History for ready reference, Volume 6

by J. N. Larned

The Boer Republics and the Surroundings.
{493}
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1899 (October-November).
The Boer advance.
Invasion of Cape Colony and Natal.
The invaders joined by Dutch farmers of the colony.
The British unprepared.
Investment of Kimberley and Mafeking.
In a despatch dated January 16, 1900, Sir Alfred Milner gave
particulars of the first advance of the Boer forces from the
Orange Free State into Cape Colony, and of the extent to which
they were joined by Dutch farmers in districts south of Orange
River. He wrote: "The portion of the Colony with which I
propose to deal is that which lies south of the Orange River.
The districts north of that river have been so completely cut
off, and our accounts of what has been, and is, going on there
are so scanty and imperfect, that the history of their
defection cannot yet be written. I shall content myself with
quoting an extract from a report upon the state of affairs in
that region by a gentleman lately resident in Vryburg, which
undoubtedly fairly expresses the truth so far as he has been
in a position to observe it:—'All the farmers in the Vryburg,
Kuruman, and Taungs districts,' he says, 'have joined the
Boers, and I do not believe that you will find ten loyal
British subjects among the Dutch community in the whole of
Bechuanaland.' … The districts invaded by the enemy south of
the Orange River are:—Colesberg, Albert, Aliwal North,
Wodehouse, and Barkly East. It was on the 12th October that
the enemy committed the first act of war and of invasion near
Vryburg, on the western border, but it was not till more than
a month later, namely, the 14th November, that they occupied
Colesberg. Apparently they were waiting for reinforcements,
for when they actually did cross the frontier they were 1,100
strong. Whatever the cause of their delay, it was not due to
any discouragement from the people of Colesberg. The small
British garrison then in the country being engaged elsewhere,
and the district being entirely unguarded save by a few
policemen, people from there continually visited the river to
communicate with the enemy. The Chief Constable reports that
when he left the town 300 Colesberg farmers had already joined
the enemy, and that 400 more were expected from the adjoining
district of Philipstown. … On the 16th November General
Grobler, the Boer Commandant, addressed the following telegram
to Bloemfontein:—'Colesberg was occupied by me without
opposition. … I was very well pleased with the conduct of the
Afrikanders. We were everywhere welcomed.' … Eastwards along
the border the tide of insurrection ran strong. In the closing
days of October a Boer force assembled at Bethulie Bridge, which
was guarded only by a handful of police. As the days passed
and the alarm grew, the Cape police force was withdrawn from
Burghersdorp, which lies south of Bethulie, down the line to
Stormberg, while, in their turn, the Imperial forces abandoned
the important position of Stormberg, and retired on
Queenstown, thus leaving the district clear for the invaders.
That they did not immediately advance was certainly not owing
to any fear of resistance at Burghersdorp, the inhabitants of
which fraternised with the commando stationed on the river,
continually passing to and fro. Finally, on the 14th November,
the date of the occupation of Colesberg, the advance was made,
and on the following morning a body of 500 Boers occupied the
town. … According to the despatch of the Boer Commandant,
dated 16th November, Burghersdorp was occupied 'amidst cheers
from the Afrikanders,' and 'the Colonial burghers are very
glad to meet us.' Commandeering at once began throughout the
district of Albert, and a Burghersdorp resident estimated that
about 1,000 farmers were prepared to join at the date of his
leaving the place. …
"Within a space of less than three weeks from the occupation
of Colesberg, no less than five great districts—those of
Colesberg, Albert, Aliwal North, Barkly East, and
Wodehouse—had gone over without hesitation, and, so to speak,
bodily, to the enemy. Throughout that region the Landdrosts of
the Orange Free State had established their authority, and
everywhere, in the expressive words of a Magistrate, British
loyalists were 'being hunted out of town after town like
sheep.' In the invaded districts, as will be seen from the
above, the method of occupation has always been more or less
the same. The procedure is as follows:-A commando enters, the
Orange Free State flag is hoisted, a meeting is held in the
Court-house or market-place, and a Proclamation is read,
annexing the district. The Commandant then makes a speech, in
which he explains that the people must now obey the Free State
laws generally, though they are at present under martial law.
