History for ready reference, Volume 7 (part 9 of 11)

History for ready reference, Volume 7 (part 9 of 11)

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, Volume 1, pages 210 and 224-225._

Dr. Scott cites from M. La Fontaine a table showing the participation of each State in arbitration. Germany has no representation in the table, either as a whole or by any of its parts; whereas every other nation of the least importance in the world appears as having arbitrated some of its disputes, prior to the preparation of this table.

At the First Peace Conference, of 1899, an attempt, strongly supported, was made to frame and secure the adoption of a treaty of arbitration by which the nations would bind themselves to arbitrate a carefully selected list of subjects. This failed, says Dr. Scott, in the work quoted above, "owing to the opposition of Germany. As a compromise, Article 19 of the convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences was adopted:

"‘Independently of existing general or special treaties imposing the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the part of any of the Signatory Powers, these powers reserve to themselves the right to conclude, either before the ratification of the present convention or subsequent to that date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of extending the obligation to submit controversies to arbitration to all cases which they consider suitable for such submission’ (re-enacted in 1907 as Article 40).

"The article did not seem at the time to be of any special importance and it was generally looked upon as useless because independent and sovereign States possess the right without special reservation to conclude arbitration agreements, general or special, without being specifically empowered to do so. The fact is, however, that this article, insignificant and useless as it may seem, marks, one may almost say, an era in the history of arbitration. The existence of the article has called attention to the subject of arbitration and by reference to it many States have negotiated arbitration treaties. It is true that there is no legal obligation created by the article and it is difficult to find a moral one, for it is not declared to be the duty of any State to conclude arbitration treaties. The moral effect of the article has, however, been great and salutary, and the existence of numerous arbitration treaties based upon the reservation contained in the article shows the attention and respect which nations pay to the various provisions of the Hague Conference."

Dr. Scott adds to these remarks a list of treaties, of the character contemplated, which had been entered into since the First Hague Conference, up to the time at which he wrote, with appended notes describing briefly the nature of the variously broadened or narrowed reference clauses contained in them. A more extended list has been published since by the International Peace Bureau of Berne, Switzerland, for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr. Frederick P. Keppel, Secretary of Columbia University, New York. The list below is mainly that of the International Peace Bureau, with the addition of a few more recent treaties to which the United States has been a party, obtained from the State Department at Washington. Some, but not all, of Dr. Scott’s notes have been borrowed, with his permission.

In the list of treaties as they are given here the date of signature is entered first, with the prefix S.; that of ratification follows, with the prefix R. When two dates of ratification are given, the first is that by the government named first in the entry of the parties to the treaty in question. [Notes "A", "B", "C" and "E" are defined following entry 105 below.]

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: List of States between which Permanent Treaties of Arbitration have been concluded since the First Peace Conference at The Hague, with the Dates of their Signature and Ratification.

1. Brazil and Chile. S. May 18, 1899. R. March 7, 1906, at Santiago.

2. Argentine and Uruguay. S. June 8, 1899. R. December 21, 1901. Additional protocol S. December 21, 1901. R. December 18, 1901.

3. Argentine and Paraguay, S. November 6, 1899. R. June 5, 1902. Additional protocol S. January 25, 1902. R. June 5, 1902.

4. Bolivia and Peru. S. November 21, 1901. R. December 29, 1903.

5. Spain and Mexico. S. January 11, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

6. Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica. S. January 20, 1902. [R. No date given.]

7. Argentine and Spain. S. January 28, 1902. [R. No date given.]

8. Spain and Salvador. S. January 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

9. Spain and Dominican Republic. S. January 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

10. Spain and Uruguay. S. January 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

11. Pan-American Treaty of obligatory arbitration between Argentine, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay. Peru, Dominican Republic, Salvador, and Uruguay (for differences relating to diplomatic privileges, rights of navigation, questions of frontiers and interpretation and enforcement of treaties). E S. January 29, 1902, at Mexico. According to Article 21 of the Treaty it would become of force as soon as three States among those which signed the Treaty should make known their approbation to the government of Mexico, which would communicate the information to other governments. It has been ratified by the governments of Salvador, May 28, 1902, of Guatemala, August 25, 1902, and of Uruguay, January 31, 1903.

12. Special Treaty between the seventeen States represented at the Pan-American Conference at Mexico, including the United States of America, relating to the adjustment by means of arbitration of difficulties resulting from financial questions. S. January 30, 1902, at Mexico. [R. No date given.]

13. Argentine and Bolivia. S. February 3, 1902. R. March 13, 1902.

14. Bolivia and Spain. S. February 17, 1902. R. October 10, 1903.

15. Colombia and Spain. S. February 17, 1902 R. July 18, 1902.

16. Spain and Guatemala. S. February 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

{710}

17. Mexico and Persia. S. May 14, 1902. [R. No date given.]

18. Argentine and Chile. E S. May 28, 1902. R. July 30, 1902.

19. Germany and Venezuela. S. May 7, 1903. (R. La ratification n’a pas étc exigée.)

20. Paraguay and Peru. S. May 18, 1903. [R. No date given.]

21. France and Great Britain. C S. October 14, 1903. R. February 25, 1904.

22. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Salvador. S. November, 1903. [R. No date given.]

23. France and Italy. C S. December 25, 1903. R. March 26, 1904-March 7, 1904.

24. Great Britain and Italy. C S. February 1, 1904. Not ratified.

25. Denmark and The Netherlands. B S. February 12, 1904. R. March 8, 1906, at The Hague.

26. Spain and France. C S. February 26, 1904. R. March 7, 1904-April 20, 1904.

27. Spain and Great Britain. C S. February 27, 1904. R. March 7, 1904-March 16, 1904.

28. France and The Netherlands. C S. April 6, 1904. R. July 5, 1905, at Paris.

29. Spain and Portugal. S. May 31, 1904. Not ratified.

30. France and Sweden. C S. July 9, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

31. France and Norway. C S. July 9, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

32. Germany and Great Britain. C S. July 12, 1904. Without reserve of ratification.

33. Great Britain and Sweden. C S. August 11, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

34. Great Britain and Norway. C S. August 11, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

35. The Netherlands and Portugal. S. October 1, 1904. R. October 29, 1908, at The Hague.

36. Spain and Nicaragua. S. October 4, 1904. R. March 19, 1908.

37. Belgium and Russia. A S. October 17/30, 1904. R. September 9/August 27, 1905-July 27 /August 9, 1905.

38. Belgium and Switzerland. A S. November 15, 1904. R. August 19, 1905.

39. Great Britain and Switzerland. C S. November 16, 1904. R. July 12, 1905.

40. Great Britain and Portugal. C S. November 16, 1904. Not ratified.

41. Germany and The United States of America. S. November 22, 1904. Not ratified.

42. Italy and Switzerland. C S. November 23, 1904. R. December 5, 1905.

43. Norway and Russia. A S. November 26/December 9, 1904. R. February 27, 1905-February 12/25, 1905.

44. Russia and Sweden. A S. November 26/December 9, 1904. R. February 12/25-February 27/14, 1905.

45. Belgium and Sweden. A S. November 30, 1904. R. August 11, 1905.

46. Belgium and Norway. A S. November 30, 1904. R. August 11, 1905-October 30, 1906.

47. Austria-Hungary and Switzerland. C S. December 3, 1904. R. October 17, 1905, at Vienna.

48. France and Switzerland. C S. December 14, 1904. R. July 13, 1905.

49. Sweden and Switzerland. A S. December 17, 1904. R. July 13, 1905.

50. Norway and Switzerland. A S. December 17, 1904. R. July 13, 1905.

51. Austria-Hungary and The United States of America. S. January 6, 1905. Not ratified.

52. Austria-Hungary and Great Britain. C S. January 11, 1905. R. May 17, 1905, at Loudon.

53. Spain and Sweden. S. January 23, 1905. R. March 20, 1905.

54. Spain and Norway. S. January 23, 1905. R. March 20, 1905.

55. Belgium and Spain. A S. January 23, 1905. R. December 16-July 28, 1905.

56. Great Britain and The Netherlands. C S. February 15, 1905. R. July 12, 1905, at London.

57. Denmark and Russia. A S. February 16/March 1, 1905. R. April 11, 1905-March 20/April 3, 1905.

58. Italy and Peru. S. April 18, 1905. R. November 11, 1905.

59. Belgium and Greece. A S. April 19/May 2, 1905. R. July 9/22, 1905.

60. Belgium and Denmark. A S. April 26, 1905. R. May 2, 1906.

61. Portugal and Sweden. C S. May 6, 1905. Not ratified.

62. Norway and Portugal. C S. May 6, 1905. Not ratified.

63. Italy and Portugal. C S. May 11, 1905. Not ratified.

64. Spain and Honduras. S. May 13, 1905. R. July 16, 1906.

65. Belgium and Roumania. A S. May 27/14, 1905. R. October 9/September 26, 1905.

66. Portugal and Switzerland. C S. August 18, 1905. R. October 23, 1908, at Berne.

67. Argentine and Brazil. S. September 7, 1905. R. September 28, 1908-October 2, 1908.

68. Colombia and Peru. S. September 12, 1905. R. July 6, 1906, with the modus rivendi.

69. Denmark and France. C S. September 15, 1905. R. May 31, 1906.

70. Denmark and Great Britain. C S. October 25, 1905. R. May 4, 1906.

71. Norway and Sweden. A S. October 26, 1905. Without reserve of ratification.

72. Denmark and Spain. A S. December 1, 1905. R. May 10, 1906-May 14. 1906.

73. Denmark and Italy. B S. December 16, 1905. R. May 22--March 30, 1906.

74. Austria-Hungary and Portugal. C S. February 13, 1906. R. October 16, 1908, at Vienna.

75. Belgium and Nicaragua. S. March 6, 1906. Not ratified.

76. France and Portugal. C S. July 29, 1906. Not ratified.

77. Denmark and Portugal. B S. March 20, 1907. R. October 26, 1908, at Copenhagen.

78. Nicaragua and Salvador. S. April 3, 1907. Not ratified.

79. Spain and Switzerland. C S. May 14, 1907. R. July 9, 1907.

80. Argentine and Italy. S. September 18, 1907. Not ratified.

81. Italy and Mexico. S. October 16, 1907. R. December 31, 1907.

82. Honduras, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. S. December 20, 1907, at Washington. R. March, 1908.

83. United States of America and France. D S. February 10, 1908. R. March 12, 1908, at Washington.

84. United States of America and Greece.- S. February 29, 1908. Not ratified [?].

85. United States of America and Switzerland. D S. February 29, 1908. R. December 23, 1908.

86. United States of America and Mexico. D S. March 24, 1908. R. June 27, 1908, at Washington.

{711}

87. United States of America and Italy. D S. March 28, 1008. R. January 22, 1900.

88. United States of America and Great Britain. D S. April 4, 1008. R. June 4, 1908, at Washington.

89. United States of America and Norway. D S. April 4, 1908. R. June 24, 1908, at Washington.

90. United States of America and Portugal. D S. April 6, 1908. R. November 14, 1908.

91. United States of America and Spain. D S. April 20, 1908. R. June 2, 1908, at Washington.

92. United States of America and Sweden. D S. May 2, 1908. R. August 18, 1908, at Washington.

93. United States of America and The Netherlands. D S. May 2, 1908. R. March 25, 1909.

94. United States of America and Japan. D S. May 5, 1908. R. August 24, 1908, at Washington.

95. Denmark and the United States of America. D S. May 18, 1908. R. March 29, 1909.

96. Denmark and Sweden. D S. July 17, 1908. Not ratified.

97. China and the United States of America. D S. October 8, 1908. R. April 6, 1909.

98. Denmark and Norway. S. October 8, 1908. Not ratified.

99. United States of America and Austria-Hungary. D S. January 15, 1909, at Washington. R. May 13, 1909.

100. United States of America and Peru. D S. December 5, 1908, at Washington. R. June 29, 1909.

101. United States of America and Salvador. D S. December 21, 1908, at Washington. R. July 3, 1909.

102. United States of America and Costa Rica. D S. January 13, 1909, at Washington. R. July 20, 1909.

NOTES.

The treaties differ in the range given to the obligation imposed on the signatory parties, as to the nature of the differences which they shall submit to arbitration. Most of them, however, are divisible in this respect into three classes, distinguished above by the reference letters "A," "B," and "C," and the distinction described in the following notes thus marked, from Dr. Scott’s work. Treaties concluded by the United States have an otherwise distinct character, as explained in note "D."

A.—The article of reference in these treaties is substantially (when not identically) as follows:

"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of July 29, 1899, the differences which may arise between them in the cases enumerated in Article 3, in so far as they affect neither the independence, the honor, the vital interests, nor the exercise of sovereignty of the contracting countries, and provided it has been impossible to obtain an amicable solution by means of direct diplomatic negotiations or by any other method of conciliation.

"1. In case of disputes concerning the application or interpretation of any convention concluded or to be concluded between the high contracting parties and relating—a. To matters of international private law; b. To the management of companies; c. To matters of procedure, either civil or criminal, and to extradition.

"2. In cases of disputes concerning pecuniary claims based on damages, when the principle of indemnity has been recognized by the parties.

"Differences which may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of a convention concluded or to be concluded between the high contracting parties and in which third powers have participated or to which they have adhered shall be excluded from settlement by arbitration."

"B. The treaties of this noble class are the few thus far concluded which pledge the parties engaged in them to submit all differences that may arise between them to pacific arbitration, reserving no dispute, of any nature, to become a possible entanglement in war. The formula of reference in them is substantially this:

"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of July 29, 1899, all differences of every nature that may arise between them, and which cannot be settled by diplomacy, and this even in the case of such differences as have had their origin prior to the conclusion of the present Convention."

C.—The reference clause in these treaties is substantially alike in all, to the following purpose:

"Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two contracting parties, and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, established at The Hague by the convention of the 29th July, 1899; provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third parties."

