in 1912. When the scheme is in full working order it is estimated that it will provide 40,000 junior cadets, 75,000 senior cadets, and 55,000 citizen soldiers under 21. The Militia, 25,000 strong, will thenceforth be recruited only from the fully-trained, and will become a corps d'élite."

On this subject of British imperial defence,

See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: New Zealand adoption of Compulsory Military Training.

An Act which establishes compulsory military training in New Zealand, on lines similar to that in Australia, passed the colonial Parliament during its session which closed December 29, 1909.

NAVAL:

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Brazil and Argentina in a "Dreadnought" Competition.

"The controversy between Brazil and Argentina about what is called ‘equilibrium of armament’ is still carried on with much animation in the Press of both countries, but apparently without producing any effect, good or otherwise. The subject of discord is the Brazilian Government’s order for three large battleships of the ‘Dreadnought’ type, which is to be met by an Argentine triplet, for which tenders are urgently called. Fortunately these big ships take a long time to build, and by the time they are ready the Press will probably be commenting upon the _entente cordiale_ in South America and the obsolescence of floating engines of war; but in the meantime taxpayers in both countries are inclined to support the somewhat daring proposal from Buenos Ayres that Brazil should keep the first ‘Dreadnought,’ cede the second to Argentina, and cancel the order for the third."

_Rio de Janeiro Correspondent London Times, December 22, 1902._

Four months later the same correspondent telegraphed, May 3, 1909, among other statements quoted from the President’s Message to Congress, that day: "In regard to the navy seven vessels would be launched under the new programme. Two-thirds of the total expenditure of £4,500,000 had already been paid from ordinary resources, and this proved that the reorganization of the navy would not be disastrous to the national finances. Tenders would shortly be invited for the construction of a new dry dock."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: British Navy War Council.

The following is from an official statement issued by the British Admiralty, October 11, 1909: "In further development of the policy which has actuated the Board of Admiralty for some time past of organizing a Navy War Council, it has been decided to place on an established footing the arrangements made in previous years for the study of strategy and the consideration and working out of war plans. A new department, called the Naval Mobilization Department, has been formed under the directorship of a flag officer, and there is concentrated in it that part of the business of the Naval Intelligence Department and the Naval War College which related to war plans and mobilization. Under the presidency of the First Sea Lord, the officers directing the Naval Intelligence Department and the Naval Mobilization Department, and the Assistant Secretary of the Admiralty will form the standing Navy War Council."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The British "Two Power Standard."

During the debate in the British House on the Navy Estimates, in the spring of 1909, the Premier, Mr. Asquith, was called on by the Opposition to define the Government's understanding of the requirements of the "two Power standard" of naval strength, so called (see above). In reply, he laid it down that in dealing with this standard they must not merely take into account the number of Dreadnoughts and Invincibles, but the total effective strength of the British for defensive purposes as compared with the combined effective strength of any two other navy Powers. That was the two-Power standard as understood by successive Administrations, and the present Government had in this matter in no way changed the policy pursued by preceding Administrations. For the moment this question was an academic one, because whatever two Powers might be selected, their combined effective strength for aggressive purposes against Great Britain was far below the defensive strength of the latter. The expression "two-Power standard" was a purely empirical generalization, a convenient rule of thumb, and he should be very sorry to predict that this formula would be an adequate or necessary formula some years hence. {699} In measuring the combined effective strength of the two next strongest fleets the power of one powerful homogeneous fleet ought to be borne in mind. Further it had been established that the rule only applied to battleships and ships ejusdem generis. Then in existing conditions "we ought not," he said, "to limit our vision to Europe alone; but at the same time, while considering the combined effective strength of any other two Powers for aggressive purposes against this country regard should be had to geographical conditions." Supposing China had a fleet of Dreadnoughts, no rational Minister would treat that fleet as standing upon the same footing for the purpose of the two-Power standard as the German or French fleet. In the same way, the fleet of the United States could not be put in the same category with the fleets of France and Germany.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Canadian Share of the Undertakings of British Imperial Defence.

For performance of the share assumed by Canada, of undertakings of British imperial defence agreed to at the Imperial Conference in London, July, 1909 (see above), Sir Wilfrid Laurier brought forward a Bill in the Dominion House of Commons, on the 12th of January, 1910, the essential provisions of which he set forth in a speech from which the following passages are taken:

"The bill is entitled ‘An act respecting the naval service of Canada.’ It provides for the creation of a naval force to be composed of a permanent corps, of a reserve force, and of a volunteer force on the same pattern absolutely as the present organization of the militia force. … Every man who will be enrolled for naval service in Canada will be enrolled by voluntary engagement. There is no compulsion of any kind, no conscription, no balloting. … ‘Active service’ as defined by the act means service or duty during an emergency, and emergency means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended. The act provides also that at any time when the Governor in Council deems it advisable, in case of war, invasion, or insurrection, the force may be called into active service. There is also an important provision that while the naval force is to be under the control of the Canadian Government, and more directly under the control and administration of the Department of Marine, yet in case of emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of his Majesty for general service in the Royal Navy the naval force or any part thereof, and any ships or vessels of the naval service and any officers or men serving on these vessels, or any officers or men of the naval service. There is a subsequent provision that if action is taken by the Governor in Council at a time when Parliament is not sitting, Parliament shall immediately be called. …

"Another important provision of the bill is that it provides for the establishment of a naval college on the pattern of the Military College now in existence at Kingston."

Coming to a statement of the armament contemplated, the Premier said: "Two plans were proposed and discussed, one involving the expenditure of $2,000,000 a year and the other involving an expenditure of $3,000,000. The first one would have consisted of seven ships, the second one would have consisted of eleven ships, namely—four Bristols, one Boadicea, and six destroyers. We have determined to accept the second proposition, that is to say, the larger one of eleven ships. That is the force which we intend to create, and to start with four Bristols, one Boadicea and six destroyers. Perhaps it will be interesting to the House to understand what is meant by a fleet unit, by a Bristol, a Boadicea, and a destroyer. The fleet unit, which was suggested and which has been accepted by Australia, and to which the government contributed a certain sum per annum, is to be composed of one armored cruiser of the type of the Indomitable, three protected cruisers, six destroyers and three submarines. Now the fleet which we have agreed to accept is to be composed of four Bristols, one Boadicea, and six destroyers.

"A Bristol is a protected cruiser, which means that it has a steel deck which protects all the vital parts of the ship. It has a tonnage of 4,800 tons, with a speed of 25 knots. The number of guns has not yet been determined, but the largest Indomitable carries eight guns. A Boadicea carries six guns, so that it is probable that the number of guns will be eight. It has a total crew of 391 men, of which twenty are officers. The Boadicea is an unarmored cruiser, with a tonnage of 3,300 tons, and carries six 4-inch guns. It has a crew of 278 men, of whom seventeen are officers. We are to build six destroyers of what is known as the improved river class. …

"The total cost of these eleven ships will be, according to the British figures, £2,338,000, or a little more than $11,000,000. According to Canadian prices, supposing the ships were to be built in Canada, we would have to add at least 33 per cent, to the cost just given. I may say that it is our intention to start at the earliest possible moment with the construction of this fleet, and, if possible, to have the construction done in Canada."