A local Landdrost is appointed, and loyal subjects are given a
few days or hours in which to quit, or be compelled to serve
against their country. … The number of rebels who have
actually taken up arms and joined the enemy during their
progress throughout the five annexed districts can for the
present only be matter of conjecture. I shall, however, be on
the safe side in reckoning that during November it was a
number not less than the total of the invading commandos, that
is, 2,000, while it is probable that of the invading commandos
themselves a certain proportion were colonists who had crossed
the border before the invasion took place. And the number,
whatever it was, which joined the enemy before and during
November has been increased since. A well-informed refugee
from the Albert district has estimated the total number of
Colonial Boers who have joined the enemy in the invaded
districts south of the Orange River at 3,000 to 4,000. In the
districts north of that river, to which I referred at the
beginning of this despatch, the number can hardly be less.
Adding to these the men who became burghers of the Transvaal
immediately before, or just after, the outbreak of war, with
the view of taking up arms in the struggle, I am forced to the
conclusion that, in round figures, not less than 10,000 of
those now fighting against us in South Africa, and probably
somewhat more, either are, or till quite recently were,
subjects of the Queen."-
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Cd. 264, 1900, pages 1-5.
The above relates to movements from the Orange Free State into
Cape Colony, where the most of reinforcement from Afrikander
inhabitants of British soil was to be got. From the Transvaal,
the movement of Boer forces across the frontiers, both
eastward and westward, was equally prompt. Early on the
morning of the 12th they were in Natal, advancing in three
strong columns, under General Joubert, upon Newcastle,
threatening the advance posts of the British at Dundee and
Glencoe (some 40 miles northeast of Ladysmith), where valuable
coal mines claimed defence. At the same time, another Boer
army, under General Cronje, had passed the western border and
was moving upon Mafeking, where Colonel (afterwards General)
Baden-Powell, with an irregular force of about 1,200 men, was
preparing for a siege.
{494}
The inhabitants of the town, including refugees, numbered
about 2,000 whites and 7,000 blacks. A few days later Boer
forces were skirmishing with the defenders of the diamond
mines at Kimberley, where Colonel Kekewich commanded about
1,000 men, and where Cecil Rhodes was among the beleaguered
citizens. The population of Kimberley was 33,000, more than
half blacks. It is plain that the British were wholly
unprepared for so vigorous an opening of hostilities on the
part of the Boers. A military writer in the "London Times,"
discussing the "Lessons of the War," at the end of a year
after its beginning, made the following statements and
comment:—"There was no difficulty in obtaining the fullest
information as to the resources of the Transvaal and the Free
State, and we have been officially informed that 'the armed
strength of the Boers, the number of their guns, with their
character and calibre,' as laid down in the report of the
Director of Intelligence, 'corresponds exactly with our
recently-ascertained knowledge of what the enemy has put into
the field.' Whether or not these reports ever travel from
Queen Anne's gate to Pall-mall seems uncertain, since the
Commander-in-Chief publicly stated that 'We have found that
the enemy … are much more powerful and numerous than we
expected.' The report of the Intelligence Department seems,
therefore, to have been as valueless for practical purposes as
were those transmitted to Paris by Colonel Stoffel prior to
the outbreak of the Franco-German war, and Lord Wolseley was
apparently as little aware of the fighting resources of the
Boers as was Marshal Lebœuf of those of the Germans. When,
early in September, 1899, it became a pressing necessity to
reinforce the troops in South Africa, it was painfully
realized that not a single unit at home was ready to take the
field. One weak battalion and three field batteries, hastily
compounded by wholesale drafting from others, represented the
available contribution from a standing army at home whose
nominal effectives considerably exceeded 100,000. The
reinforcements, totally inadequate to meet the crisis, were
made up by drawing upon India and the colonial garrisons."
London Times, November 22, 1900.
Another writer in "The Times," reviewing, at nearly the same
time, the previous year of the war, gave this account of its
opening circumstances:—"If the organization of the British
Army had permitted the despatch at short notice of 30,000
troops from Great Britain, the whole course of the war would
have been different. It was a prevailing illusion that Mr.