D.—In the treaties of arbitration negotiated by the United States the article of reference is like that last quoted, in Note C; but the following is added to it:

"In each individual case the High Contracting Parties, before appealing to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, shall conclude a special Agreement, defining clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal and the several stages of the procedure. It is understood that on the part of the United States such special agreements will be made by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and on the part of Costa Rica shall be subject to the procedure required by the Constitution and laws thereof."

This was required by the United States Senate, which rejected a number of earlier arbitration treaties, negotiated by Secretary Hay, because they would have allowed cases of controversy with other nations to be referred to The Hague Tribunal by the President without specific consent from the Senate in each particular case. This brings the general treaty of arbitration down very close to absurdity, leaving almost nothing of its intended pacific influence to act.

E.—See below: A. D. 1901 (November), and 1902.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1901 (November). Treaty of Unreserved Arbitration for all Controversies between Bolivia and Peru.

On the 21st of November, 1901, the republics of Bolivia and Peru set a great example of trust in arbitration as a means of settling controversies between nations, by concluding a convention which pledged them for ten years to submit every disagreement between themselves to that peaceful solution, reserving no question whatsoever. Their example, as will be seen, was remarkably imitated among their Spanish-American neighbors in the following year. The subjoined are the important articles of their compact of peace:

"Article 1. The high contracting parties pledge themselves to submit to arbitration all the controversies which have thus far been pending, and those which, while the present treaty is in force, may arise between them, whatever may be their nature and causes provided that it has been found impossible to settle them by direct negotiation.

"Article 2. In each case that may arise the contracting parties shall conclude a special agreement with a view to determining the subject-matter of the controversy, to fixing the points that are to be settled, the extent of the powers of the arbitrators, and the procedure to be observed.

"Article 3. In case the high contracting parties do not succeed in agreeing on the points referred to in the foregoing article, the arbitrator shall be authorized to determine, in view of the claims of both parties, the points of fact and of law that are to be decided for the settlement of the controversy, and to establish the mode of procedure to be followed.

{712}

"Article 4. The high contracting parties agree that the arbitrator shall be the permanent court of arbitration that may be established in virtue of the decisions adopted by the Pan-American Conference now sitting in the City of Mexico.

"Article 5. For these two cases: (a) If the court referred to in the foregoing article shall not be created, and (b) if there is need of having recourse to arbitration before that court shall be created, the high contracting parties agree to designate as arbitrator the Government of the Argentine Republic, that of Spain, and that of the United Mexican States for the performance of this duty, one to act in case of the disability of the other, and in the order in which they are named.

"Article 6. If, while the present treaty is in force, and in the two contingencies referred to in the foregoing article, different cases of arbitration shall arise, they shall be successively submitted for decision to the aforesaid governments in the order above established.

"Article 7. The arbitrator shall further be competent:

1. To pass upon the regularity of his appointment, the validity of the agreement, and the interpretation thereof.

2. To adopt such measures as may be necessary, and to settle all difficulties that may arise in the course of the debate. Concerning questions of a technical or scientific character that may arise during the debate, the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society of London or that of the International Geodetic Institute of Berlin shall be asked.

3. To designate the time in which he shall perform his arbitral functions.

"Article 8. The arbitrator shall decide in strict obedience to the provisions of international law, and, on questions relating to boundary, in strict obedience to the American principle of ‘uti possedetis’ of 1810, whenever, in the agreement mentioned in article 2, the application of the special rules shall not be established, or in case the arbitrator shall (not ?) be authorized to decide as an amicable referee.

"Article 9. The decision shall decide, definitely, every point in dispute, stating the reasons therefor. It shall be prepared in duplicate, and notice thereof shall be given to each of the parties through its representative before the arbitrator.

"Article 10. The decision, legally pronounced, shall decide, within the limits of its scope, the contest between the parties.

"Article 11. The arbitrator shall fix, in his decision, the time within which said decision is to be executed.

"Article 12. No appeal from the decision shall be allowed, and its execution is intrusted to the honor of the nations that sign this treaty.

"Nevertheless, an appeal for revision to the arbitrator who pronounced it shall be admissible, provided that such appeal be taken before the expiration of the time fixed for its execution, in the following cases:

1. If the decision has been pronounced on the basis of a counterfeit document, or of one that has been tampered with.

2. If the decision has been, either in whole or in part, the consequence of a fact resulting from the proceedings or documents of the case."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902. Noble Treaties between Argentina and Chile for Obligatory Arbitration of all Disputes, and for Restriction of Naval Armaments.

Notwithstanding the fortunate arrangement, in 1898, for arbitration of a serious boundary dispute between the Argentine Republic and Chile (see, in Volume VI. of this work, Argentine Republic), there continued to be troublesome frictions between the two Spanish-American neighbors, while awaiting the decision of the arbitrator, King Edward VII., which was not rendered until November 27, 1902. These had led to a ruinous rivalry in naval armament. Reporting on this state of affairs in May of that year, Mr. William P. Lord, the American Minister to the Argentine Government, wrote:

"Both countries have incurred heavy expense for the equipment and maintenance of largely increased army and naval forces. Chile has recently contracted for two formidable warships involving a heavy cost with the object of putting her navy upon an equality with the Argentine navy, whereupon Argentina, not to be outdone, contracted for two war ships larger in size and perhaps more formidable at a like heavy cost in order to continue and maintain her naval superiority. The costly expenditure incurred on account of war and naval preparations is paralyzing industrial activity and commercial enterprise. Both countries are largely in debt and confronted with a deficit. Both have appropriated their conversion funds which had been set apart for a specific purpose, and which, it would seem, should have been preserved inviolable. Neither is able to make a foreign loan without paying a high rate of interest and giving guarantees to meet the additional expenses which their war policy is incurring, and both Governments know and their people know that the only remedy to which either can resort to meet existing financial conditions is to levy fresh taxes of some description, notwithstanding nearly everything that can be taxed is now taxed to the utmost limit. The weight of taxation already imposed bears heavily upon the energies and activities of the people. The outlook is not promising, business being dull, wage employment scarce, and failures frequent."

Happily, good sense prevailed over this folly very soon after Minister Lord wrote his account of it. On the 3d of June, 1902, the same writer was enabled to forward to Washington the text of four remarkable "peace agreements" which had been signed on the 28th of May, at the Chilean capital, by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations and the Argentine Minister Plenipotentiary to Chile, who had been brought to negotiations by the friendly mediation of Great Britain. The four documents were: a political convention declaring a common international policy on the part of the two republics; a broad treaty of general arbitration; an agreement for the reducing of naval forces; an agreement for the conclusive marking of boundary lines by the engineers of the arbitrator, King Edward. The general arbitration treaty is no less unreserved and comprehensive than that between Peru and Bolivia and offers another Spanish-American model for imitation in the interest of peace. Its articles are as follows:

"Article 1. The high contracting parties bind themselves to submit to arbitration every difficulty or question of whatever nature that may arise between them, provided such questions do not affect the precepts of the respective constitutions of the two countries, and that they can not be solved through direct negotiation.

{713}

" Article 2. This treaty does not embrace those questions that have given rise to definite agreements between the two parties. In such cases the arbitration shall be limited exclusively to questions of validity, interpretation, or fulfillment of these agreements.

"Article 3. The high contracting parties designate as arbitrator the Government of His Britannic Majesty or, in the event of either of the powers having broken off relations with the British Government, the Swiss Government. Within sixty days from the exchange of ratifications the British Government and the Swiss Government shall be asked to accept the charge of arbitrators.

"Article 4. The points of controversy, questions or divergencies shall be specified by the high contracting parties, who may determine the powers of the arbitrator or any other circumstance connected with the procedure.

"Article 5. In the case of divergence of opinion, either party may solicit the intervention of the arbitrator, who will determine the circumstances of procedure, the contracting parties placing every means of information at the service of the arbitrator.

"Article 6. Either party is at liberty to name one or more commissioners near the arbitrator.

"Article 7. The arbitrator is qualified to decide upon the validity of the obligation and its interpretation, as well as upon questions as to what difficulties come within the sphere of the arbitration.

"Article 8. The arbitrator shall decide in accordance with international law, unless the obligation involves the application of special rules or he have been authorized to act as friendly mediator.

"Article 9. The award shall definitely decide each point of controversy.

"Article. 10. The award shall be drawn up in two copies.

"Article 11. The award legally delivered shall decide within the limits of its scope the question between the two parties.

"Article 12. The arbitrator shall specify in his award the term within which the award shall be carried out, and he is competent to deal with any question arising as to the fulfillment.

"Article 13. There can be no appeal from the award, and its fulfillment is intrusted to the honor of the signatory powers. Nevertheless, the recourse of revision is admitted under the following circumstances:

1. If the award be given on the strength of a false document;

2. If the award be the result, either partially or totally, of an error of fact.

"Article. 14. The contracting parties shall pay their own expenses and each a half of the expenses of the arbitration.

"Article 15. The present agreement shall last for ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, and shall be renewed for another term of ten years, unless either party shall give notice to the contrary six months before expiry."

Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, pages 13-20.

In their convention on naval armaments the two governments "renounced the acquisition of the war vessels they have in construction and the making for the present of any new acquisitions," agreeing to reduce their fleets to "a prudent equilibrium."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902. Ten South and Central American Nations join in Protocol of Convention for Compulsory Arbitration.

"Ten of the nineteen nations represented at the City of Mexico [Second Pan-American Conference, 1902] united in the project of a treaty, to be ratified by their respective governments, providing for compulsory arbitration of all controversies which, in the judgment of any of the interested nations, do not affect either their independence or national honor; and it is prescribed that in independence and national honor are not included controversies concerning diplomatic privileges, limits, rights of navigation, or the validity, interpretation, and fulfillment of treaties. Mexico became a party to this project, but the United States declined; thus showing an entire change of attitude on the part of these two nations since the Washington conference of 1890. Mexico had in the meantime adjusted its boundary dispute with Guatemala. But since Mr. Blaine’s ardent advocacy of compulsory arbitration the Senate of the United States had manifested its opposition to the policy by the rejection of the Olney-Pauncefote arbitration treaty of 1897, and it is to be inferred that the Secretary of State did not think it wise to commit our government to a measure which had been disapproved of by the coordinate branch of the treaty-making power."

_J. W. Foster, Pan-American Diplomacy (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1902)._

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902. Central America. Treaty of Compulsory Arbitration between Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.

A treaty of compulsory arbitration and obligatory peace, between four of the States above named, in fulfillment of the agreement at Mexico was signed at Corinto on the 20th of January, 1902.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS: SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Its essential provisions were the following:

"The Governments of Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, desirous of contributing by all the means in their power to the maintenance of the peace and good harmony that exists and should exist among them, have agreed to celebrate a convention of peace and obligatory arbitration, and to that effect have named as their respective plenipotentiaries: … Who, after having presented their credentials and the same being found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following covenant:

"Article 1. It is declared that the present convention has for object the incorporation in form of public treaty the conclusions to which have arrived their excellencies, the Presidents, General Don J. Santos Zelaya, General Don Tomas Regalado, General Don Terencio Sierra, and Don Rafael Iglesias, in the several conferences that have been held in this port with the sole object of maintaining and assuring, by all possible means, the peace of Central America.

"Article 2. The contracting Governments establish the principle of obligatory arbitration, in order to adjust every difficulty or question that might present itself between the contracting parties, binding themselves in consequence to submit them to a tribunal of Central American arbitrators.

{714}

"Article 3. Each one of the contracting parties shall name an arbitrator and a substitute to constitute the tribunal. The terms of the arbitrators shall be for one year, counting from their acceptance, and then they may be reelected.

"Article 4. The arbitrators of those states among whom exists the disagreement shall not form part of the tribunal for the consideration of the concrete case, this remaining entirely with the arbitrator or arbitrators of the remaining states.

"Article 5. If, through pairing, there should be no decision, the tribunal shall select a third among the substitutes. The third should necessarily adhere to one of the views given out.

"Article 6. As soon as a difficulty or question presents itself between two or more states, their respective Governments shall advise the remaining signers of the present convention.

"Article 7. The contracting Governments establish and recognize the right of each one of them to offer without delay, singly or conjointly, their good offices to the Governments of the states that are in disagreement, even without previous acceptation by them, and though they should not have notified them of the difficulty or question pending.

"Article 8. The friendly offices exhausted without satisfactory result, the government or governments that would have exercised them shall notify the others, declaring at the proper time arbitration proceedings. This declaration shall be communicated with the greatest possible brevity to the member of the tribunal corresponding to the president of same, with the object that within a period not exceeding fifteen days the tribunal that is to know and decide the case comes together. The installation of the tribunal shall be communicated by telegraph to the signing governments, demanding from the contending parties the presentation of their claims within the fifteen days following.

"Article 9. The tribunal shall give its judgment within five days following the expiration of the term which has been spoken of.

"Article 10. The difficulties that may arise through questions of pending limits, or through interpretation, or execution of treaties of limits, shall be submitted by the governments interested to the knowledge and decision of a foreign arbitrator of American nationality

"Article 11. The Governments of the states in dispute solemnly agree not to execute any hostile act, warlike preparations, or mobilization of forces, with the object of not impeding the arrangement of the difficulty or question through the means established by the present agreement."

On the 1st of March following the signing of this peace treaty by the four Presidents named above, the United States Minister to Costa Rica, Mr. William Lawrence Merry, reported to his Government that the President of Guatemala had added his signature to theirs.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903. Gift of a Court House and Library for the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.

By a deed signed October 7, 1903, Mr. Andrew Carnegie created a foundation or trust under the Netherland law (a Stichting in the Dutch language), "for the purpose of building, establishing, and maintaining in perpetuity at The Hague a court-house and library (temple of peace) for the permanent court of arbitration established by the treaty of July 29, 1899." As stated in the deed, "the Netherland Government, according to agreement, will see to the appointment of a board of directors under proper control, and draw up the rules according to which the ‘Stichting’ shall be governed, so as to ensure in perpetuity its maintenance and efficiency. The words maintaining, maintenance, in this agreement are not to be construed as relieving the signatory powers to the treaty of July 29, 1899, from the financial obligations incurred and so far discharged in connection with the permanent court of arbitration. If at any time the purpose for which the 'Stichting' was founded should fail, the assets of the ‘Stichting’ shall be employed for promoting the cause of international peace and concord in such a manner as shall be determined jointly by the sovereign of the Netherlands and the President of the United States."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904. International Peace Congresses. The Thirteenth at Boston.