The leader of the Opposition, Mr. Borden, who spoke after Mr. Laurier, endorsed fully the purpose of the Bill, but criticised the proposals of the Government as being inadequate. "They are," he said, "either too much or too little. They are too much for carrying on experiments in the organization of a Canadian naval service; they are too little for immediate and effective aid, and it seems to me that the policy of the Government will be attended with a very great waste of money, with no immediate effective result."

The Bill embodying the naval programme of the Government, as set forth by the Prime Minister, was enacted on the 11th of March, 1910, by 119 votes to 78.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Chilian Navy-building.

It was reported from Santiago de Chile to the English Press, October 21, 1909, that "the Government has decided upon a naval expenditure of £4,000,000, which includes a 20,000 ton battleship, two ocean-going destroyers, and several submarines. Instructions for tenders have been sent to the Commission in London." A later message to the American Press, November 12, stated that "the naval building programme decided upon by the Chilian government, provides for the construction of one battleship, four torpedo boat destroyers, and two submarines at an expenditure of $14,000,000."

{700}

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The Chinese Programme.

A Press message from Peking, October 11, 1909, announced that a naval commission, consisting of Prince Tsai-hsun, the Regent’s brother, Admiral Sa Chen-ping, and Sir Chen Tung Liang Cheng, who was secretary to the Special Chinese Embassy to the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 1897, left that day for Europe. This was understood to be the first step toward the fulfilment of China’s programme for the expenditure of £40,000,000 on the rehabilitation of her army and navy.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Denmark’s Fortification and Naval Defense.

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

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The "Dreadnought" Era. Outclassing of all Battleships built prior to 1906. The New Type. Effects of its Introduction.

The evolution of sea-fighting monstrosities received a startling and revolutionizing impulsion in 1906, when a new _Dreadnought_ (replacing an obsolete battleship of that name) was added to the British navy. In size, plan and armament it embodied naval teachings just taken from the Russo-Japanese War, and was supposed to put every other existing battle-ship into an inferior second class. It brought suddenly a new standard into all comparative measurements of naval power, impairing seriously the worth of the costly monsters then afloat. It signalled, in fact, a start for entirely new racing among the competitors for "sea-power," since the prizes of substantial fighting efficiency among the navies must all be won over again, by the quickest builders of the _Dreadnought_ type of ship. England had more reason than any other nation to lament this happening, and her Lords of the Admiralty have been sharply criticised for bringing it about; though the new type of battle-ship would have had creation elsewhere (as still newer types of monstrosity are being created already) if English naval architects had not produced it. Even Admiral Lord Charles Beresford has lashed the naval authorities of his country for bringing on the _Dreadnought_ craze. In a speech at London within the past year he said that "he did not object to Dreadnoughts or improvements in battleships; what he did object to was the advertisement connected with the first Dreadnought. Then they had told another nation that that ship would sink the whole of its fleet, and the result was that that nation set to work upon a definite naval programme of its own. Having given that insane advertisement of their Dreadnought, the British delayed ship-building with the inevitable result that they would have to pay a great deal more than if they had kept up their yearly proportion of ships. The command of the seas was their life, and he believed that they would have to spend £50,000,000 more than they need have spent through that insane advertisement. It would be absolutely impossible for Great Britain alone, under present conditions, to keep up the two-Power standard, and if there were no other alternative, there could only be the prospect of bankruptcy or defeat; but the two-Power standard could easily be kept up with an Imperial Navy."

Similar criticism appeared in a pamphlet published last year by Mr. Carnegie; and when his attention was called to the fact that both Japan and Russia had bigger ships than the _Dreadnought_ on the stocks before the latter was begun, he wrote:

"Britain, having so much larger a Navy compared with any other Power or compared with several other Powers together, should have adopted the policy of waiting before building a type that rendered most of her ships ineffective. She had nothing to fear from Japan, Russia, nor the United States, and could easily have overtaken Germany if Germany began building the new type. Britain made such a noise about the Dreadnought as to attract the attention of the whole world."

The following account of the _Dreadnought_ and of the interest she had excited in naval circles appeared in a prominent technical magazine while the building of the ship was in progress:

"Not for many years has the building of a man-of-war excited such wide-spread interest as that of H. M. S. _Dreadnought_. In many respects this ship has assumed a sensational character; she is the largest vessel ever constructed for any war fleet; she was the first to be commenced after the recent great struggle in the Far East; her design, which embodies many new features, has hitherto been kept an official secret, and the work of construction has been pressed forward with so much success that it is hoped she will be in commission within fourteen months of the laying of the keel plates. All these facts have contributed to arouse curiosity, particularly as it is well known that British naval attaches were accorded special privileges by the Japanese and were enabled to watch the progress of the war to greater advantage than the representatives of other powers. Consequently, from the day when the first whispers of the coming of the _Dreadnought_ were heard, an unusual amount of interest has been taken in this ship, not only in the United Kingdom, but in foreign countries, and the influence of the design may be traced in the new programmes of several rival Powers. … The essential feature of the _Dreadnought_ which distinguishes her from all battleships now in commission in the world’s fleets is that she is of huge size and mounts only one type of gun for use in line of battle, instead of three types, as in the 'King Edward VII.’ class.

"The war between Japan and Russia conclusively showed that the intermediate armament carried by the vessels flying European flags was not effective at modern battle ranges. Even on the partial evidence obtained by the French authorities it has been calculated that the effective ranges for battle have been raised from 3000 yards to 7000 or 8000 yards. Careful calculations show that at such a distance the striking power of 7.5-inch and 6-inch guns, which have been the favourite intermediate weapons in the British Navy hitherto, are comparatively useless. … It is understood that originally the _Dreadnought_ was to have carried twelve guns of the 12-inch type, but difficulties arose in working out the design, and it was eventually decided to drop out two of these weapons in order to mount effectively ten pieces of this colossal striking power, so as to enable eight of them to fire on the broadside, six ahead and four astern, without endangering either the stability of the ship or running any undue risks owing to the blast. … With a broadside of eight 12-inch guns, the _Dreadnought_ is equivalent to any two battleships built for the British fleet prior to the construction of 'King Edward VII.,' and yet her total cost, complete with guns, will be only £1,797,497, while the ships of the ‘King Edward VII.,’ class, carrying only four 12-inch guns and the same number of 9.2-inch guns, represent an outlay of just under a million and a half sterling."