Kruger would yield to diplomatic pressure not backed by
available force, and political expediency, over-riding
military considerations, led to a compromise. It was tardily
decided to bring the forces in South Africa up to a total of
about 22,000 by drawing on India and the colonial garrisons;
mobilization was deferred till October 7. Thus the first
reinforcements arrived barely in time to prevent Natal from
being over-run by the Boers, and the expeditionary force did
not begin to reach Durban [the port of Natal] till after
Ladysmith had been closely invested. … There were advisers of
the Cabinet who held that the military strength of the Boers
was a bubble easily pricked. Thus it was widely believed that
a severe repulse in Northern Natal would suffice to break up
the Boer forces, and, knowing only that a body of 4,000
British troops was assembled at Dundee and another somewhat
larger at Ladysmith, we hastily assumed that these places were
naturally well suited and had been specially prepared for
defence. When, on the 26th, the concentration at Ladysmith was
accomplished, after a painful and a hazardous march, it was
imagined that our forces occupied an intrenched camp, which,
if necessary, could be held with ease. Later it became clear
that Ladysmith was exceedingly ill-adapted for defence, that
it was practically unfortified when invested, and finally
that, if the attacking force had been composed of trained
troops, it must have fallen, in spite of every effort on the
part of the garrison. The occupation of Dundee, it was
discovered, was maintained against the military judgment of
Sir G. White. …
"When at length the army corps and the cavalry division began,
early in November, to arrive in South Africa, we believed that
the bulk of this large force, which was apparently ready to
take the field, would invade the Orange Free State and strike
for Bloemfontein, clearing Cape Colony and inevitably drawing
Boer forces away from the investments of Kimberley and of
Ladysmith. This was another illusion. At least one-half of the
expeditionary force was despatched to Durban and the rest was
frittered away between three separate lines of advance. There
were thus four separate groupings of British troops, spread
over an immense front, and incapable of affording each other
mutual support. Moreover, the Commander-in-Chief being
involved in a difficult campaign in Natal, there was no
responsible head in Cape Colony, where partial chaos soon
supervened. … Faulty as was the strategy which substituted
scattered efforts with insufficient force for a primary
object, that of the Boers was happily even more ill-conceived.
In place of attempting to occupy our troops in Natal and throwing
their main strength into Cape Colony, where a Dutch rising on
a large scale would inevitably have occurred, they also
preferred to fritter away their strength, devoting their main
efforts against Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking, and
contenting themselves with the occupation of Colesberg and
Stormberg in small force, which, however, was quickly swelled
by local rebels."
London Times,
November 5, 1900.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1899 (October-December).
The early battles.
British reverses.
Siege of Ladysmith.
The serious fighting of the war began in Natal, as early as
the 20th of October, when three columns of the Boer forces
closed in on the British advance post at Glencoe. The first of
the Boer columns to arrive opened a precipitate attack, and in
the hard battle which ensued (at Talana Hill) the British
could claim the final advantage, though at very heavy cost.
Their commander, General Sir W. Penn Symons, received a mortal
wound and died three days afterwards, kindly cared for and
buried by the enemy, his successor in the command, General
Yule, having found it necessary to retreat from Glencoe and
Dundee to Ladysmith. The Boers were already striking at the
railroad between Glencoe and Ladysmith, and sharp fighting had
taken place on the 21st at Elandslaagte, a station on the line
only seventeen miles from the latter town.
{495}
The Boers, in that encounter, had been driven from the
neighboring hills, but the British had again suffered greatly,
and began to realize the quality of the foe with which they had
to deal. A graphic account of the battle at Elandslaagte was
written by the famous newspaper correspondent, G. W. Steevens,
who died shortly afterwards at Ladysmith. Two days after
Elandslaagte there was another engagement at Reitfontein,
still nearer to Ladysmith, fought for the purpose of keeping
the Boers from intercepting the retreat of General Yule. The
British forces defending Natal were now concentrated at
Ladysmith, which they had chosen for their main position, and
in which they had been collecting large quantities of military
stores. General Sir George White was there in general command.
The Boers, with General Joubert in chief command, were rapidly
closing in upon the town, and, on the 29th, they had a Creusot
(French) six-inch gun on a neighboring hill, within range,
ready to drop shells into its streets. That night General
White made an attempt to break their lines which ended in sore
disaster. One column, which marched far out, to a hill called
Nicholson's Nek, for a flanking attack on the enemy, lost most
of its ammunition and its battery, by a stampede of mules, and
then was caught in so helpless a position that it had to lay down
its arms. "The cursed white flag," wrote Mr. Steevens. "was up
again over a British force in South Africa. The best part of a
thousand British soldiers, with all their arms and equipment
and four mountain guns, were captured by the enemy. The Boers
had their revenge for Dundee and Elandslaagte in war; now they
took it full measure in kindness. As Atkins had tended their
wounded and succoured their prisoners there, so they tended
and succoured him here. One commandant wished to send the
wounded to Pretoria; the others, more prudent as well as more
humane, decided to send them back into Ladysmith. They gave
the whole men the water out of their own bottles; they gave
the wounded the blankets off their own saddles and slept
themselves on the naked veldt. They were short of transport,
and they were mostly armed with Martinis; yet they gave
captured mules for the hospital panniers and captured
Lee-Metfords for splints." It is consoling to come on a bit of
incident like this in the generally horrid story of war.