The First International Peace Congress was held in London in 1843, when men who could think of the possibility of ending war were jeered at, and little heed was given to their talk. In the next ten years it had six successors, all in Europe, and three of them in Great Britain. Then came the succession of wars in the fifties, sixties and seventies, which seemed to discourage peace-dreams, and it was not until 1878, on the occasion of the Paris Exposition, that an eighth international gathering of the dreamers was attempted. Then they waited eleven years for hope and faith enough to draw them for a ninth time together. After that date the series ran on under growing impulsions and encouragements, and when Boston, in 1904, invited its moving spirits to honor America, for the first time, with their assemblage, the Congress gathered in that city, in early October, was the Thirteenth of its name and kind. It was given exceptional brilliancy by the attendance of many distinguished people from abroad who had been drawn to the United States that season by the Exposition at St. Louis and the various conferences there.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904. A Philosopher’s Plan for Ending War.

"Man lives inhabits, indeed, but what he lives for is thrills and excitements. The only relief from Habit’s tediousness is periodical excitement. From time immemorial wars have been, especially for non-combatants, the supremely thrilling excitement. Heavy and dragging at its end, at its outset every war means an explosion of imaginative energy. The dams of routine burst, and boundless prospects open. The remotest spectators share the fascination. …

"This is the constitution of human nature which we have to work against. The plain truth is that people want war. They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement going. …

{715}

"We do ill, I fancy, to talk much of universal peace or of a general disarmament. We must go in for preventive medicine, not for radical cure. We must cheat our foe, politically circumvent his action, not try to change his nature. In one respect war is like love, though in no other. Both leave us intervals of rest; and in the intervals life goes on perfectly well without them, though the imagination still dallies with their possibility. … Let the general possibility of war be left open, in Heaven’s name, for the imagination to dally with. Let the soldiers dream of killing, as the old maids dream of marrying. But organize in every conceivable way the practical machinery for making each successive chance of war abortive. Put peace-men in power; educate the editors and statesmen to responsibility;—how beautifully did their trained responsibility in England make the Venezuela incident abortive! Seize every pretext, however small, for arbitration methods, and multiply the precedents; foster rival excitements and invent new outlets for heroic energy; and from one generation to another, the chances are that irritations will grow less acute and states of strain less dangerous among the nations. Armies and navies will continue, of course, and will fire the minds of populations with their potentialities of greatness. But their officers will find that somehow or other, with no deliberate intention on any one’s part, each successive ‘incident’ has managed to evaporate and to lead nowhere, and that the thought of what might have been remains their only consolation."

_William James, Remarks at the Peace Banquet (Atlantic Monthly, December, 1904)._

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909. The Interparliamentary Union.

The Interparliamentary Union, composed of members of the parliamentary bodies of many countries, had its origin in 1888, when, on the 31st of October, thirty members of the French Chamber of Deputies met with ten members of the British Parliament, at Paris, to discuss the practicability of cooperation in efforts for the promotion of international peace. William Randal Cremer, a labor union member of Parliament, is credited with the conception and the active agency which set the movement on foot, and in 1903 he received the Nobel Prize of $35,000, for distinguished service to the cause of peace. He devoted the money to the same cause. He received further honors from the Government of France, which made him a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. The results of the undertaking he led have already acquired high importance, and exhibit more each year. If the glorious dream of a World Parliament, empowered to enact international law, is ever realized, the realization may be a growth from this seed.

Thus far, the growth has produced an Interparliamentary Union composed of representatives from the legislatures of every country in Europe which has a really constitutional government, and from the United States. The Congress of the latter became represented in the Union in the winter of 1904, and the next meeting of the Union was held at St. Louis that year, while the Louisiana Purchase Exposition was in progress. The membership of the Union had then risen to about 2000 in number, drawn entirely from the national law-making bodies of the world,—elected representatives of many millions of people, making up a powerfully influential combination of experienced public men. The St. Louis meeting was attended by two hundred of these, including many of distinguished standing in the parliaments of their several countries. This session of the Union was under the presidency of the Honorable Richard Bartholdt, Member of Congress from Missouri. Its most important action was the adoption, by unanimous vote, of the following resolution:

"Whereas, Enlightened public opinion and the spirit of modern civilization alike demand that differences between nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same manner as disputes between individuals are adjudicated—namely, by the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized principles of law;

"The Conference requests the several governments of the world to send representatives to an International Conference, to be held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them, for the purpose of considering—

"First, the questions for the consideration of which the Conference at The Hague expressed a wish that a future conference be called;

"Second, the negotiation of arbitration treaties between the nations represented at the Conference to be convened;

"Third, the advisability of establishing an International Congress to convene periodically for the discussion of international questions;

"And this Conference respectfully and cordially requests the President of the United States to invite all the nations to send representatives to such a Conference."

Subsequently, this resolution was presented to the President, at Washington, by the members of the Union, and his assent to the request was received. Out of this came the train of proceedings which brought about the Second Peace Conference at The Hague.

In 1905 the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union was held at Brussels; in 1906 at London; in 1908 at Berlin.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907. The First National Peace Congress in the United States, assembled at New York.

The Peace Congress assembled at New York April 14, 1907, (the first National assembly of its character), on the initiative of Andrew Carnegie, "surpassed expectation. First of all, in numbers. Delegates registered by the thousand. The best hall in the metropolis proved inadequate. Overflow and additional meetings were held in other halls and in churches. For the first time in the history of great conferences, two banquets were necessary at the close, taking place coincidentally, with some of the same speakers passing from one to the other, no hotel accommodations being sufficient for the function if all applicants were to be housed in one place. Even with this doubling the issuance of tickets had to be stopped.

"Secondly, the Congress was the first really National peace meeting in America. In comparison, previous peace congresses have been sectional. But at last week’s over thirty-five States were represented by their Governors or their representatives, by members of State tribunals and State Legislatures, and by Mayors of important cities. The Federal Government was represented by members of the Hague Court, of the Supreme, Circuit, and District Courts, and of Congress. Thus the resultant body was a peculiarly representative official gathering. …

{716}

"Still another striking feature of the Congress lay in the prominent place given to the representatives of labor and commerce, a feature comprised in two meetings, addressed by prominent leaders of the various industries. The general position was well taken by Mr. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor: ‘Not as workers will we permit ourselves to be shot down in order to conquer the markets of barbarians and savages. I know of no gathering of labor in the last twenty-five years which has not declared itself unequivocally for international brotherhood and peace.’"

"A final and chief feature of interest lay in the notably practical character of the vast majority of speakers and listeners. The Congress was no ‘collection of cranks and fools,’ as a hard-headed man of affairs dubbed it in passing the hall, without looking in to verify his statement. Neither was it a collection of white-blooded, weak-kneed theorists, feebly appreciating the actual conditions that govern individual passions and national prejudices. As one glanced around, there were the faces of great captains of industry, of practical leaders of labor, of men who bulk large in commercial enterprises, of trusted political leaders. Nor was the Congress any mere anti-war affair: its business was positive, not negative; it was to affirm the necessity of substituting reason for passion. There was a general sentiment that it ought to emphasize, not ‘rainbows’ or distant Utopias, but only practical plans certain of realization, and of realization, too, not in the far future, but in this very coming summer by action at The Hague."

_The Outlook, April 27, 1907._

Among the prominent speakers were Mr. Carnegie, who presided, Mr. Root, Secretary of State, Governor Hughes, of New York, Ambassador Bryce, Mr. William J. Bryan, Congressman Bartholdt, President of the American group in the Inter-parliamentary Union, Professor Münsterberg, President Eliot, Baron d’Estournelles, the eminent peace advocate of France, and Mr. W. T. Stead. Mr. Root pointed out the great obstacle to arbitration—a fear that the tribunals selected would not be impartial, because arbitrators are thought often to act diplomatically rather than judicially. "We need," he said, "for arbitrators, not distinguished public men concerned in all the international questions of the day, but judges interested only in the question appearing on the record before them. Plainly, this end is to be attained by the establishment of a court of permanent judges."

Mr. Bryan made the excellent suggestion that in time of war money-lenders shall not be allowed to wax fat by loans, taking advantage of a nation’s weakness and urging it to continue hostilities. A loan by the citizens of a neutral nation, he pointed out, is practically a loan by the nation itself, and should be objected to as much as furnishing shot and shell.

Mr. Stead, writing of the Congress in the American Review of Reviews, characterized it as "in many respects the most notable Congress of its kind that has ever been held in the Old World or the New," and as being "the pioneer or John the Baptist of the Second International Conference" soon to meet at The Hague. "It represented," he said, "the first rudimentary, crude, but nevertheless definite effort on the part of the New World to impress its will on the Old World." But he thought the resolutions of the Congress, "as a whole, were hardly worthy of the importance of the occasion or the representative character of the conference," and criticised the committee for taking "no steps for pressing their adoption upon other governments than their own."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907. Second International Peace Conference at The Hague: Its Conventions, Declarations, and Recommendations. Text of the Convention for a Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and of the "Final Act," with its recommended Draft Convention for the Creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court.

"Pursuant to a request of the Interparliamentary Union, held at St. Louis in 1904, that a further peace conference be held, and that the President of the United States invite all nations to send representatives to such a conference, the late Secretary of State, at the direction of the President, instructed, on October 21, 1904, the representatives of the United States accredited to each of the signatories to the acts of The Hague Conference of 1889 to present overtures for a second conference to the ministers for foreign affairs of the respective countries.

"The replies received to this circular instruction of October 21, 1904, indicated that the proposition for the calling of a second conference met with general favor. At a later period it was intimated by Russia that the initiator of the First Conference was, owing to the restoration of peace in the Orient, disposed to undertake the calling of a new conference to continue as well as to supplement the works of the first. The offer of the Czar to take steps requisite to convene a second international peace conference was gladly welcomed by the President, and the Final Act of the Conference only recites in its preamble the invitation of the President.

"The Russian Government thus assumed the calling of the Conference, and on April 12, 1906, submitted the following programme, which was acceptable to the Powers generally and which served as the basis of the work of the Conference:

"1. Improvements to be made in the provisions of the convention relative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes as regards the Court of Arbitration and the International commissions of inquiry.

"2. Additions to be made to the provisions of the convention of 1899 relative to the laws and customs of war on land—among others, those concerning the opening of hostilities, the rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declaration of 1899. One of these having expired, question of its being revived.

"3. Framing of a convention relative to the laws and customs of maritime warfare, concerning—

"The special operations of maritime warfare, such as the bombardment of ports, cities, and villages by a naval force; the laying of torpedoes, etc.

"The transformation of merchant vessels into war ships.

"The private property of belligerents at sea.

"The length of time to be granted to merchant ships for their departure from ports of neutrals or of the enemy after the opening of hostilities.

{717}

"The rights and duties of neutrals at sea, among others the questions of contraband, the rules applicable to belligerent vessels in neutral ports; destruction, in cases of vis major, of neutral merchant vessels captured as prizes.

"In the said convention to be drafted there would be introduced the provisions relative to war on land that would be also applicable to maritime warfare.

"4. Additions to be made to the convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864.

"The United States, however, reserved the right to bring to discussion two matters of great importance not included in the programme, namely, the reduction or limitation of armaments and restrictions or limitations upon the use of force for the collection of ordinary public debts arising out of contracts.

"It was finally decided that the Conference should meet at The Hague on the 15th day of June, 1907, and thus the Conference, proposed by the President of the United States, and convoked by Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands upon the invitation of the Emperor of All the Russias, assumed definite shape and form. …

"In the circulars of October 21 and December 16, 1904, it was suggested as desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which States nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague Conference may become adhering parties. This suggestion was taken note of by the Russian Government and invitations were issued to forty-seven countries, in response to which the representatives of forty-four nations assembled at The Hague and took part in the Conference. No opposition was made to the admission of the nonsignatory States."

The delegation of the United States to the Conference was composed of the following members: Commissioners plenipotentiary with the rank of ambassador extraordinary: Joseph H. Choate, of New York, Horace Porter, of New York, Uriah M. Rose, of Arkansas; Commissioner plenipotentiary: David Jayne Hill, of New York, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the Netherlands; Commissioners Plenipotentiary with rank of minister plenipotentiary: Brigadier General George B. Davis, Judge-Advocate-General, United States Army, Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, United States Navy, William I. Buchanan, of New York; Technical delegate and expert in international law: James Brown Scott, of California; Technical delegate and expert attache to the Commission: Charles Henry Butler, of New York; Secretary to the Commission: Chandler Hale, of Maine; Assistant secretaries to the Commission: A. Bailly-Blanchard, of Louisiana, William M. Malloy, of Illinois.

"The Dutch Government set aside for the use of the Conference, the Binnenhof, the seat of the States-General, and on the 15th day of June, 1907, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the Conference was opened by his excellency the Dutch minister for foreign affairs in the presence of delegates representing forty-four nations. … At the conclusion of the address of welcome his excellency suggested as president of the Conference His Excellency M. Nelidow, first delegate of Russia, and, with the unanimous consent of the assembly, M. Nelidow accepted the presidency and delivered an address." …

In accordance with the suggestion of the president, an order of procedure, in twelve articles, was adopted, and the Conference was divided into four Commissions, between which the subjects specified in the programme of the Conference were apportioned. "The actual work of the Conference was, therefore, done in commission and committee. The results, so far as the several commissions desired, were reported to the Conference sitting in plenary session for approval, and after approval, submitted to the small subediting committee for final revision which, however, affected form, not substance. The results thus reached were included in the Final Act and signed by the plenipotentiaries on the 18th day of October, 1907, upon which date the Conference adjourned."