_Cashier's Magazine, June, 1906._

{701}

The steadily increasing sine of the _Dreadnought_ ships is shown in the following, reported from Portsmouth, England, September 30, 1909: "Since the launch of the _Dreadnought_ by the King in February, 1906, each successive ship which has taken the water at Portsmouth has exceeded her predecessor in size. The weight of the _Neptune_, successfully floated by the Duchess of Albany to-day shows an advance of no fewer than 1,500 tons upon that of the vessel launched by his Majesty; and of 500 tons over that of the St. Vincent, the preceding battleship on the building slip. The ship which is to be laid down next month will probably far exceed the dimensions of the _Neptune_."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: England and Germany. Their "Dreadnought" Building Compared. The Question in the British Parliament and the Hysteria in the Country.

An exciting period of debate in Parliament and of discussion throughout Great Britain was opened on the 17th of March, 1909, when the Navy estimates for the coming year were submitted to the House of Commons. In his speech on bringing forward the Estimates, which contemplated an expenditure of £35,142,700, being nearly £3,000,000 in excess of the expenditures of the current year, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Reginald McKenna, explained the reasons for the increase at length, saying in part: "We cannot take stock of our Navy, and measure our requirements except in relation to the strength of foreign navies. I am, therefore, obliged to refer to foreign countries in making estimates of our naval requirements. Several of the Powers are rapidly developing their naval strength at this moment; but none at a pace comparable with that of Germany. If in what I have to say now I select that Power as the standard by which to measure our own requirements, the House will understand that I do so only for what may be called arithmetical purposes, and without presuming upon the expression of any feeling or opinion of my own—except it be one of respectful admiration for administrative and professional efficiency. …

"When the Estimates were presented to Parliament a year ago we had seven battleships of the Dreadnought class and three cruisers of the Invincible class, either afloat or in process of construction. The whole of these were due for completion by the end of 1910. At that time Germany was building four Dreadnoughts and one Invincible, of which two Dreadnoughts were expected to be completed by the end of this year, and the remaining three ships in the autumn of 1910. Thus, at that time, we had a superiority in these classes of ships of ten to five in course of construction, with the additional advantage that the whole of ours were expected to be completed some months in advance of the last three of the German ships. The new German Fleet Bill had at that time become law, and according to our interpretation of its provisions three Dreadnoughts and one Invincible would be laid down in the course of the year 1908-1909. The financial provisions of that Bill were such as to lead us to the opinion that no work would be commenced upon these four ships until the month of August last year, and that they would not be completed before February, 1911. This time last year, therefore, we had to contemplate five German ships under construction, three of which would be completed in the autumn of 1910 and four more ships to be commenced about August, 1908, and commissioned in February, 1911. In view of this state of affairs this House of Commons last year approved of a programme of two large ships to be laid down at such a time as would give to this country a total of 12 of these new ships, as against a possible completed German total of nine. In the face of last year’s programme no one could with any fairness charge this Government with having started upon a race of competitive armaments. By example as well as by precept we sought to check the rapid rate of shipbuilding. We failed. …

"The difficulty in which the Government find themselves placed at this moment is that we do not know—as we thought we did—the rate at which German construction is taking place. We know that the Germans have a law which, when all the ships under it have been completed, will give them a navy more powerful than any at present in existence. We know that, but we do not know the rate at which the provisions of this Act are to be carried into execution. We now expect that the four German ships of the 1908-1909 programme will be completed, not in February, 1911, but in the autumn of 1910. I am informed, moreover, that the collection of materials and the manufacture of armaments, guns, and gun-mountings have already begun for four more ships which, according to the Navy Law, belong to the programme of 1909-1910. Therefore we have to take stock of the new situation, in which we reckon not nine but 13 German ships may be completed in 1911, and in 1912 such further ships, if any, as may be begun in the course of the next financial year, or laid down in April, 1910. We may stop here and pay a tribute to the extraordinary growth of the power of constructing ships of the largest size in Germany. Two years ago, I believe, there were in Germany, with the possible exception of one or two slips in private yards, no slip capable of carrying a Dreadnought. To-day they have actually no less than 14 such slips and three more under construction. And what is true of the hull of the ships is true also of the guns, armour, and mountings. Two years ago any one familiar with the capacity of Krupp’s and other great German firms would have ridiculed the possibility of their undertaking the supply of all the component parts of eight battleships in a single year. To-day this productive power is a realized fact, and it will tax the resources of our own great firms if we are to retain the supremacy in rapidity and Volume of construction.

{702}

"Having said so much on foreign naval development, I turn to our own programme of construction. As I have said, we shall have in March, 1911, eight completed Dreadnoughts and four Invincibles. We propose to lay down two more Dreadnoughts in July of this year, and the terms of the contracts will provide that they shall be completed in July, 1911. … Two more ships will be laid down in November this year, to be completed in 1911, and in that year our total strength in Dreadnoughts and Invincibles will be 12 of the former and four of the latter. The date, however, which we have to bear in mind is that up to which the present programme must provide—April, 1912. I have shown that we shall in the course of 1911 have 16 of these modern ships, as against 13 ships for which Germany is already making provision. The German law provides for four more ships to be laid down in 1910-1911. But if the construction of these ships is accelerated—as I understand was the case of the four ships of the 1909-1910 programme—they would be completed by April, 1912. Therefore on that date Germany would have 17 Dreadnoughts and Invincibles. But even if no acceleration takes place before April, 1910, this number would be completed in the autumn of 1912. This is a contingency which his Majesty’s Government have to take into account.

"We cannot afford to run risks. If we are to be sure of retaining superiority in this by far the most powerful types of battleships, the Board of Admiralty must be in a position, if the necessity arises, to give orders for guns, gun-mountings, armour, and other materials at such a time and to such an amount as will enable them to obtain delivery of four more large armoured ships by March, 1912. We should be prepared to meet the contingency of Germany having 17 of these ships in the spring of 1912 by our having 20, but we can only meet that contingency if the Government are empowered by Parliament to give the necessary orders in the course of the present year. I can well imagine that this method of calculating in Dreadnoughts and Invincibles alone may seem unsatisfactory, and even unfair to many persons. They may say: ‘What has become of the Lord Nelsons, the King Edwards, the Duncans, and the Formidables and the earlier battleships on which our naval superiority has been so constantly reckoned? Is no account to be taken of our powerful fleet of armoured cruisers, numbering no less than 35?’ Yes; the Board of Admiralty have not forgotten these ships. They still constitute a mighty fleet. The Dreadnought has not rendered them obsolete, and many of them would give a good account of themselves in the line of battle for many years to come. But, though they have not been rendered obsolete by the Dreadnoughts and the Invincibles, yet their life has been shortened. … A battleship must be regarded as a machine of which the output is fighting capacity. All improvements in the designs of ships which increase the fighting capacity necessarily shorten the life of earlier battleships just as in the case of any other machine. The greater the value of the improvements, the sooner the earlier ships become obsolete."