_Report of the Delegates of the United States (60th Congress, 1st Session Senate Doc. 444)._

The results of the Conference are embodied in fourteen Conventions duly formulated and signed, and a "Final Act" in which certain principles are declared as being "unanimously admitted." Of the Conventions entered into, that most important one which provides means for a pacific solution of international conflicts is but a revision of the Convention for the same purpose which the Powers represented at the First Peace Conference, of 1899, gave adhesion to, and the full text of which is printed in Volume VI. of this work (pages 356-359). To a large extent the articles of the Convention are unchanged, and the changes made are mostly in the nature of an amplification of provisions and prescriptions of procedure for carrying out the agreements set forth in the compact of 1899. This occurs especially in Part III., relating to "International Commissions of Inquiry," the specifications for which, merely outlined in six articles of the Convention of 1899, were detailed with precision in twenty-eight articles of the Convention of 1907. A similar amplification was given to the chapters on "The System of Arbitration" and "Arbitral Procedure." By a verbal change of some significance, the parties to the Convention are designated "Contracting Powers," instead of "Signatory Powers," as before.

Other important features of the revision are noted in an article which the Honorable David Jayne Hill, one of the American Commission at the Conference, communicated to The American Review of Reviews of December, 1907. Dr. Hill wrote:

"With regard to good offices and mediation, a slight step forward was taken by the acceptance of the American proposition that the initiative of powers foreign to the controversy in offering them is not only ‘useful’ but ‘desirable.’ Greater precision has been given to the operation of commissions of inquiry, whose great utility has already been tested, but it was decided that the functions of such commissions should be confined to a determination of facts and should not extend to fixing responsibility. As regards arbitration, while it was reasserted that ‘in questions of a legal character, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions, arbitration is recognized by the contracting powers as the most efficacious and at the same time the most equitable means of settling differences that have not been adjusted by diplomacy,’ and, ‘in consequence, it would be desirable that, in contentions of this character, the powers should resort to arbitration,’ it was not found possible to render this resort an obligation.

{718}

"It is necessary to state, however, that while unanimity upon this proposal was not obtainable—even for a convention that omitted all questions affecting ‘the vital interests, independence, or honor’ of the contestants and included only a meagre list of mainly unimportant subjects—32 powers voted in favor of it, only 9 were opposed, and 3 abstained from voting. As practical unanimity was held to be necessary for the inclusion of a convention in the final act, even this very moderate attempt at obligatory arbitration was unfruitful. Still, as this strong manifestation of a disposition to make a definite engagement could not conveniently be nullified without being in some measure recognized, it was resolved, with four abstentions, that the first commission was: ‘Unanimous (1) in recognizing the principle of obligatory arbitration; and (2) in declaring that certain differences, notably those relative to the interpretation and application of conventional stipulations, are susceptible of being submitted to obligatory arbitration without restriction.’

"Regarding this resolution as a retreat from the more advanced position that had been taken by 32 powers, the head of the American delegation clearly explained its attitude and refrained from voting.

"It must, in justice, he added that some of the powers voting against an obligatory arbitration convention probably did so chiefly for the purpose of avoiding the isolation of others, and that some of the powers most earnest in opposing the project not only have negotiated special treaties of obligatory arbitration, but declare their intention of negotiating many more. The state of the question, then, is this: All accept the principle of obligatory arbitration in certain classes of cases, 32 powers are prepared to make definite engagements with all the rest, 9 prefer to make them only with states on whose responsibility they can rely, and 3 decline at present to commit themselves."

On the part of the United States, when this important Convention was submitted subsequently to the Senate, it was ratified conditionally, by the following resolution, adopted April 2, 1908.

"Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of a convention signed by the delegates of the United States to the Second International Peace Conference, held at The Hague from June sixteenth to October eighteenth, nineteen hundred and seven, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, subject to the declaration made by the delegates of the United States before signing said convention, namely:

"‘Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.’

"Resolved further, as a part of this act of ratification, That the United States approves this convention with the understanding that recourse to the permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties of arbitration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the parties in dispute; and the United States now exercises the option contained in article fifty-three of said convention, to exclude the formulation of the ‘compromis’ by the permanent court, and hereby excludes from the competence of the permanent court the power to frame the ‘compromis’ required by general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and further expressly declares that the ‘compromis’ required by any treaty of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties, unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise."

Of the other Conventions agreed to and signed at the Conference it will be sufficient to give here in part a summary statement of their objects and provisions which was prepared by the Honorable James Brown Scott, one of the Technical Delegates to the Conference from the United States, originally for publication in The American Journal of International Law for January, 1908. They are described by Mr. Scott as follows:

"The second is the convention restricting the use of force for the recovery of contract debts. This was introduced by the American delegation, loyally and devotedly seconded by Doctor Drago, who has battled for the doctrine to which he has given his name. Without the support of Doctor Drago, it is doubtful if Latin America—for whose benefit it was introduced—would have voted for this very important doctrine. The proposition is very short; it consists of but three articles, but we must not measure things by their size. In full it is as follows; ‘In order to avoid between nations armed conflicts of a purely pecuniary origin arising from contractual debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country to be due to its nationals, the contracting powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the collection of such contractual debts.

"‘However, this stipulation shall not be applicable when the debtor state refuses or leaves unanswered an offer to arbitrate, or, in case of acceptance, makes it impossible to formulate the terms of submission, or after arbitration, fails to comply with the award rendered.

"‘It is further agreed that arbitration here contemplated shall be in conformity, as to procedure, with Title IV, Chapter III of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes adopted at The Hague, and that it shall determine, in so far as there shall be no agreement between the parties, the justice, and the amount of the debt, the time and mode of payment thereof.’ …

{719}

"The third convention relates to the opening of hostilities and provides, in Article I, that the contracting powers recognize that hostilities between them should not commence without notice, which shall be either in the form of a formal declaration of war or of an ultimatum in the nature of a declaration of conditional war. This is to protect belligerents from surprise and bad faith. Article 11 is meant to safeguard the rights of neutrals. The state of war should be notified without delay to neutral powers, and shall only affect them after the receipt of a notification, which may be sent even by telegram.’ …

"The fourth convention concerns the laws and customs of land warfare, [and is] a revision of the convention of 1899. It is highly technical and codifies in a humanitarian spirit the warfare of the present.

"The fifth convention attempts to regulate the rights and duties of neutral powers and of neutral persons in case of land warfare. Short, but important, its guiding spirit is expressed in the opening paragraph of the preamble, namely, to render more certain the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of warfare upon land and to regulate the situation of belligerent refugees in neutral territory. …

"The sixth is the convention concerning enemy merchant ships found in enemy ports or upon the high seas at the outbreak of hostilities. Custom forbids the capture of enemy vessels within the port of the enemy on the outbreak of hostilities and allows them a limited time to discharge or load their cargo and depart for their port of destination. The attempt was made to establish this custom or privilege as a right. The proposition, however, met with serious opposition and, instead of the right, the convention states that it is desirable that enemy ships be permitted freely to leave the port. The convention, therefore, was restrictive rather than declaratory of existing international practice. The same might be said of another provision of the convention concerning the treatment of enemy merchant ships upon the high seas. It may be said that the expression of a desire is tantamount to a positive declaration, but, strictly construed, the convention is not progressive. It lessens rights acquired by custom and usage, although it does, indeed, render the privilege granted universal. The American delegation, therefore, refrained from signing the convention.

"The seventh convention deals with the transformation of merchant ships into ships of war, and it must be said that the positive results of this convention are of little or no practical value. The burning question was whether merchant ships might be transformed into men-of-war upon the high seas. As the transformation of merchant vessels into war vessels upon the high seas caused an international commotion during the recent Russo-Japanese war. Great Britain and the United States insisted that the transfer should only be allowed within the territorial jurisdiction of the transforming power. Some of the continental states, on the contrary, refused to renounce the exercise of the alleged right. The great maritime states were thus divided, and as the question was too simple and too plain to admit of compromise, it was agreed to drop it entirely for the present. In order, however, that something might remain of the careful and elaborate discussions of the subject, a series of regulations was drawn up regarding the transformation of merchant ships into vessels of war, declaratory of international custom. … Indirectly, the rightfulness or wrongfulness of privateering was concerned, and inasmuch as the United States would not consent to abolish privateering unless the immunity of private property be safeguarded, the American delegation abstained from signing the convention.

"The eighth convention relates to the placing of submarine automatic mines of contact, a subject of present and special interest to belligerents; while the interest of the neutral is very general. … Mines break from their moorings and endanger neutral life and property. The conference, therefore, desires to regulate the use of mines in such a way as not to deprive the belligerents of a recognized and legitimate means of warfare, but to restrict, as far as possible, the damage to the immediate belligerents. …

"The ninth convention forbade the bombardment by naval forces of undefended harbors, villages, towns, or buildings. The presence, however, of military stores would permit bombardment of such ports for the sole purpose of destroying the stores, provided they were not destroyed or delivered up upon request. Notice, however, should be given of the intention to bombard. In like manner, the convention permitted the bombardment of such undefended places if provisions were not supplied upon requisition to the naval force. Bombardment, however, was not allowed for the collection of mere money contributions. …

"The tenth convention adapted to maritime warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906. …

"The eleventh convention relates to certain restrictions in the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war. It is a modest document, but is all that was saved from the wreck of the immunity of private property. The American delegation urged the abolition of the right of capture of unoffending enemy private property upon the high seas, but great maritime powers such as Great Britain, France, Russia, and Japan were unwilling to relinquish this means of bringing the enemy to terms. …

"The twelfth convention sought to establish an international court of prize, and there only remains the ratification of this convention by the contracting powers in order to call into being this great and beneficent institution. For years enlightened opinion has protested against the right of belligerents to pass final judgment upon the lawfulness of the capture of neutral property, and it is a pleasure to be able to state that the interests of the neutrals in the neutral prize are henceforward to be placed in the hands of neutral judges with a representation of the belligerents, in order that the rights of all concerned may be carefully weighed and considered. …

{720}

"The thirteenth convention concerns and seeks to regulate the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of maritime war. This is an elaborate codification of the rights and duties of neutrals in which the conference essayed to generalize and define on the one hand the rights of neutrals and the correlative duties of the belligerents, and in the second place to set forth in detail the duties of neutrals, thus safeguarding the rights of belligerents in certain phases of maritime warfare. … The result, however, was unsatisfactory to some of the larger maritime powers, which prefer their present regulations on the subject of neutrality or which were unwilling to accept the modifications proposed. The United States was not satisfied with certain provisions of the convention, and reserved the right to study the project in detail before expressing a final opinion. It therefore abstained from voting and signing.

"The fourteenth convention is a reenactment of the declaration of 1899 forbidding the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons. The original declaration was agreed to for a period of five years, and as this period had expired the powers were without a regulation on the subject. The reenactment provided that the present declaration shall extend, not merely for a period of five years, but to the end of the Third Conference of Peace."

Reprinted in Senate Document Number 433, 60th Congress, 1st Session.

Appended to these Conventions are the Resolutions or Declarations of accepted Principles embodied in the "Final Act"; and these are far from being the least important of the fruits of the Conference. They need presentation in full.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: Final Act of the Second International Peace Conference.

"At a series of meetings, held from the 15th June to the 18th October, 1907, in which the above Delegates [named in a preamble] were throughout animated by the desire to realize, in the fullest possible measure, the generous views of the august initiator of the Conference and the intentions of their Governments, the Conference drew up for submission for signature by the Plenipotentiaries, the text of the Conventions and of the Declaration enumerated below [named in their order, as summarized above] and annexed to the present Act:—

"These Conventions and Declaration shall form so many separate Acts. These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be signed up to the 30th June, 1908, at The Hague, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the Second Peace Conference.

"The Conference, actuated by the spirit of mutual agreement and concession characterizing its deliberations, has agreed upon the following Declaration, which, while reserving to each of the Powers represented full liberty of action as regards voting, enables them to affirm the principles which they regard as unanimously admitted;—

"It is unanimous—

"1. In admitting the principle of compulsory arbitration.

"2. In declaring that certain disputes, in particular those relating to the interpretation and application of the provisions of International Agreements, may be submitted to compulsory arbitration without any restriction.

"Finally, it is unanimous in proclaiming that, although it has not yet been found feasible to conclude a Convention in this sense, nevertheless the divergences of opinion which have come to light have not exceeded the bounds of judicial controversy, and that, by working together here during the past four months, the collected Powers not only have learnt to understand one another and to draw closer together, but have succeeded in the course of this long collaboration in evolving a very lofty conception of the common welfare of humanity.

"The Conference has further unanimously adopted the following Resolution:—

"The Second Peace Conference confirms the Resolution adopted by the Conference of 1899 in regard to the limitation of military expenditure; and inasmuch as military expenditure has considerably increased in almost every country since that time, the Conference declares that it is eminently desirable that the Governments should resume the serious examination of this question.

"It has besides expressed the following opinions:—

"1. The Conference calls the attention of the Signatory Powers to the advisability of adopting the annexed draft Convention for the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, and of bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the Judges and the constitution of the Court.

"2. The Conference expresses the opinion that, in case of war, the responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should make it their special duty to ensure and safeguard the maintenance of specific relations, more especially of the commercial and industrial relations between the inhabitants of the belligerent States and neutral countries.

"3. The Conference expresses the opinion that the Powers should regulate, by special Treaties, the position, as regards military charges, of foreigners residing within their territories.

"4. The Conference expresses the opinion that the preparation of regulations relative to the laws and customs of naval war should figure in the programme of the next Conference, and that in any case the Powers may apply, as far as possible, to war by sea the principles of the Convention relative to the Laws and Customs of War on land.

"Finally, the Conference recommends to the Powers the assembly of a Third Peace Conference, which might be held within a period corresponding to that which has elapsed since the preceding Conference, at a date to be fixed by common agreement between the Powers, and it calls their attention to the necessity of preparing the programme of this Third Conference a sufficient time in advance to ensure its deliberations being conducted with the necessary authority and expedition.