Mr. McKenna’s reckoning of the comparative numbers of Dreadnoughts that Great Britain and Germany would have in 1912 was challenged at once by the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Balfour, who said: "On the two-years’ basis of building we shall in December, 1910, as I calculate, have ten, and only ten, Dreadnoughts. But the Germans at that date, as I calculate, will have 13. That assumes, of course, that I am right in stating, and I do not think I shall be contradicted, that the Germans anticipated their programme by four months. If you work that out, and assume that the German ships begun last November, in anticipation by five months of the ordinary date, are completed in two years, then you will find that I am not wrong in saying that in December, 1910, we shall have only ten Dreadnoughts and the Germans will have 13. That danger period in which, according to my calculation, the ratio of British to German Dreadnoughts is as ten to 13 extends, on the basis of two years’ building, from December, 1910, to the end of March, 1911. On April 1, 1911, the Germans, as I understand it, will have only 13 and we shall have raised our number to 12. We should still, therefore, on April 1, 1911, according to my calculation, have one less than the Germans, and that period of what I might call the 12 British to 13 Germans will last until July, 1911. Then we shall have 14; but in the meanwhile the Germans, if they build their four ships this year, in addition to the anticipated ships they laid down in November, will have 17, as I understand. We should still have 14 in July, 1911, but the Germans would, as I make out, have 17."

Mr. Balfour contended that the four ships which, according to the German programme, were to be laid down on the 1st of April coming (1909) had been actually laid down in advance of that time. He had information to that effect; whereas Mr. McKenna was informed that materials for them had been collected in advance, but that the construction was not begun. Mr. Balfour contended stoutly for the correctness of his own information, and argued: "If they [the four battleships supposedly waiting to be laid down April 1, 1909] were laid down in November, as I believe, that means that the Germans laid down eight Dreadnoughts last year. They may lay down no Dreadnoughts this year, and they may say, ‘We anticipated our four ships for 1909-1910; we anticipated them by laying them down in November; we have no ships for this financial year.’ But there are two other things to remember. Having laid down eight ships last year, they may lay down four ships this year, or they may lay down eight ships this year. That the capacity of their yards and their great engineering shops renders that process perfectly feasible no one now doubts. … If the Germans go on at that rate, which is more than possible, the probability is that they will have on April 1, 1912, 21 Dreadnoughts to our 20. The hypotheses, then, are these, and I want to make it clear to the Government and to the House:—Eight Dreadnoughts have been laid down in 1908 by Germany. If four are laid down in 1909, there will be 17 on April 1, 1912; if eight are laid down—as eight have been laid down last year—there will be 21 on April 1, 1912, to our 20; and if the Germans imitate the policy of the present Government and lay down not only their eight in the financial year, but begin a new group of four when the Government propose their group of four, on April 1, 12 months hence, they will then have 25."

{703}

Over this difference of information as to the facts of German Dreadnought-building, and consequent differences of conclusion, controversy raged throughout the kingdom for weeks. The Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, tried unavailingly to moderate the impeachment of German good faith in the matter. "It is fair and right to the German Government that I should say," he remarked, "that we have had a most distinct declaration from them that it is not their intention to accelerate their programme (cheers) and we cannot possibly, as a Government, believing as we do most explicitly in the good faith of those declarations (cheers), we cannot possibly put before the House of Commons and Parliament a programme based on the assumption that a declaration of that kind will not be carried out. Be it observed—I want to be very careful in the language I use about this—I am not saying that it is a pledge in the sense of an agreement between the two countries. Nothing of the kind. I should not accuse the German Government of anything in the nature of bad faith if they altered their intention. We have been told by them expressly and explicitly that that is their intention, an intention not to accelerate, or in other words not to do what the right honourable gentleman contemplates, when he credits them with the intention possibly of doing—namely, of laying down as many as eight ships in one financial year. It is impossible in framing these Estimates to do so while at the same time ignoring that declaration from the German Government, and that is why I say in taking this power to lay down if need be four ships on April 1 next year we are making such provision as prudence shows to be necessary for all the contingencies which we can reasonably anticipate at the present moment."

At the same time, Mr. Asquith made a statement of importance in reply to the question, Why should there be an increasing competition in naval expenditure between these two countries? "The question," he said, "has been raised by us, the British Government, more than once, with a view to ascertaining whether any proposal for a mutual reduction of expenditure for naval purposes would be accepted by the German Government, but we have been assured more than once, and in the most formal manner, that their naval expenditure is governed solely by reference to their own needs, and that their programme does not depend upon ours. That is the statement which has been made to us. They tell us quite plainly that if we build 100 Dreadnoughts we must not assume that they would add to their naval programme, and, on the other hand, if we built no Dreadnoughts at all they would go on with their programme just as it is. If that is so, it is perfectly clear that there is no possibility of an arrangement for mutual reduction. I regret it very much, but I do not complain. The Germans, like every other nation, are the best judges of their own national requirements and necessities."

As will have been learned from Mr. McKenna’s statement, quoted above, the Government desired authority to begin construction of two new Dreadnoughts in July and two in November, 1909, with contingent authority in addition to give orders during the year for four more, if reasons for doing so appeared. This did not satisfy the Opposition, which insisted that not less than eight the new type of battle-ships should be built outright; and a veritable panic of public excitement on the subject of German designs against England was created in the country, by the combined agency of speech and press and the melodramatic stage. The Government was so little shaken by the clamor that a motion of censure on its "declared policy" in the matter was defeated in the House of Commons by a majority of 218. Nevertheless, on the 26th of July, Mr. McKenna made the following announcement of a modification in its naval programme:

"After very anxious and careful examination of the condition of shipbuilding in foreign countries the Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the second four ships referred to in this year’s programme should be completed by March, 1912. They propose to take all the necessary steps in the way of preparation of plans, getting out of specifications, invitations to tender, and, finally, the giving of orders which will procure the delivery of these ships at the time I have named. As was said in the month of March, there will be no need to lay the keels of these ships in the course of the present financial year. It will be quite time enough if the keels are laid in the month of April next. …

"The examination of the state of foreign shipbuilding programmes to which I have referred is bound to lead in the minds of most members of the Committee to the conclusion that the Government had no other course open to them. The Committee had stated to them last March very amply what was the condition of foreign shipbuilding up to that date. Since then the development of shipbuilding in foreign countries has gone on apace. Two countries, Italy and Austria, have now declared a definite programme of four large armoured ships of the latest type. In Italy one of those ships is already laid down, a second is to be laid down immediately, and the remaining two are both to be laid down in the course of the present year. With regard to the Austrian programme, sceptics might say they would never believe in it until, as in the case of Italy, they saw the keels actually laid down, but the fact is every earnest has been given of the determination of the Austrian Government, and two large slips have been prepared for the construction of battleships of the largest type."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The English Naval Programme for 1910.