"In order to attain this object the Conference considers that it would be very desirable that, some two years before the probable date of the meeting, a preparatory Committee should be charged by the Governments with the task of collecting the various proposals to be submitted to the Conference, of ascertaining what subjects are ripe for embodiment in an International Regulation, and of preparing a programme which the Governments should decide upon in sufficient time to enable it to be carefully examined by the countries interested. This Committee should further be intrusted with the task of proposing a system of organization and procedure for the Conference itself.

"In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Act and have affixed their seals thereto."

{721}

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: Draft Convention recommended for the Creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court.

The following are the more important provisions of the "annexed draft Convention for the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court" which the Signatory Powers are asked, in the first of the "Opinions" expressed above, to consider "the advisability of adopting":

"Article I. With a view to promoting the cause of arbitration, the Contracting Powers agree to constitute, without altering the status of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a Judicial Arbitration Court, of free and easy access, composed of Judges representing the various juridical systems of the world, and capable of insuring continuity in jurisprudence of arbitration.

"Article II. The Judicial Arbitration Court is composed of Judges and Deputy Judges chosen from persons of the highest moral reputation, and all fulfilling conditions qualifying them, in their respective countries, to occupy high legal posts, or be jurists of recognized competence in matters of international law. The Judges and Deputy Judges of the Court are appointed, as far as possible, from the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The appointment shall be made within the six months following the ratification of the present Convention.

"Article III. The Judges and Deputy Judges are appointed for a period of twelve years, counting from the date on which the appointment is notified to the Administrative Council created by the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Their appointments can be renewed. Should a Judge or Deputy Judge die or retire, the vacancy is filled in the manner in which his appointment was made. In this case, the appointment is made for a fresh period of twelve years.

"Article IV. The Judges of the Judicial Arbitration Court are equal and rank according to the date on which their appointment was notified. The Judge who is senior in point of age takes precedence when the date of notification is the same. The Deputy Judges are assimilated, in the exercise of their functions, with the Judges. They rank, however, below the latter.

"Article V. The Judges enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities in the exercise of their functions, outside their own country. Before taking their seat, the Judges and Deputy Judges must swear, before the Administrative Council, or make a solemn affirmation to exercise their functions impartially and conscientiously.

"Article VI. The Court annually nominates three Judges to form a special delegation and three more to replace them should the necessity arise. They may be re-elected. They are balloted for. The persons who secure the largest number of votes are considered elected. The delegation itself elects its President, who, in default of a majority, is appointed by lot. A member of the delegation cannot exercise his duties when the Power which appointed him, or of which he is a national, is one of the parties. The members of the delegation are to conclude all matters submitted to them, even if the period for which they have been appointed Judges has expired.

"Article VII. A Judge may not exercise his judicial functions in any case in which he has, in any way whatever, taken part in the decision of a National Tribunal, of a Tribunal of Arbitration, or of a Commission of Inquiry, or has figured in the suit as counsel or advocate for one of the parties. A Judge cannot act as agent or advocate before the Judicial Arbitration Court or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, before a Special Tribunal of Arbitration or a Commission of Inquiry, nor act for one of the parties in any capacity whatsoever so long as his appointment lasts. …

"Article X. The Judges may not accept from their own Government or from that of any other Power any remuneration for services connected with their duties in their capacity of members of the Court.

"Article XI. The seat of the Judicial Court of Arbitration is at The Hague, and cannot be transferred, unless absolutely obliged by circumstances, elsewhere. …

"Article XII. The Administrative Council fulfills with regard to the Judicial Court of Arbitration the same functions as to the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

"Article XIV. The Court meets in session once a year. The session opens the third Wednesday in June and lasts until all the business on the agenda has been transacted. …

"Article XVII. The Judicial Court of Arbitration is competent to deal with all cases submitted to it, in virtue either of a general undertaking to have recourse to arbitration or of a special agreement.

"Article XXXII. The Court itself draws up its own rules of procedure, which must be communicated to the Contracting Powers. After the ratification of the present Convention the Court shall meet as early as possible in order to elaborate these rules, elect the President and Vice-President, and appoint the members of the delegation.

"Article XXXIII. The Court may propose modifications in the provisions of the present Convention concerning procedure. These proposals are communicated through the Netherland Government to the Contracting Powers, which will consider together as to the measures to be taken."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: The sequent International Naval Conference at London in 1908-1909.

The action of the Peace Conference which contemplated the establishment of an International Prize Court (embodied in the Twelfth Convention described above) had a sequel in the next year, resulting from the suggestion by the British Government that, preliminary to the creation of such a court, the prior holding of an International Naval Conference was desirable, for the purpose which it explained in the following words: "Having regard to the importance attached by his Majesty’s Government to the setting up of that Court, they decided to take the initiative in inviting the co-operation of the Powers whose belligerent rights would be most directly affected, in formulating in precise terms a set of rules relative to the law of prize, which should be recognized as embodying doctrines held to be generally binding as part of the existing law of nations." In connection with this suggestion a list of questions was submitted to the several Governments consulted, "on which his Majesty’s Government, after careful examination, considered that an understanding should if possible be reached, and which would therefore appropriately constitute the programme of a special naval conference to meet in London."

{722}

The questions were as follows:

"(a.) Contraband, including the circumstances under which particular articles can be considered as contraband; the penalties for their carriage; the immunity of a ship from search when under convoy; and the rules with regard to compensation where vessels have been seized but have been found in fact only to be carrying innocent cargo;

"(b.) Blockade, including the questions as to the locality where seizure can be effected, and the notice that is necessary before a ship can be seized;

"(c.) The doctrine of continuous voyage in respect both of contraband and of blockade;

"(d.) The legality of the destruction of neutral vessels prior to their condemnation by a Prize Court;

"(e.) The rules as to neutral ships or persons rendering ‘unneutral service’ (‘assistance hostile’);

"(f.) The legality of the conversion of a merchant-vessel into a war-ship on the high seas;

"(g.) The rules as to the transfer of merchant-vessels from a belligerent to a neutral flag during or in contemplation of hostilities;

"(h.) The question whether the nationality or the domicile of the owner should be adopted as the dominant factor in deciding whether property is enemy property."

Responses to the British invitation by the greater naval Powers were favorable, and the resulting International Naval Conference had sittings in London from December 4, 1908, until February 26, 1909. The Powers sending representatives to take part in it were Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the United States, Japan, Spain, Holland. A report of the proceedings and conclusions arrived at was made public on the 22d of March. On two, only, of the questions, proposed by Great Britain, no agreement was reached, and these were left open,—namely; "the legality of the conversion of a merchant-vessel into a war-ship on the high seas, and the question whether the nationality or the domicile of the owner should be regarded as the dominant factor in deciding the character, neutral or enemy, of property." Original differences on other questions were compromised.

A serious difficulty in the undertakings of the Conference was occasioned by the fact that the Constitution of the United States is held to preclude any right of appeal from decisions of its Supreme Court. What was done to overcome this difficulty is explained in the report of the British Delegates as follows: "The Conference was asked to express its acceptance of the principle that, as regards countries in which such constitutional difficulty arose, all proceedings in the International Prize Court should be treated as a rehearing of the case de novo, in the form of an action for compensation, whereby the validity of the judgments of the national courts would remain unaffected, whilst the duty of carrying out a decision of the International Court ordering the payment of compensation would fall upon the government concerned. The proposal was further coupled with the suggestion that the jurisdiction of the International Prize Court might be extended, by agreement between two or more of the signatory Powers, to cover cases at present excluded from its jurisdiction by the express terms of the Prize Court Convention, and that in the hearing of such cases that court should have the functions, and follow the procedure, laid down in the Draft Convention relative to the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, which was annexed to the Final Act of the Second Peace Conference of 1907.

"Great hesitation was felt in approaching these questions. It was undeniable that they lay wholly outside the programme which the Conference had been invited to discuss, and to which the Powers accepting the invitation had expressly assented. It was, however, not disputed that so much of the United States proposal as related to the difficulties in the way of the ratification of the Prize Court Convention was in so far germane to the labours of the Conference, as these also were avowedly directed to preparing the way for the more general acceptance of the Prize Court Convention. As it must clearly be desired by all countries interested in the establishment of the International Prize Court that the United States should be one of the Powers submitting to its jurisdiction and bound by its decisions, the Conference thought it right, notwithstanding its lack of formal authority, to go so far as to express the wish (‘vœu’) which stands recorded in the final Protocol of its proceedings, and of which the substance is that the attention of the various Governments represented is called by their delegates to the desirability of allowing such countries as are precluded by the terms of their constitution from ratifying the Prize Court Convention in its present form, to do so with a reservation in the sense of the first part of the United States proposal. On the other hand, the question of setting up the Judicial Arbitration Court, which seemed to have no necessary connexion with the Prize Court Convention, was decided by all the delegations, except that which had brought it forward, to be one which the Conference could not discuss."

_Parliamentary Papers, 1909: Papers by Command, 4554._ Also, London Times, March 22, 1909.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: Central American Peace Conference at Washington. General Treaty of Peace and Amity. Convention establishing a Central American Court of Justice.

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

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908. Waning of the Military Passion in France.

Two very striking indications of the cooling in the French people of the militant passion which made them in former times one of the most warlike of the European races have been afforded within the past three years. The first appeared in the winter of 1907, when a Paris newspaper of great circulation collected votes from its readers on the question, "Who was the Greatest Frenchman of the Nineteenth Century?" Much interest in the query was excited, and more than 15,000,000 [votes] were said to have been cast. {723} From any prior generation the answer of a big majority would undoubtedly have been, "Napoleon Bonaparte"; but the French of the Twentieth Century have developed so different an estimate of human greatness that Louis Pasteur, the Man of Science, led the poll, receiving 1,838,103 votes; while Victor Hugo came next below him, by somewhat more than a hundred thousand votes, and Gambetta was put third in the list. Napoleon received only the fourth place of honor in the estimate of fifteen millions of the French of these days.

About a year later the same change was betokened in a hardly less significant way, by a speech from the Prime Minister of France. The occasion of the address was the inauguration of a monument to M. Scheurer-Kestner, who had been vice-president of the French Senate when the Dreyfus iniquities began to be dragged out of darkness into light, and who was one of the few men in public life then who strove heroically to have the truth ascertained and justice done. Scheurer-Kestner was an Alsatian, and this fact gave Premier Clemenceau an opportunity to break silence on the sore subject of the loss of Alsace, which French statesmen have not ventured to refer to since the heart-breaking surrender of 1871. His breaking of that silence was meant to break, and assuredly does break, the long brooding of revengefulness in French hearts which has been a menace to the peace of Europe for nearly 40 years.

"I do not fear," he said, "to call up the memory of that bloody past. I am mindful of the responsibility which belongs to my office, and I can speak without constraint of events which have entered into history. I can proclaim feelings which we cannot repudiate—which we cannot even hide without lowering ourselves." And this is his open proclamation of the feeling to which France has come, in its thought of Alsace:

"We received France issuing from frightful trial. To rebuild her in her legitimate power of expansion as well as in her dignity as a great moral person, we have no need either to hate or to lie, nor even to recriminate. We look to the future. Sons of a great history, jealously careful of the lofty impulses native to us, in which the civilizing virtue of France was fashioned, we can look in quiet of soul on the descendants of strong races which for centuries have measured themselves with the men of our lands in battlefields beyond numbering. Two such great rival peoples, for the very honor of their rivalry, have a like interest to keep their respect, the one for the other."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909. German Opposition to the "Navy Fever," in High Circles as well as Low. Views of Herr Von Holstein and Admiral Galster.

How far the naval ambitions and costly naval policy of Germany are supported by public opinion is much of a question. It is certain that they are a cause of wide discontent in the industrial classes, and no less certain that the weightiest influence behind them is that of the Emperor, who stimulates the exertions of a powerful Navy League. That there is an effective disapproval of the policy in high political circles has been shown lately by the publication of some expressions on the subject by the late Herr von Holstein, who was for many years the chief of the Political Department of the German Foreign Office,—the mentor and prompter from behind the scenes of several successive Chancellors of the Empire. In some reminiscences of this important official, by an intimate friend, Herr von Rath, who published them in September, 1909, he is quoted as having, in 1907, denounced what he called "navy fever" in Germany in these strong words;

"This dangerous disease is fed upon the fear of an attack by England, which is not in accordance with facts. The effect of the ‘navy fever’ is pernicious in three directions—in domestic politics on account of the intrigues of the Navy League, which also produce the greatest ill-feeling in South Germany; in the finances on account of the prohibitive expenditure; in foreign politics on account of the mistrust which these armaments awake. England sees in them a menace which keeps her bound to the side of France. At the same time, even with taxation strained to the utmost limit, the construction of a fleet able to cope with the united fleets of England and France is entirely out of the question. From the menace which everybody in England sees in German naval construction the present Liberal Government in England will not draw serious conclusions. It will be different when the Conservatives come into power. The danger of war between Germany on the one hand and England and France on the other is even today playing a part in the political calculations of other countries. Against armaments on land nobody will offer any objection, because they are justified by the needs of defence. In our naval armaments several Powers see a perpetual menace.

"Even among Parliamentary Deputies there are many who condemn the ‘navy fever,’ but no one of them will take the responsibility of refusing to vote ships, a responsibility which would recoil upon him in the event of a defeat at sea. Anybody who to-day makes a stand against the prevailing ‘navy fever’ is attacked from all sides as wanting in patriotism, but a few years hence the justice of my opinion will be established."

According to Herr von Rath, Herr von Holstein declared in February, 1909, three months before his death, that the navy question transcended all others in importance. He is said to have watched with approval the campaign which is still more or less vigorously carried on by Vice-Admiral Galster and others against the "big ship policy," and to have said, with reference to one of Admiral Galster’s pamphlets:—"The main thing is to expose the lying and treacherous fallacy expressed in the statement that every fresh ship is an addition to the power of Germany—when every fresh ship causes England, to say nothing of France, to build two ships."

The Vice-Admiral Galster here referred to contends that submarines are more effective for defence than Dreadnoughts, and he labors to persuade his fellow countrymen to be satisfied with defensive armament, repudiating what creates suspicion of offensive designs.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1908. School Peace League, The American.

"The American School Peace League [organized in 1908] aims to secure the cooperation of the educational public of America in the project for promoting international justice and equity. … It is hoped that every teacher in the country will subscribe to the purposes of the League by becoming a member. Much of the work will be done by committees, five of which have been organized up to the present time. …

{724}

"The Committee on Meetings and Discussion aims to induce educational associations throughout the country to place the subject of internationalism on their programs. It also seeks to stimulate literary and debating societies, in colleges and schools, to study the subject. The Committee recommends to educational associations the establishment of International Committees, or Departments, for the purpose of making a detailed study of the relation of the International Movement to school instruction.

"The Committee on Publications intends to build up a body of literature, dealing with the interrelation between peoples and nations along political, industrial, and social lines. To this end, the Committee purposes to issue, directly or indirectly, a series of publications for the young, that may be used in the geography, history, science, and literature classes; it also intends to make a collection of the present songs which illustrate the peace sentiment, and to stimulate the writing of new ones.

"The Press Committee, which comprises some of the leading educational editors of the country, is prepared to acquaint teachers with the work of the League through the columns of the educational magazines.

"The Committee on Teaching History will study the textbooks with reference to the space devoted respectively to war and to peace. It hopes to develop among teachers a sentiment which shall lay emphasis on the arts of peace, and on the industrial and social conditions of the people, rather than on campaigns, battles, and other military details. It further aims to arrange, if possible, courses in history to be given at summer schools and teachers’ institutes, with special attention to the growth of international friendship.

"The International Committee intends to make a constructive study of international cooperation in activities which particularly affect educational work."

_Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Secretary. Objects of the American School Peace League,_

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1908. Evasion of the Conscription in Russia.

According to statistics published in the spring of 1909 by the military organ, the Russky Invalid, the conscription of 1908 took place in the following circumstances. The annual contingent had been fixed by the Duma at 456,481 men. Altogether 1,281,655 conscripts were called up for examination. Of this huge number 80,165 men failed to appear, including 20,693 Jews, out of a total of 64,005 Jews conscripted. The largest number of absentees was in the provinces of Suwalki, Lomja, Plotzk, and Kovno. It is from these provinces that a general exodus of Polish, Lithuanian, and Jewish youths to America is noticeable. The actual number found to be fit for military service in 1908 was 17,926 short of the contingent fixed by the Duma. This deficiency was composed of 943 Russians, 5,154 other Christians, 10,677 Jews, 1,082 Mahomedans, and 70 other non-Christians. The recruiting stations noted a general falling off in the physique of the conscripts.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. Changed Conditions in Europe making for Peace.

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

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: International School of Peace. Mr. Ginn’s Great Fund for Peace Propagandism.

Members of the various Boston peace organizations took part last evening [December 15] in the formation of an International School of Peace. The idea originated with Edwin Ginn, the publisher, and the ‘house warming’ took place at No. 29 Beacon Street, where a room was appropriately adorned for the occasion with the flags of many nations and large portraits of Sumner and Cobden and other great international leaders.

"Mr. Ginn welcomed the company in a speech wherein the motives and experience which prompted him to found the school were set forth. He explained what he hoped of the organization, how he had for years appealed to various millionaires to unite with him in some larger provision than any which existed for the systematic education of the people in peace principles, the response to which had been disappointing.

"Mr. Ginn felt that some large beginning must be made by somebody; and so he had appropriated $50,000 a year to the work from now on, and provided in his will that the bulk of his estate, after proper provision for family and friends, should go to this cause, which he felt to be the greatest and most necessary cause in the world. This action had brought him multitudes of letters, he said, and clearly awakened much interest; and if it prompted others to do much more than he could do, that was what he wanted. The friends of the cause, especially its wealthy friends, had been strangely asleep to the pressing need for this work of popular education. It must be thoroughly organized to reach the schools and colleges, the churches and newspapers and business men. He gave illustrations of the awful cost and waste of the present military system, which he said violated every principle of good business, political economy, and common sense. …

‘The room is not only a bureau for the office force, but a reading-room and library, where the latest information touching the progress of the movement will always be furnished to teachers, preachers, and all who are interested. Regular conferences upon the different aspects of the movement will also be held there."

_The Boston Transcript, December 16, 1909._

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. The Second National Peace Congress in the United States, assembled at Chicago.

The Second National Peace Congress in the United States held its session in Chicago, May 3-5, 1909. The attendance was large, the speaking of high quality and the prevailing spirit earnest in its repudiation of all reasoning or feeling that is tolerant of the barbarism of war. Respectful attention was given to an address by the German Ambassador to the United States, Count Bernstorff, who defended the attitude of his Government on the question of a limitation of armaments, but the expressions of the Congress on the subject were not toned to agreement with his plea. Among its resolutions was the following:

"Resolved, That no dispute between nations, except such as may involve the national life and independence, should be reserved from arbitration, and that a general treaty of obligatory arbitration should be included at the earliest possible date. Pending such a general treaty, we urge upon our government, and the other leading Powers, such broadening of the scope of their arbitration treaties as shall provide, after the example of the Danish Netherlands treaty, for the reference to the Hague Court of all differences whatever not settled otherwise by peaceful means."

{725}

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. The Annual Lake Mohonk Peace Conferences in the United States.

The annual Peace Conferences at Lake Mohonk, in the United States, have been held with regularity. At the Fifteenth, convened in May, 1909, a strong resolution was adopted, asking the Government of the United States to consider "whether the peculiar position it occupies among the nations does not afford it a special opportunity to lead the way towards … carrying into effect the strongly expressed desire of the two Peace Conferences at The Hague, that the governments examine the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war budgets."

Privately during the Conference there was discussion of the suggestion that if four or five of the great Powers—England, Germany, France, Italy, the United States, and Japan, and perhaps Spain and Russia—could join in establishing a Supreme Court of the nations, to which they would refer their difficulties, other nations would be compelled by the course of events to accept the tribunal and its decisions, and to come into participation in it on such terms as might later be agreed upon.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. Exchange of Parliamentary Visits between France and Sweden.

Seventy-six members of the French Parliament, representing the international arbitration group, visited Stockholm in July, 1909, under the leadership of Baron d’Estournelles de Constant. The visit was paid in return for one made by the members of the three Scandinavian Parliaments to Paris some time before.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. A World Petition for a General Treaty of Obligatory Arbitration.

At the annual meeting of the International Peace Bureau at Brussels, October 9, 1909, the following resolution was adopted, expressing approval of the world-petition to the third Hague Conference in favor of a general treaty of obligatory arbitration:

"Whereas, Public opinion, if recorded, will prove an influential factor at the third Hague Conference; and

Whereas, The ‘world-petition to the third Hague Conference’ has begun to successfully establish a statistical record of the men and women in every country who desire to support the governments in their efforts to perfect the new international order based on the principle of the solidarity of all nations;

Resolved, That the Commission and the General Assembly of the International Peace Bureau, meeting at Brussels October 8 and 9, 1909, urgently recommend the signing of the ‘world-petition to the third Hague Conference.’"

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. Evasion of Military Service in France. Spread of Anti-Militarism.

According to returns of the recruiting for the French Army, published in the summer of 1909, there appears to be a steady increase in the evasion of service by young men at the times they are required by law to enter it. "Since 1906, when the number of refractory recruits amounted to 4,567, the figures have slowly risen, until they have now reached 11,782. The soldat insoumis may be punished in France by imprisonment of from one month to one year. But on about an average of every two years during the last 20 years Parliament has regularly voted an Amnesty Bill in favour of deserters and recalcitrant recruits or reservists." This is one supposed cause of the increasing evasions; but a more important influence working with it is the propagandism of anti-military doctrines, preached passionately by Gustav Hervé, accepted widely, it is said, among the primary teachers of the country, as well as in the ranks of the workingmen. The General Confederation of Labor is reported to be distributing annually some thousands of "soldiers’ manuals" in which desertion is urged as a duty to humanity at large.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909 (October). American Proposal that the Prize Court now established be also a Court of Arbitral Justice.

By reference to the proceedings of the Second Peace Conference at The Hague, as set forth above, it will be seen that the Conference gave favorable consideration to a draft Convention for the creation of a "Judicial Arbitration Court" (the text of which draft is given at the end of said proceedings), and that the Conference went so far as to declare the "advisability of adopting … and of bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the judges and the constitution of the Court." It will be seen, also, that the Conference adopted measures for the creation of an International Prize Court, preliminary to which an International Naval Conference was held in London from December 4, 1908, until February 26, 1909. At that Conference a suggestion was made that "the jurisdiction of the International Prize Court might be extended, by agreement between two or more of the signatory Powers, to cover cases at present excluded from its jurisdiction by the express terms of the Prize Court Convention, and that in the hearing of such cases that Court should have the functions and follow the procedure laid down in the draft Convention relative to the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, which was annexed to the Final Act of the Second Peace Conference, of 1907."

In line with this suggestion, it was made known, in the later part of the past year, that the Government of the United States, through its State Department, had proposed in a circular note to the Powers, that the Prize Court should be invested with the jurisdiction and functions of the proposed Judicial Arbitration Court. The difficulties in selecting judges for that contemplated Court, which caused the creation of it to be postponed in 1907, would thus be happily surmounted, and, as remarked by Secretary Knox, there would be at once given "to the world an international judicial body to adjudge cases arising in peace, as well as controversies incident to war."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909. Attitude of the Workingmen.

At the Twentieth International Congress of Miners, held in Berlin, in May, 1909, there were strong declarations for disarmament, and one Belgian delegate, M. Maroille, said significantly: If it were better organized the International Federation of Miners could by itself render wars impossible. They need not do anything violent or illegal; they had only to remain quiet, so very quiet that war could not be carried on.

{726}

WAR.

See (in this Volume) Red Cross Society.

WARD, SIR JOSEPH GEORGE: Prime Minister of New Zealand.

See (in this Volume) NEW ZEALAND A. D. 1906-1909.

WARD, SIR JOSEPH GEORGE: At the Imperial Conference of 1907.

See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.

WARD, SIR JOSEPH GEORGE: Testimony on the Working of Woman Suffrage in New Zealand.

See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

WARSAW, DISTURBANCES IN.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).

WASHBURN, Reverend. Dr. George: President of Robert College.

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

WASHINGTON, BOOKER T.: His work at Tuskegee Institute.

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

WASHINGTON: A. D. 1908. Meeting of International Congress on Tuberculosis.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH. TUBERCULOSIS.

WASHINGTON MEMORIAL INSTITUTION, THE.

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

WATER POWER TRUST: Threatened in the United States. Precautionary Measures taken.

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

WATERS AND WATER POWER, CONSERVATION OF.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

WATERS-PIERCE OIL COMPANY.

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

WATERWAYS COMMISSION AND WATERWAYS TREATY.

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

WATKINS, THOMAS H.: On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.

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

WATSON, J. C.: Premier of Australia.

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

WATSON, Thomas E.: Nomination for President of the United States.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER), and 1908 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).

WAZEER, GRAND.

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

WEALTH: Its Concentration in Great Britain.

In a speech made in Parliament, on a motion to graduate the Income Tax, March 24, 1909, Mr. Chiozza-Money, who speaks with considerable authority on such subjects, made the following statements: "Statistics were available in Somerset House showing the product of the graduated scale of death duties imposed by Sir William Harcourt in 1894. Of the 700,000 persons who died annually, only about 80,000 left sufficient property to need an inquisition by Somerset House. Out of the 80,000 persons nearly the whole of the property was left by 27,000 persons; and £200,000,000 worth of property was left by about 4,000 persons each year. This was not only a curious fact, but it was a constant fact in relation to this problem. He also showed that there had arisen a tendency among rich persons to devise part of their property before death in order to escape the death duties, with the result that a good deal of wealth did not come under the review of Somerset House. What he described as his own conservative estimate of the wealth of the United Kingdom was a total of about £11,500,000,000. Of that sum five millions of persons owned £10,900,000,000. One-ninth of the population owned 95 per cent. of the entire capital stock of the United Kingdom. Thus the whole of the country regarded as a business undertaking was in the hands of a handful of people. Taking the income of the country at 1,800 millions a year, there were about five million persons who took one-half and 39 millions the other half. Of the five million persons who took 900 millions of income about 1¼ million persons, or 250,000 families, took 600 millions out of the 900 millions. From this state of facts the most terrible inequalities resulted, evidences of which could be seen along the Embankment and other parts of Westminster almost within a stone’s throw of that House."

WEALTH PROBLEM, THE. The Question of a Progressive Taxation.

"At this moment we are passing through a period of great unrest—social, political and industrial unrest. It is of the utmost importance for our future that this should prove to be not the unrest of mere rebelliousness against life, of mere dissatisfaction with the inevitable inequality of conditions, but the unrest of a resolute and eager ambition to secure the betterment of the individual and the nation. … It is a prime necessity that if the present unrest is to result in permanent good the emotion shall be translated into action, and that the action shall be marked by honesty, sanity, and self-restraint. There is mighty little good in a mere spasm of reform. The reform that counts is that which comes through steady, continuous growth; violent emotionalism leads to exhaustion.

"It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty. Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual—a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits."

_President Roosevelt, Address at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the Office-Building of the House of Representatives, April 14, 1906._

WEAVER, JOHN: MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA.

See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

{727}

WEEKLY REST DAY.

See (in this Volume) SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

"WE FREES."

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

WEI-HAI-WEI: Strategic Worthlessness of the Port.

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

WEKERLE, ALEXANDER: PRIME MINISTER OF HUNGARY.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1908-1909.

WELSH COERCION ACT.

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

WERMUTH, Herr: Secretary of the German Imperial Treasury.

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

WEST AFRICA: White Colonization impossible in Present Conditions.

See (in this Volume) AFRICA.