"The navy estimates for 1910, which were issued by the British Admiralty last night, provide for an expenditure of $203,000,500, [thousands digits, "000", obscured and unknown] an increase of $27,805,000 over 1909. The increase is almost wholly taken up by shipbuilding armaments authorized by Parliament before dissolution. The new programme provides for five large armored ships, five protected cruisers, twenty destroyers, and a considerable number of submarines. By April 1 there will be under construction seven battleships, three armored, nine protected, and two unarmored cruisers, thirty-seven destroyers, and nine submarines."

_New York Evening Post, March 10, 1910._

{704}

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The French Naval Administration. Alarming discovery of Bad Conditions.

France was greatly startled and shocked in March, 1909, by rumored scandals in naval administration, uncovered by the investigations of a Parliamentary Commission, but not yet officially made known. The report of the Commission was not published until late in June, and when it appeared it confirmed, not the worst of the state of things which rumor had described, but enough to show an alarming and unsuspected weakness of the nation on that side of its armament for war. From the conclusion of the elaborate report a few translated passages will suffice to indicate some of the conditions it brought to light. In this final summary, the Commission states that the testimony submitted by it establishes, among other facts, the following:

"That during the last ten years Parliament has been asked to authorize the construction of ships for which in most cases the plans have not been definitely (_sérieusement_) fixed; that months, and most generally years, elapsed between the different contracts for the essential parts of the ships, the hulls, the turrets, the boilers, &c., entailing considerable loss of time and of money …; that numerous and important changes were introduced in the course of construction, … changes the chief inconvenience of which, apart from the increase of expenditure and the retardation of construction, is to impair that homogeneity which is the supreme quality of a squadron; that most of these defects are aggravated in the case of the six battleships of the Danton type, the original contract for which, signed at the end of December, 1906, has undergone hundreds of modifications which must now be placed on a proper basis. …

"That the arsenals are not at present in a state to carry out with the rapidity which is desirable new constructions and repairs; that the mechanical equipment is in general inadequate and out of date; that the abolition of piece-work, which has coincided with a reduction of working hours and the diminution of the powers and authority of the superintendents in charge, has resulted in a considerable lessening of production; and that lack of material sometimes entails a stoppage of work. …

"That the four divisions of battleships and the cruiser division of the Mediterranean Squadron have not the regulation supply of steel shells, that the two divisions of armoured cruisers of the Northern Squadron have only one-third of their proper supply of steel shells, and that for both squadrons the stores for renewing their supplies of steel shells are not ready.

"That the various branches of the administration are wanting in unity of views and purpose, in method and in defined responsibility, and that neglect, disorder, and confusion too frequently prevail. …

"In view of the fact that only a small part of the scheme of 1901 for modernizing ports and (lock yards in accordance with the requirements of the construction programme of 1900 has been executed, and in view of the total failure to provide docking accommodation for the large battleships of the Danton class, the Commission invites the Chamber to censure the want of foresight and the indifference which these lamentable discoveries disclose."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: French Naval Programme revised in 1909. Radical Changes in the Department of the Marine.

A despatch from Paris, June 8, 1909, announced:

"According to the _Temps_ this evening, the Navy Council has finally decided to recommend that, in addition to 45 ships of the line, the fleet shall consist of 12 ‘scout cruisers,’ 60 large destroyers, and 64 submarines. The importance attached to an increase in the number of capital ships, which is the chief feature of the new proposals, is illustrated by a comparison with the so-called ‘programmes’ of 1900 and 1907. In 1900 it was decided on paper that the fleet should consist of 28 battleships, 24 armoured cruisers, 52 destroyers, 263 torpedo-boats, and 38 submarines or submersibles. In 1907 the composition of the fleet was changed to 38 battleships, 20 armoured cruisers, six scouts, 109 destroyers, 170 torpedo-boats, 82 submarines for offensive purposes, and 49 defence submarines.

"A comparison of these three ‘programmes’ shows an increase in the number of capital ships and destroyers, the abolition of armoured cruisers as a separate class and of torpedo-boats in favour of destroyers, and a decrease in the number of submarines. With regard to the existing armoured cruisers, which the Navy Council no longer regards as efficient fighting units, it may be noted that two out of the four 14,000-ton Gambettas have not yet been completed. Given the age limit of armoured ships as fixed at 20 years, only the six Danton and the six République battleships would still figure on the effective list by 1925. In other words, 33 armoured ships would have to be completed during the next 16 years. In addition, 12 scout cruisers would have to be constructed, and, besides a number of submarines, over 100 destroyers would have to be laid down, since the life of this class of vessel is fixed at 17 years."

On the 29th of July the Paris correspondent of the London _Times_ wrote: "It is semi officially announced this evening that the Council of Ministers at its meeting to-day approved a number of radical changes proposed by the new Minister of Marine, among the higher ranks of the _personnel_ of the naval administration. All the heads of departments at the Ministry of Marine appointed under the old regime have been removed and their places have been filled by Admiral Boué de Lapeyrère’s own nominees. So complete a reconstruction of a public department is without precedent in modern French history. These changes, moreover, are supplemented by a number of new appointments in the commands afloat."

On the first of April, 1910, it was announced from Paris that the Chamber of Deputies had voted to lay down two battle-ships in the current year, designed to equal the latest type added to the navies of Great Britain and Germany.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: French Naval Administration. Parliamentary Investigation.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-JUNE).

{705}

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The German Emperor’s Statement of his Peace Policy based on Preparation for War.

In the spring of 1905, speaking at Bremen, on the unveiling of a monument to his father, the Emperor made an impressive statement of his motives in striving for the creation in Germany of a great naval and military power. He said that in boyhood he had been angered at the weakness of the German navy, and that his policy had sprung from that feeling, not directed toward aggression, but to the command of respect from the rest of the world. His aim was to "do everything possible to let bayonets and cannon rest, but to keep the bayonets sharp and the cannon ready, so that envy and greed shall not disturb us in tending our garden or building our beautiful house." "I vowed," he said, "never to strike for world-mastery. The world-power that I then dreamed of was to create for the German Empire on all sides the most absolute confidence as a quiet, honest, and peaceable neighbor. I have vowed that if ever the time comes that history shall speak of a German world-power, or a Hohenzollern world-power, this should not be based upon conquest, but should come through the mutual striving of nations after common purposes."