WEST INDIES, DANISH: Failure of Projected Sale to the United States.

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

WESTERN FEDERATION OF MINERS.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION. UNITED STATES: A. D. 1899-1907.

WET, C. R. de.

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

WEYLER, GENERAL Y NICOLAU: Suppression of Strike at Barcelona.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: SPAIN.

WEYLER, GENERAL Y NICOLAU: Spanish Minister of War.

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

WHITE, HENRY: American Delegate to the Algeciras Conference' on the Morocco Question.

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

WHITE HOUSE, THE: Its Restoration.

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

WHITE MOUNTAIN FOREST, PRESERVATION OF THE.

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

WHITE SLAVE TRADE, MOVEMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE.

The movement for the suppression of what is now described as the White Slave Traffic, and which has grown into an important international organization, appears to have had its beginning in the formation of a committee at London, in 1880, "for the purpose of exposing and suppressing the [then] existing traffic in English, Scotch and Irish girls for foreign prostitution." This committee presented a memorial on the subject to Lord Granville, then Secretary for Foreign Affairs, setting out a statement of facts which "revealed the existence of systematic abduction to Brussels, and elsewhere on the Continent of Europe, of girls who were English subjects, and who, having been induced to go abroad under promise of obtaining employment or respectable situations, were on arrival taken to the office of the ‘Police des Mœurs’ for registration as prostitutes." The memorialists craved Lord Granville’s influence "in favour of measures which would render it impossible that British subjects, however humble, should in the future be subjected to such infamy and degradation, including the loss of their personal liberty."

Such measures were taken, Parliament passing an Act which became law in 1885, with so much effectiveness that "the traffic was at once checked. The miscreants who were engaged in it were dismayed by its provisions, and within five years after the Act had come into operation the Burgomaster of Brussels, which had been the head-quarters of the traffic, questioned as to the effect produced by that measure, in April 1890 wrote as follows: 'Comme suite à votre lettre du 15 courant, j’ai l’honneur de vous faire connaître que depuis 1880 aucune fille de nationalité Auglaise n’a été inscrite aux registres de Bruxelles.’ While, however, the traffic, so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, was thus almost extinguished, it seems to have increased and spread in certain districts of Eastern Europe to an extent which attracted the serious and alarmed attention of the Governments and public authorities of the countries immediately concerned. About the year 1898 the National Vigilance Society, headed by the late Duke of Westminster, then its President, resolved ‘to open definite measures for its mitigation—if possible, its suppression.’ This organization was fortunate in having for its Secretary and chief administrative officer Mr. William Alexander Coote, a man of remarkable energy and determination."

Parliamentary Papers, 1907 (Cd. 3453).

Mr. Coote went on a mission to the Continent and aroused the interest of the Governments most concerned. International conferences on the subject were held, in London, 1899, at Paris, 1902, and again at Paris in 1906, producing concerted action. In 1904 an International Agreement was signed at Paris, May 18, by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland, the first two articles of which were as follows:

"Article 1. Each of the Contracting Governments undertakes to establish or name some authority charged with the co-ordination of all information relative to the procuring of women or girls for immoral purposes abroad; this authority shall be empowered to correspond direct with the similar department established in each of the other Contracting States.

Article 2. Each of the Governments undertakes to have a watch kept, especially in railway stations, ports of embarkation, and en route, for persons in charge of women and girls destined for an immoral life. With this object instructions shall be given to the officials and all other qualified persons to obtain, within legal limits, all information likely to lead to the detection of criminal traffic. The arrival of persons who clearly appear to be the principals, accomplices in, or victims of, such traffic shall be notified, when it occurs, either to the authorities of the place of destination, or to the Diplomatic or Consular Agents interested, or to any other competent authorities."

_Parliamentary Papers, 1905, Treaty Series No. 24 (Cd. 2689)._

Meantime, in the United States, due attention was not given to the matter, until it was found that the abominable traffic had become organized to an appalling extent in the country, especially in connection with its foreign immigration, and had a principal seat in New York, with a suspected connivance on the part of men having political influence, if not official power. An investigation of the facts became one of the main objects of the Congressional Immigration Commission which pursued inquiries in Europe and America in 1909, and was the leading subject of the preliminary report made public by the Commission, December 10. {728} In this report the Commission says that the white slave traffic is the most pitiful phase of the immigration question. The business has assumed large proportions, and has exerted an evil influence upon the country. The inquiry covered the cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake, Ogden, Butte, Denver, Buffalo, Boston, and New Orleans. No attempt was made to investigate conditions in every important city. But the commission believes that enough evidence with reference to women of different races and nationalities, living under different conditions has been obtained from localities sufficiently scattered to warrant the reports being used as a basis for official action.

Among other recommendations of the Commission is one that the transportation of persons from one State, Territory, or district, to another for the purpose of prostitution be forbidden under heavy penalties. The commission also expresses the opinion that the Legislatures of the several States should consider the advisability of enacting more stringent laws regarding prostitution. It is suggested that the Illinois statute regarding pandering be carefully considered. A number of suggestions of administrative changes and more rigid enforcement of existing regulations by the Department of Commerce and Labor, particularly by the Bureau of Immigration, and amendments of the Immigration act itself are submitted by the commission.

Legislation on the lines recommended is now pending in Congress and in New York and other States, while the alleged organization of the traffic in the city of New York is being investigated by a special grand jury of one of the State Courts.

WICKERSHAM, GEORGE W.: Attorney-General.

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

WIJU.

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

WILLIAM II., German Emperor: Statement of his Peace Policy based on Preparation for War.

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

WILLIAM II., German Emperor: His speech at Tangier.

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

WILLIAM II., German Emperor: His published Interview with an Englishman and its Effect.

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

WILSON, James: Secretary of Agriculture.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905; 1905-1909; AND 1909 (MARCH).

WILSON, General John M.: On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.

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

WILSON, Woodrow: President of Princeton University.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.

WINE-GROWERS’ REVOLT, IN FRANCE.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (MAY-JULY).

WINNIPEG: A. D. 1909. Meeting of British Association for the Advancement of Science.

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

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.

See (in this Volume and in Volume VI.) SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1900-1909. Governor and Senator La Follette.

The recognized "new movement" in American politics which has been putting a distinctive mark on the last decade, directed towards the emancipation of parties from a selfishly organized system, or "machine," had nowhere in the West a more vigorous starting than in Wisconsin; and nobody can doubt that the initial force given to it there came mostly from the energy of the leader it found in Robert Marion La Follette. He had entered politics when he entered the profession of law, in 1880. From 1889 to 1901 he was a representative in Congress. At the end of that period he had been elected Governor of his State, and he held the office for three terms, resigning it in 1905 to accept a seat in the Senate of the United States, where he exercises a degree of independence not common in that assembly. All this advancement in public service has gone with a personal leadership in politics, resisted unavailingly by the old party organization.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1907. Enactment of Public Utilities Law.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC UTILITIES.

WISCONSIN STATE UNIVERSITY: Its Legislative Reference Department and Municipal Reference Bureau.

See (in this Volume). MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

WITBOIS, THE.

See (in this Volume) Africa: A. D. 1904-1905, and GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.

WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch: As Russian Finance Minister and practically as Premier.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904, and 1904-1905.

WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch: Withdrawal from Premiership.

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

WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch: Memorial to the Tsar on Religious Liberty and the Bondage of the Church to the State.

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

WITTE, Sergius Yulievitch: Russian Plenipotentiary for negotiating Treaty of Peace with Japan.

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

WOLF’S HILL, The Capture of.

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

WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

WOMEN, International Council of: A. D. 1909. Proceedings at Toronto.

The International Council of Women was assembled at Toronto, Canada, in June, 1909, being then in the twenty-fifth year of its existence. Its large gatherings are undertaken but once in five years, executive meetings being held in years between. The Toronto session was opened on the 17th of June, and was prolonged interestingly for ten days. The delegates attending numbered 160, from all parts of Europe, America and Australasia, Great Britain sending the largest number. Germany comes next with 19, Sweden sends 7, Denmark 4, Italy 3, Austria-Hungary 5, Norway 10, Belgium 4, Greece 3, the Netherlands 11, Australasia 11, the United States 16, and Canada 11.

Lady Aberdeen, the President of the Council, in her opening remarks, indicated the breadth of the ideas of service to the world which this international organization contemplates, when she said: "Having proved that we are truly representative of the women workers of the world and that within our various councils we have gathered organizations of women of all races, creeds, classes, and parties, what is the outcome? {729} What do we stand for? What practical contribution can we offer to the world’s welfare?" Turning to the Canadian delegates, she answered these questions by alluding to the sympathy that the National Council of Canada had created between the women of the different provinces and the way in which it had made them recognize their true relationship to their country and the world. From this Lady Aberdeen went on to say:

"Our International Council must indeed be of necessity the strongest peace society that can exist, for if the homes of the different countries of the world are brought in touch with one another and understand and believe in one another, there can be no more war. Again, the health movement which our national councils’ reports show us is going on in all countries of the world is one that has within itself potentialities far beyond the immediate objects it aims at. What are these medical and scientific congresses, these international conferences on tuberculosis, infant mortality, school hygiene, temperance, and the like doing? Are they not bringing the world’s thinkers and workers into line for the preservation of life, for the furtherance of a high and vigorous type of life based on knowledge, principle, and self-control, for international action in the interests of the world’s health? Here is work which concerns all women in all countries, and in which every society has an interest. … But … the keynote of our success and influence must always lie in the fact that we lay stress in being more than doing, in the spirit of our work more than the work itself, in the motive underlying our union, rather than in our actual federation."

Peace and Arbitration, Woman Suffrage (favored by a majority of the delegates in attendance), the "White Slave Traffic," so-called, Public Health, Education, Immigration, cheapened International Postage, were among the principal subjects of discussion taken up on successive days.

The next quinquennial council was appointed to be held at Rome, in 1914, with executive meetings in Sweden in 1911 and in the Netherlands in 1913. Lady Aberdeen was reelected President.

WOMEN WORKERS: Legal Regulation of Hours and Conditions.

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

WOOD, GENERAL LEONARD: Military Governor of Cuba.

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

WOODWARD, Dr. Robert S.: President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

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

WORKMEN.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, BRITISH.

See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION.

WORLD MOVEMENTS: Fichte’s Prophecy of a World Commonwealth. The Progress of a Century toward its Fulfilment.

"Fichte says: ‘It is the vocation of our race to unite itself into one single body, all the parts of which shall be thoroughly known to each other, and all possessed of similar culture. Nature, and even the passions and vices of men have, from the beginning, tended towards this end: a great part of the way towards it is already passed, and we may surely calculate that this end, which is the condition of all further progress, will in time be attained. … Until the existing culture of every age shall have been diffused over the whole inhabited globe, and our race become capable of the most unlimited inter-communication with itself, one nation or one continent must pause on the great common path of progress, and wait for the advance of the others; and each must bring as an offering to the universal commonwealth, for the sake of which alone it exists, its ages of apparent immobility, or retrogression. When that first point shall have been attained, when every useful discovery made at one end of the earth shall be at once made known and communicated to all the rest, then, without further interruption, without halt or regress, with united strength and equal step, humanity shall move onward to a higher culture, of which we can at present form no conception.’

"This was an end-of-the-eighteenth-century utterance, and events have followed it as if it were a resistless fiat compelling its own fulfilment, rather than the dictum of a philosopher. The nations have striven fiercely to carry forward the work which the great Seer pointed to as the essential condition of the higher progress. Inspired by varied aims, and carried forward by diverse means, the end has been ever the same. The missionary with his religious mandate, the devil-may-care adventurer seeking excitement, the restless military caste craving advancement, the trader thirsting for gain, all promote the ‘Divine plan.’ …

"The pride of independent nationality must gradually give way to the pride of being members of the great confederations. The transition from Nationalism to internationalism will be brought about by a threefold pressure, and will be rendered easy by the system we have evolved with our great Colonies. There will be the pressure of the higher organisation on the lower, the larger upon the less; there will be racial pressure, as yellow and black begin to feel their power; and there will be commercial pressure. This irresistible pressure will be gradually recognised as a benevolent despotism forcing the practical recognition of the brotherhood of man.

"With regard to commercial pressure. A glance ahead will show that the Western nations, in forcing their trade on yellow and black races, are educating the latter into formidable competitors. Like the Japs they will better the instruction, and, with their more favourable economic conditions, will flood the Western world with commodities at prices it cannot compete with. To avoid being dragged down to their lower level of subsistence the great world powers will be compelled to draw a ring-fence of tariffs round their possessions. In our case the British Empire contains nearly all climates and resources that will enable it to be entirely self-contained and self-supporting. The comparative free trade within the fence will starve isolated countries to come in.

{730}

"There is no reason why an Empire such as ours should not be much more truly happy and prosperous than it has yet been, if we organise it scientifically. The loss of our abnormal position in foreign trade will be a blessing if we exercise foresight. In the furtherance of the World-purpose it was necessary that the progressive nations should for a time worship foreign trade as a fetich, and as the chief means of prosperity. Nothing else would have given them the needed stimulus, and forced them to such Herculean efforts to conquer and keep foreign markets. But when all foreign markets have been opened up, and we have unintentionally educated other races, not only to supply their own wants, but to swamp us with their manufactures, then we must readjust our ideas, and adopt less one-sided aims. In our ambition to be the Cheap John of the world, we have developed some of our resources abnormally, and neglected others. To foster foreign trade we converted a large part of our island home into black country, we have been prodigally wasteful of our mineral resources, and have neglected our agriculture. In striving for foreign markets we have neglected the best market in the world—the Home market—and have left ourselves miserably dependent on the foreigner. This is really incipient heart disease of the Empire.

"It was providential that we adopted ‘free trade’ when we did, as it gives a moral justification for our annexations which no protective nation can show; but as the other great Powers extend their sway, and their tariff barriers, we shall cease to need our free trade justification. Then we can reconsider the case."

_E. W. Cook, The Organisation of Mankind (Contemporary Review, September, 1901)._

WORLD MOVEMENTS: The Making of a World Constitution and the development of World Legislation.