It is not difficult to believe in the perfect truthfulness of this assertion of high motives, and the perfect sincerity with which they have been obeyed, while seeing at the same time how much, in their working, they have threatened the peace of the world. As the power of Germany has grown under his hand, the Kaiser has been tempted more and more to impose his will on neighbors whose cannon were not as ready or their sharpened bayonets as many as his. The world-power of his desire has become more and more a dictatorial power. The peace he has preserved by it has been peace on his own terms, more than once. The result has been to excite throughout the world such a feeling of being menaced by war as had not been known since Napoleon’s day, and to impel among nations, big and little, a more feverish and competitive arming for war than ever busied them before. As worked out by the man, the Kaiser’s policy of peace-making by the tools of war has certainly lost the innocence it had when conceived by the boy.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The German Side of the Navy-building Question.

When, in March, 1909, debate on the Navy Estimates in England started excitement over the rapidity with which Germany seemed to have developed the building of Dreadnoughts, Chancellor Bülow, on the 29th of that month, said in the Reichstag: "The Federated Governments entertain no thoughts of entering into competition with British sea-power by means of the construction of the German navy. According to the provisions of the Navy Law, the immovable purpose of German naval policy is founded upon the fact that we desire to create our naval armaments solely for the protection of our coasts and our trade. It is, moreover, an indisputable fact that the programme of our naval construction lies open in absolute publicity. We have nothing to keep secret, nothing to hide, and it is not intended to accelerate the carrying out of our construction programme beyond the limits of time contemplated by the law (_über die gesetzliche Frist hinaus zu beschleunigen_). All rumours to the contrary are false. In the autumn of 1912, at the earliest, we shall have ready for service the 13 large new ships, including three armoured cruisers, provided by law."

This statement was supplemented by one from Admiral Tirpitz, who said:

"Now, as previously, we build all ships in about 36 months —about 40 months in the small yards. To that period are added trials, which last for several months. Equally inaccurate is the assertion that, with a view to more rapid construction, the contracts for the newer ships are placed sooner than is allowed by the estimates. All that is true is the following: Subject to approval by the Reichstag, contracts for two ships of the 1909 financial programme were last autumn promised to two private yards at comparatively low prices. This was done because there was a danger that, if orders for four ships were placed at the same time at the beginning of 1909 there would be a considerable advance in price. If orders for two ships were already placed the Imperial Navy Office was in a much more favourable position for placing orders for the other two. We can put the Imperial yards into competition with the private yards. The Imperial yards cannot undertake more than two ships at once. The private firms, therefore, will be compelled to ask lower terms. If the matter has been kept secret, that is solely because the firms must not be made aware of the business transactions of the Navy Office. Contracts for the ships have not been placed; assurances only have been given. The contract is concluded only after the voting of the estimate. The period for delivery is 36 months from April 1, 1909. Not a penny is available for the ‘promised’ ships before April 1. That must be clear to everybody who knows the Parliamentary conditions and our accounts system. Not even indirectly has any money been procured from banks for the yards in any way whatever by the agency of the Navy Office.

"In regard to the placing of the order for the first of the two ships special account was taken of the fact that the yard in question is principally engaged in the construction of this kind of ship. Accelerated completion of these two ships is neither asked for nor intended. The firms get their money only in quarterly instalments. Contracts for the two other ships of this year’s programme are not to be placed until some months after the conditions for tendering are drawn up late in the summer. As the private yards no more than the Imperial yards know whether they will get the orders for these ships, there can be no possibility of special preparation of material. If there has been any such accumulation, it is, presumably, due to business reasons, certainly to no incentive of ours.

"In conclusion, I repeat once more with emphasis that, as the Imperial Chancellor has already said, we shall have ready for use in 1912 ten Dreadnoughts and three Invincibles—in all 13, and not 17, large modern ships—and that not in the spring, but in the autumn. How far it is right to base comparisons of naval strength upon the number of Dreadnoughts is a question which I shall not here discuss."

As to the suggested readiness and desire of Great Britain to join in an international agreement for the limiting of naval armaments, the Germans have always had a rather reasonable answer, which was phrased forcibly by one of the Agrarian organs when it said:

"When the weaker promises the stronger to abstain from all means of increasing his strength, the strong man needs to make no further effort to retain his relative preponderance for ever. If the other naval Powers entered into such an agreement, England, without taking upon herself any further burdens, would retain mastery at sea before which all must bow. Little need as we have to interfere with regard to England’s programme, even so little need has England to look askance upon our construction of ships, not to attack England, but only in order to have a naval power with which even the strongest opponent will not light-heartedly engage in battle. This good right of ours we shall not surrender by any agreement."

{706}

But a better view was that taken by one of the German Conservative journals, the _Kreuz Zeitung_, which said last summer: "First of all we must complete our construction programme. Before that we could not agree to any limitation of naval armaments. Otherwise we should not be able to create the navy of moderate size which corresponds to our position as a seafaring people. … Even after the completion of our construction programme our navy will be but a dwarf as compared with the British Navy. Nevertheless, the moment ought then to have arrived for entering into an international agreement about limitation of armaments, and on the part of Germany there will, presumably, be readiness for it."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Elasticity of the German Navy Law.

At the annual meeting of the German Navy League in June, 1909, Admiral Weber, speaking of the German Navy Law, praised its elasticity. "In international relations," he said, "it had lately proved to be a political instrument of equal force with the American Monroe doctrine and the English two-Power standard. In 1906 the Reichstag had agreed to increase the size of capital ships without altering the number. The amending law of 1908 (which shortened the ‘life’ of battleships) had rendered possible a rational fulfilment of all immediate possibilities with regard to battleships, small cruisers, torpedo-boats, and submarines."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Italian and Austrian Programmes of Naval Construction.

A despatch from Rome in May, 1909, announced that the minister of marine, Admiral Mirabello, had obtained the approval of the Cabinet to a naval programme that provides for the construction within three years at a total expense of $52,800,000 of four "Dreadnoughts" and a number of fast scout cruisers. A local paper stated that the decision to build these vessels was reached after Italy had learned that Austria-Hungary was going to spend $40,000,000 on increased naval power.

Four months later, on the 1st of October, a report came to the English Press from Rome as follows:

"The Minister of Marine announced in June that the ships would be begun at once, and completed before the middle of 1912. Only one, the Dante Alighieri, has yet been laid down, and owing to some blunder with regard to her steel plates, no work has been done on her for more than a month. The second is still awaiting the completion of a building slip before it can be laid down. As to the other two, according to the _Tribuna_, the contracts, which ought to have been concluded with two shipbuilding firms last June, have not yet been even examined by the Council of State; consequently neither firm has yet been able to begin the work which will be necessary in its yards before the ships can be laid down. The _Tribuna_ throws the blame upon the bureaucratic system."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Italian Fighting Strength at the End of 1909.

The fighting strength of the Italian Navy was reckoned by the Rome correspondent of the London _Times_, in November, 1909, as follows:

"Counting in all four of the San Giorgio cruisers [only two of which were then finished] as forming part of the available navy at the end of this year, and setting aside some 20 ships of various kinds and 40 or 50 torpedo-boats, which may, however, be of some secondary use, the full fighting force of the Italian navy at the beginning of 1910 should be six first-class battleships, five second class battleships, seven first-class armoured cruisers, three second-class armoured cruisers, 19 destroyers, and 36 first-class torpedo-boats. But it must be borne in mind that eight of the first 21 fighting units—the five battleships and three armoured cruisers described here as of the second class—are not very modern ships.

"The shipbuilding programme of Admiral Mirabello promises, besides other less important vessels, four battleships of the Dreadnought type. As far as one could learn at first these ships were to be on much the same lines as the Bellerophon, with a displacement of 18,200, and an armament of ten 12 inch guns. The chief question then was, When would they be ready for sea? Admiral Mirabello said in 1912. In order to effect this he would have had to revolutionize the whole system of shipbuilding in the Italian navy."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Japan’s Armament, Present and Prospective.

The naval status of Japan in December, 1909, as ascertained and described by the Tokio correspondent of T_he Times_, London, was as follows:

"Ever since the Russo-Japanese War it has been well-nigh impossible for the public to form a clear idea of what steps were in progress with regard to the expansion and maintenance of the Japanese Navy. In the year before the outbreak of the conflict—namely, 1903, a programme of expansion was approved by the Diet. It involved the building of three battleships, three armoured cruisers, and two second-class cruisers; that is to say, eight fighting vessels, displacing 100,000 tons approximately. The cost was set down as ten millions sterling, and the programme was to have been spread over a period of 11 years, ending in 1913. Subsequently, however, owing to financial expediency, the time of completion was extended, first to 1915, and thereafter to 1916, so that seven years still remain. Knowing this and observing carefully what ships were laid down from time to time, there should have been, it will appear, no difficulty in forming a clear perception of the actual conditions at any moment.

{707}

"But naturally the war produced a radical change in the plans of the Japanese Admiralty. It became necessary at once to adopt special measures for recouping the losses suffered in battle, as well as for renewing armaments. Of course the general public was not taken into official confidence in such matters, and some time elapsed before people became vaguely conscious that not one building programme only, but three, had been taken in hand. Occasionally announcements were made of the launch of such-and-such a battleship or the laying down of such-and-such a cruiser, but as to which vessel belonged to which programme, and what dimensions the several programmes were ultimately to take, nothing could be clearly ascertained. Now, at length, this obscurity has been removed. It is seen that two of the programmes were undertaken with funds included in the war expenditures, and that, therefore, the nation is not required to make any further provision of money on these accounts. These programmes are, first, an emergency programme, carried out with what is called an ‘implementing fund,’ and, secondly, an emergency programme carried out with an ‘adjustment fund.’ Under the three programmes, respectively, the following vessels have been bought, built, or are building:—

Third Period Expansion Programme.

Tons.

Katori, battleship 15,950

Kashima, battleship 16,400

Ibuki, armoured cruiser 14,600

Emergency Implementing Programme.

Aki, battleship 19,150

Satsuma, battleship 19,150

Tsukuba, armoured cruiser 13,750

Ikoma, armoured cruiser 13,750

Kurama, armoured cruiser 14,600

Tone, cruiser 4,400

Yodo, despatch boat 1,250

Mogami, despatch boat 1,350

Emergency Adjustment Programme.

Kawachi, battleship 21,000

Settsu, battleship 21,000

"There is here a total of 13 ships displacing 176,000 tons, approximately, and to these have to be added 29 destroyers built under the ‘emergency implementing programme.’ As for the vessels which have still to be built, but which have not yet been laid down, they are as follows:-

Third Period Programme.

Battleship, 1 16,000 tons

Armoured cruisers, 2 11,000 tons each

Cruisers, 2 5,000 tons each

Emergency Implementing Programme.

Armoured cruiser, 1 14,600 tons

Cruisers, 2 4,100 tons each

Destroyers, several 375 tons each

Torpedo-boats, 6 120 tons each

"These eight vessels, exclusive of torpedo craft, aggregate over 70,000 tons, and if the two lists be combined, we get a total of 21 ships displacing 247,000 tons, approximately, apart from about 35 destroyers and six torpedo boats. …

"It may be mentioned that in February last the ships on the active list of the Japanese Navy were:—

Battleships 13

Armoured Cruisers 12

Other Cruisers 43

Destroyers 59

Torpedo-boats 69"

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: Russian "Dreadnoughts" Building.

"The keels of the four Dreadnoughts which are to represent the nucleus of Russia’s future navy were laid down in St. Petersburg this morning. The materials to be employed will be throughout Russian; the designs and the supervision will be British. It is an open secret that the Tsar has taken a deep personal interest in arrangements that have been made for placing the contracts for the new ships."

_St. Petersburg Correspondent London Times, June 16, 1909._

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The United States Navy in 1909.

As summarized in the Annual Report of the Navy Department for the fiscal year 1909, the United States Navy was composed, on the 30th of June in that year, of the following vessels:

_Fit for Service, including those under Repair:_ First-class battle ships, 25; second-class battle ship, 1; armored cruisers, 12; armored ram, 1; single-turret harbor-defense monitors, 4; double-turret monitors, 6; protected cruisers, 22; unprotected cruisers, 3; scout cruisers, 3; gunboats, 9; light-draft gunboats, 3; composite gunboats, 8; training ships, 3; training brigantine, 1; special class (Dolphin, Vesuvius), 2; gunboats under 500 tons, 12; torpedo boat destroyers, 16; steel torpedo boats, 33; wooden torpedo boat, 1; submarine torpedo boats, 12; iron cruising vessels, steam, 5; wooden ditto, 5; wooden sailing vessels, 5; tugs, 44; auxiliary cruisers, 5; converted yachts, 21; colliers, 8; transport and supply ships, 8; hospital ships, 2; receiving ships, 4; prison ships, 3. Total, 292.

_Under Construction: _ First-class battle ships, 6; torpedo boat destroyers, 20; submarine torpedo boats, 16; tug, 1; colliers, 6. Total 49.

_Authorized_: First-class battle ships, 2; gunboat for Great Lakes, 1; submarine torpedo boats, 4; colliers, 2. Total 9.

_Unfit for Service:_ Of all descriptions, 12.

Grand Total, 362.

Since the above report, the House of Representatives, by vote on the 8th of April, 1910, authorized the building of two additional battle ships of the first class, at a cost of $6,000,000 each.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The World-round Cruise of the American Battleship Fleet, 1907-1909.