"In the relations of nations to one another, as proved by their treaties and code of international law, certain truths are recognized which involve the very nature of mankind as a created whole. That is, there is a world-constitution, unwritten, not called by that name, but existing as truly as the animal creation existed before it was named by man, and as independent of his recognition and his naming as the animal creation was independent of human recognition. Though that world-constitution has remained obscure and unrecognized, yet world progress toward its formal expression has been wonderfully rapid in recent years.

"In the first place that constitution is bringing about the formal existence of an organ for the use and for the expression of the intelligence and the will of the world. Nations, repeatedly, in separate congresses, upon special subjects, have expressed their intelligence and their will, and have entrusted to the nations severally the duty of carrying out that will, as is most perfectly illustrated in the case of the Universal Postal Union. That is, the nations are creating a world legislative department.

"In the next place, the establishment of the Hague Court of Arbitration is doubtless the beginning of the establishment of a judicial department which will include other duties than the settlement of causes dangerous to the peace of nations. Lastly, the formal establishment of some world-executive will not long lag behind the creation of the legislative and judicial departments. The world is moving rapidly toward political organization as one body, and the situation must soon reveal itself to present doubters."

_R. L. Bridgman, World-Organization secures World-Peace (Atlantic Monthly, September, 1904)._

"At the session of the Massachusetts Legislature of 1902 a petition was presented in favor of a world-legislature. That petition was referred to the Legislature of 1903 in order that the subject might receive further public consideration, and the chairman of the committee which heard the petitioners said, in each branch respectively, that the proposal was meritorious. According to the report, the petition is pending before the Legislature of 1903, with hundreds of signers, including some of the best citizens. The American Peace Society, by vote of its directors, signed the petition, while it also presented another petition of its own, asking for a movement for a world-conference or congress, with recommendatory powers, to meet at stated intervals, say once in seven years. Thus the proposal of world-organization is formally before the public.

"Since the first petition was presented repeated instances have occurred to support the main argument for it,—that business exigencies of the world were becoming so urgent that world-organization, as a necessity, would precede the efforts of pure philanthropy or statesmanship for the same end. Early in the year came the Pan-American Congress. Among its proposals, suited for a world-scale, were these: a Pan-American bank; a custom-house congress, and an international customs commission; a statistical bureau of international scope; an international copyright law; an international commission to codify international law; international regulations to cover inventions and trademarks; a common treaty of extradition and protection against anarchy; international regulations for the world-wide practice of the liberal professions; an international archaeological commission; an international office as depositary of the archives of international conferences; an international regulation granting equal rights to all foreigners from any of the signatory countries, and some minor plans.

"Other world-propositions which developed during the year included (in January) the organization of the International Banking Corporation, with power, under a Connecticut charter, of doing business all over the world; (early in the year) circulation by the Manchester (England) Statistical Society of a pamphlet advocating an international gold coinage; (in July) suggestion by Russia of an international conference to protect the nations against trusts and other private operations of capital; (in July) another plan for an international bank; (in August) meeting of the International Congress on Commerce and Industry; and (in December) the meeting of the International Sanitary Conference in Washington; to which may be added (in January, 1903) the meeting in New York of the International Customs Congress. For one year that is a notable record of progress toward world-organization in matters of business, not as matters of theory or of pure philanthropy. These instances illustrate the truth, which many persons still fail to realize, that the world is getting together at a rapid rate, and that, as a matter of self-interest, the nations must soon have a permanent legislative body as a means of establishing regulations for the benefit of all.

{731}

"Pertinent to the case is the fact that world-legislation has occurred repeatedly, though no world-legislature has been organized. … In the case of the International Postal Union we have absolute world-legislation. … That is the most conspicuous and most successful illustration of world-legislation, because it embraces organized mankind, and because it is so eminently successful. …

"Mention may be made of the International Conference in Washington, in 1885, for the establishment of a common prime meridian, at which twenty-six nations were represented. At the International Sanitary Conference in Vienna in 1892, fifteen nations were represented. At the Dresden International Sanitary Conference in 1893, nineteen nations were represented."

_R. L. Bridgman, A World-Legislature (Atlantic Monthly, March, 1903)._

WORLD MOVEMENTS: The Passing of the Age of Colonial Dominion. The Coming of the Epoch of the "Open Door."

The old notions of colonial dominion, which had pricked the ambition of nations since the sixteenth century, came practically to the end of their working in the last years of the nineteenth. The European partitioning of Africa, in the decade after 1884, the scramble for footings in China between 1897 and the Boxer rising, and the Spanish-American War of 1898, may be looked upon as the expiring operations of statesmanship on lines of "colonial policy," in the acquisitive sense. As certainly as anything in politics can be certain, the epoch of the founding and spreading of colonial dominions came then to its close.

The colonial policy of that epoch meant colonial dominion necessarily, for the reason that the commerce-spreading nations of the West could not think of agreeing to open doors of trade with the feebler or more backward folk of the East. Each could make sure of marts in the great orient and oceanic region only by seizing and walling them in, behind well-locked doors, to keep the others out. Now, however, they have arrived at a state of things in the world which compels them to think of the "open door" for commerce, as a substitute for the colonial dependency, held under lock and key. Several changes have worked together in bringing this new situation about.

Principally, of course, it results from the near approach to an exhaustion of the territory available for easy conquest and colony-making. Africa and the great archipelagos of the South Sea have all been divided up. Japan, with China making ready to stand with her, has undertaken a policing of Eastern Asia, to stop the staking out of lawless claims there. Moreover, confidence in the stability as well as belief in the usefulness of colonial dominion is much shaken of late, by increasing signs of relaxing bonds in the great British Empire, without much sign of harm to the prosperity or the power of the imperial nation itself. Several of the outlying dependencies of the British crown have grown to so much of independence that they have taken the doorkeeping of their commerce into their own hands and the sovereign mother country makes no objection or complaint.

For many years past the commercial experience of England has been furnishing proof that trade and dominion, under the conditions of the present day, have little of necessary connection with each other; and now the Germans, within later years, have been adding to that proof. The few colonies they have laid hands on, in Africa and Oceanica, have been of less profit than expense to them; but, more rapidly than any other people, they have pushed their trade in regions where they have no political influence or control, by sheer energy and careful learning of the conditions to be met.

The commercial mind, which has always dictated the policies of government, is being thus compelled to turn its thought to the "open door," and that, as a commercial aim, will evidently extinguish colonial undertakings hereafter. It ruled the settlement of the Chinese troubles of 1900 (thanks to John Hay); it has gone into the recent treaties of Japan with England, Russia and France; it gave a practicable solution to the Morocco problem, at the Algeciras conference; it furnished the ground in 1907 for an arrangement of long-troubled relations between England and Russia in Persia, Tibet, and Afghanistan.

Manifestly, the commercial policy of the future is to be, not the policy of colonial dependencies, but the policy of open doors. Even the imperialists and the stand-patters of the United States will have to accept it; and in due time the tariff-walled nations, after practicing themselves sufficiently in the dictatorial opening of other people’s doors, will be ready to unlock their own.

WORLD MOVEMENTS: For and against War.

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

World’s Prohibition Confederation.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM; INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS.

WOS Y GIL, GENERAL: Revolutionary President of San Domingo.

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

WRIGHT, DR. A. E., WRIGHT, DR. DOUGLAS; The Discoverers of Opsonins.

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

WRIGHT, Carroll D.: On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.

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

WRIGHT, GENERAL LUKE E.: Secretary of War.

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

WRIGHT, ORVILLE AND WILBUR.

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

WURTEMBERG: A. D. 1906. Displacement of Privileged Members from the Parliament.

See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.

WYNDHAM, G.: Chief Secretary for Ireland.

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

WYNNE, Robert J.: Postmaster-General.

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

{732}

Y.

YALU, BATTLES AT THE.

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

YAMAGATA, Prince Aritomo.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE) and 1909 (OCTOBER).

YANGTZULING, BATTLE OF.

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

YASHIMA, SINKING OF THE.

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

YASS-CANBERRA. Chosen Site of the Capital of Australia.

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

YELLOW FEVER.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH.

YOUNG EGYPT.

See (in this Volume) EGYPT. A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).

YOUNG FINNS:

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

YOUNG TURKS.

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

YOUNGHUSBAND, COLONEL GEORGE J.: Mission to Tibet.

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

YOUSSUF IZEDDIN.

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

YUAN SHIH-KAI: His abrupt Dismissal from Office.

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

YUKON DISTRICT, THE: Census, 1901.

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

YUSHIN-KAI.

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

ZAHLE MINISTRY.

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

ZAIMIS, M., High Commissioner of Crete.

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

ZAMENHOF, DR.: Inventor of Esperanto.

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

ZANARDELLI, Giuseppe: Premier of Italy.

See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1901 and 1903.

ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1903. Practical Ending of Slavery.

The following remarks are from reports made by British consular officers in 1903. By decree of the Sultan of Zanzibar the legal status of slavery was annulled in 1897: "As I have anticipated in my former Reports, the number of slaves who have thought fit to present themselves for freedom to the Zanzibar Government has been very small. … It is as well known as ever throughout the Island of Zanzibar that a slave has only to appear and ask for freedom and it is immediately granted. But the slaves have long since discovered that freedom is not such ‘a bed of roses’ as was anticipated. They have learnt that practically they lose far more than they gain by leaving their owners to get freedom, and then having to find a new home and support themselves."

"The slavery question may be said to be at an end in Pemba. Those slaves who still remain in a state of servitude are slaves only in name, and they continue to be so of their own free will, for there is not a man or a woman at this time in the island unaware of the fact that any slave can obtain manumission for the asking. A small number of slaves do apply for and obtain their freedom month by month, but the bulk of the servile population in Pemba appear to be content with their existing status."

ZASULICH, General.

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

ZAYISTAS.

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

ZEEMAN, Peter.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

ZELAYA, JOSE CANTOS: President of Nicaragua.

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

ZEMSTVOS, RUSSIAN.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905-1907.

ZEPPELIN, Count.

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

ZICHY, Count.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904; 1905-1906.

ZIEGLER ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.

See (in this Volume) POLAR EXPLORATION.

ZIL-ES-SULTAN.

See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D. 1907-1908 (SEPTEMBER-JUNE).

ZULUS, The: Their revolt in 1906.

See (in this Volume) South Africa.

{733}

COURSES FOR STUDY OR READING

PREPARED by C. W. CHASE

As an aid to those possessors of this work who may wish to pursue in it regular courses of reading or study, the following directory, as it may be called, has been prepared by a gentleman whose acquaintance with the contents of the Volumes and with their arrangement is very thorough, and whose equipment of historical knowledge is large. This responds to a great number of requests and suggestions that have been coming to the publishers of "History for Ready Reference," ever since it began to make itself known as the best of compilations for "Topical Reading" in history, as well as for "Ready Reference," because drawn from the best historical writers in their own exact words.

Those who make use of these "Studies" should bear in mind that the first five Volumes of "History for Ready Reference" cover all times, from the earliest, down to its publication in 1895, and are under one comprehensive arrangement, for which reason the numbering of pages in those Volumes is consecutive from the first to the last; whereas Volumes VI. and VII. deal with two succeeding periods, of Recent History, and have separately numbered pages. Hence reference in the "Studies" to pages in the first five Volumes is without mention of the number of the Volume.

On revision of the original five-Volume work in 1901 some rearrangement of matter occurred which changed the page numbers. This necessitates the giving of both new and old numbers in the reference to every matter within those Volumes. For copies of the work purchased before 1901 the numbers are in parenthesis, and those for the later edition precede them.

The following is a subject index to the "Studies" appended:

ALEXANDER’S CONQUESTS: Study X.

AMERICA: Study XXIII.

(See, also, UNITED STATES, CANADA, and SPANISH AMERICA.)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: Studies XIV., XV., XXVII., XXXIV., XXXV., XXXVI.

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA: Study IV.

CANADA: Study XLIX.

CHINA: Studies VII., LI.

CHRISTIANITY: Studies XVIII., XIX., XX., XXIV.

CRUSADES: Study XXV.

EGYPT, ANCIENT: Study V.

ENGLAND: Studies XXVIII., XXIX., XXX., XXXI., XXXII., XXXIII., XXXV., XXXVI., XLII., XLVIII.

EUROPE AT LARGE: Studies XII., XIII., XIV., XVIII., XIX., XX., XXII., XXIII., XXIV., XXV., XXVII., XXXIV., XXXV., XXXVI.

FRANCE: Studies XIII., XIV., XVI., XXIII., XXIV., XXV., XXXIV., XXXV., XXXVI., XLIII.

FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEON: Studies XXXV XXXVI.

GERMANY: Studies XIII., XIV., XV., XXIII., XXIV., XXVII., XXXIV., XXXV., XXXVI., XLIV.

GREAT BRITAIN.

See ENGLAND.

GREECE, ANCIENT: Studies VIII., IX., X.

HISTORY AND ITS STUDY: Study I.

INDIA, ANCIENT: Study VII.

ITALY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: Studies XIV., XVII., XXIII., XXXV., XXXVI., LV.

JAPAN: Study L.

JEWS: Study VI.

MIDDLE AGES: Studies XIII., XIV., XV., XVI., XVII.

MOHAMMEDANISM: Studies XXI., XXII.

MONASTICISM: Study XX.

NETHERLANDS: Study XXVI.

PAPACY: Study XIX., XXIV., XXV.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES: Studies II., III.

REFORMATION, PROTESTANT: Studies XXIV., XXV.

RENAISSANCE: Study XXIII.

ROME, ANCIENT: Studies XI., XII., XIII.

RUSSIA: Study LII.

SPAIN: Studies XXVI., XXXVI.

SPANISH AMERICA: Study LIV.

(See, also, AMERICA.)

TURKISH EMPIRE: Study LIII.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Studies XXXVII., XXXVIII., XXXIX., XL., XLI., XLV., XLVI., XLVII.

{734}

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us