On the 16th of December, 1907, a fleet of battle-ships which, comprised practically the whole available fighting force of the United States Navy steamed away from Hampton Roads, on the longest and most notable cruise ever made by so formidable an assemblage of ships of war. Its primary appointment was to circuit the American continents from the Atlantic to the Pacific shores of the United States, and the further direction of the voyage was left for future decision. Ultimately, invitations from foreign governments drew the fleet to Australia, New Zealand, China and Japan, and it returned from these visits in the Far East by way of the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea. The duration of the long voyage was a year, two months and six days, and the total miles of ocean traversed were about 45,000. Many foreign ports were visited, South American, Australasian, Asiatic and European, and boundless hospitalities were bestowed everywhere on the fleet. Its stay of some days at San Francisco, before leaving American waters, was the grand event of the year to Americans of that coast, and its call at Manila gave emphasis to American authority in the Philippines.

Until it reached San Francisco the fleet was under the command of Rear-Admiral Robley D. Evans; but physical disabilities then compelled the retirement of Admiral Evans, and he was succeeded in the command by Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, under whom the remainder of the voyage was made. The sixteen battleships of the fleet were divided into two squadrons and four divisions, each division consisting of vessels of the same general type; the first division comprised the Connecticut, Admiral Evans’s flag-ship, the Kansas, the Vermont, and the Louisiana; the second included the Georgia, the New Jersey, the Rhode Island and the Virginia; the third included the Minnesota, the Ohio, the Missouri, and the Maine; the fourth contained the Alabama, the Illinois, the Kearsarge, and the Kentucky. The battle-ships were accompanied by two supply-ships, a repair-ship, and a tender, and were preceded from Hampton Roads by a flotilla of six torpedo-boats and a squadron of armored cruisers.

{708}

From San Francisco to New Zealand the voyage of 6000 miles was made with one stop, only, at Honolulu, and so perfectly in order, it is said, that only twice did any ship fall out of the line of formation, in which the ships steamed steadily together, two hundred and fifty yards apart. This order, with time-table regularity of movement, was maintained from beginning to end, and when, on the 22d of February, 1909, President Roosevelt welcomed the return of the fleet to Hampton Roads, he was able to say with just pride: "This is the first battle fleet that ever circumnavigated the globe. Those who perform the feat again can but follow your footsteps. You have falsified every prediction of failure made by the prophets. In all your long cruise not an accident worthy of mention has happened to a single battleship, nor yet to the cruisers or torpedo-boats. You left this coast in a high state of battle efficiency, and you return with your efficiency increased as a war machine, as the fleet returns in better shape than when it left. In addition, you have shown yourselves the best of all possible ambassadors and heralds of peace. Wherever you have landed you have borne yourselves so as to make us at home proud of being your countrymen."

Before the undertaking of this notable cruise of a battle-ship fleet having no militant mission, many political reasons for and against the movement were urged and discussed. From the naval point of view, professionally, the true motive of the project was stated undoubtedly by Captain A. T. Mahan, in an article published in the _Scientific American_, and it had no political purpose whatever. "A perfectly sufficient reason," said Captain Mahan, "is the experience to be gained by the fleet in making a long voyage, which otherwise might have to be made for the first time under the pressure of war, and the disadvantage of not having experienced at least once the huge administrative difficulties connected with so distant an expedition by a large body of vessels dependent upon their own resources. By ‘own resources’ must be understood, not that which each vessel carries in herself, but self-dependence as distinguished from dependence on near navy-yards—the great snare of peace times. The renewal of stores and coal on the voyage is a big problem, whether the supply vessels accompany the fleet or are directed to join from point to point."

The following statistics are given of the cost of the cruise: "The fleet burned 400,320 tons of coal, costing $1,078,994. The transportation of this coal by naval and hired colliers cost $1,463,825. The total coal bill was $2,646,069. There were used on the engines and other machinery 125,000 gallons of oil costing $43,750. No official statement has been made of the cost of ammunition used in target and battle practice. The figure is put at above a million dollars, and $20,000,000 is estimated as the total cost of the 14 months’ cruise."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: The World Naval Armament. Fleets of the Great Powers in March, 1910.

A British Parliamentary Paper made public on the 29th of April, 1910, gave statistics of the navies of the greater Powers as they existed on the 31st of March. The following summary of the figures appeared in the next issue of _The Mail_. The letters at the heads of the columns signify— E., England; F., France; R., Russia; G., Germany; I., Italy; U., United States; and J., Japan:--

Ships Built.

E. F. R. G. I. U. J.

Battleships 56 17 7 33 10 30 14

Armored C. D. Vessels - 8 2 7 - 10 -

Armored Cruisers 38 20 4 9 8 15 12

Protected Cruisers, I. 18 5 7 - - 3 2

Protected Cruisers, II. 35 9 2 23 3 16 11

Protected Cruisers, III 16 8 2 12 11 2 6

Unprotected Cruisers 2 - - 10 - 5 6

Scouts 8 - - - - 3 -

Torpedo Vessels 23 10 6 1 5 2 2

T. B. Destroyers 150 60 97 85 21 25 57

Torpedo Boats 116 246 63 82 96 30 69

Submarines 63 56 30 8 7 18 9

Ships Building.

E. F. R. G. I. U. J.

Battleships 9 6 8 8 2 4 3

Armored Cruisers 3 2 2 3 2 - 1

Protected Cruisers, II. 9 - - 5 - - 3

Unprotected Cruisers 2 - - - - - -

T. B. Destroyers 37 17 - 12 2 15 2

Submarines 11 23 3 * - 10 3

* Number uncertain.

----------WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: End--------

----------WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: Start--------

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1899-1909. General Treaties of Arbitration concluded since the First Peace Conference at The Hague.

"Arbitration in the sense of the present day dates from Jay’s Treaty of 1794, in which Great Britain and the United States bound themselves to arbitrate contested boundary claims (Article 5); claims preferred by British creditors (Article 6); and, more especially, the claims of American and British creditors based upon ‘irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property’ (Article 7). …

"The first award under it [Jay’s Treaty] was made in 1798, so that exactly one hundred years elapsed until the call of the First Hague Conference. Arbitrations in this period were very frequent. Writers differ as to the exact number; for example Dr. Darby instances no less than 471 cases, but in his enthusiasm for the peaceful settlement of international differences he has included a large number of interstate arrangements, which cannot be regarded as international arbitrations in the strict sense of the word. Mr. Fried, in his Handbook of the Peace Movement, enumerates some 200. M. La Fontaine gives a list of 177 instances to the year 1900, which should be reduced to 171 arbitrations or agreements to arbitrate before the meeting of the First Conference in 1899. Professor John Bassett Moore is more conservative and enumerates 136 cases of international arbitration during the nineteenth century, in 57 of which the United States was a party, with a like number of 57 to which Great Britain has been a party.

{709}

"But, as happily said by M. Descamps, arbitration is not a question of mathematics, and whether the instances be 471, according to Darby or 136, according to Professor Moore, the recourse to arbitration bids fair to become a habit with nations."

_James Brown Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907,