A few days later the communications of Ladysmith southward
were cut off, and the forces commanded by General White, about
10,000 in number, were hemmed in by superior numbers of the
Boers. British reinforcements were now beginning to arrive in
South Africa, and great numbers were at sea, not only imperial
troops, coming from England, India, Ceylon and elsewhere, but
colonial troops, offered by Canada, New Zealand and the
Australian colonies, and accepted by the imperial government.
The first operations of the British campaign were planned with
three objects, more or less distinct, namely, to rescue
General White's army, at Ladysmith, to relieve Kimberley, and
to expel the Boers from northern Cape Colony. They were
conducted on three lines, from the Natal port of Durban,
towards Ladysmith, under General Clery at the beginning; from
Cape Town towards Kimberley, under General Lord Methuen; from
Port Elizabeth and East London to Queenstown and the Cape
districts occupied by the Boers, under General Gatacre.
In the early battles of General Methuen's campaign, fought at
Belmont, November 23d, at Enslin, or Graspan, on the 25th, and
at Modder River, only 25 miles from Kimberley, on the 28th, he
carried his point, and kept up his advance, but at a heavy
sacrifice of men. The battle with Cronje's forces at Modder
River was a desperate struggle of ten hours duration, in which
the British lost nearly 500 men and gained little. The Boers
withdrew to an equally strong position, behind fortified lines
which extended, some six miles in length, on hills between two
points which bore the names of Spytfontein and Majesfontein.
There General Methuen attacked them again, December 11, and
met with a terrible repulse. His Highland Brigade, advancing
in the darkness, before daybreak, was in the midst of the
enemy's intrenchments before it knew them to be near, and was
horribly cut to pieces, losing 53 officers, including its
commander, General Wauchope, and 650 men. The British fell
back to Modder River, leaving not less than 1,000 men behind.
Just one day before this catastrophe, on the 10th, another of
like nature, but little less serious, was sustained by General
Gatacre's column, moving from Queenstown. He, too, attempted a
night march and an early morning attack on the Boers in a
fortified position at Stormberg, was misled by guides,
miscalculated the distance, neglected to send scouts ahead,
and so took his men to the very muzzles of waiting guns. From
the storm which then opened on them there were more than 500
who did not escape. Besides the dead and wounded, many went as
prisoners to Pretoria. Before the week of these defeats
reached its end, another, far worse, had been added in the
Natal campaign. General Sir Redvers Buller, appointed to the
chief command in South Africa, had arrived at Cape Town on the
last day of October, and, after some general study of the
field at large, had taken personal direction of the operations
in Natal, for the relief of Ladysmith. His movements were
undoubtedly hurried by urgent appeals from General White. On
the 15th of December he felt prepared to attempt the passage
of the Tugela River, near Colenso, and did so with his full
force, at two drifts, or fords, some two miles apart. Like
Methuen and Gatacre, he seems to have been strangely
misinformed as to the location and strength of the
intrenchments of the Boers. The latter had succeeded again and
again in concealing lines of deadly rifle-pits and batteries
until their assailants fairly stumbled against them, within
fatally close range. This happened at Colenso, as at Stormberg
and Majesfontein and the ill-managed attempt to begin an
advance upon Ladysmith cost 165 men and officers killed, 670
wounded, 337 prisoners and missing, besides 11 guns.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900.
Fighting qualities of the Boers.
"Take a community of Dutchmen of the type of those who
defended themselves for fifty years against all the power of
Spain at a time when Spain was the greatest power in the
world. Intermix with them a strain of those inflexible French
Huguenots who gave up home and fortune and left their country
forever at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The product must obviously be one of the most rugged, virile,
unconquerable races ever seen upon earth.
{496}
Take this formidable people and train them for seven
generations in constant warfare against savage men and
ferocious beasts, in circumstances under which no weakling
could survive, place them so that they acquire exceptional
skill with weapons and in horsemanship, give them a country
which is eminently suited to the tactics of the huntsman, the
marksman, and the rider. Then, finally, put a finer temper
upon their military qualities by a dour fatalistic Old
Testament religion and an ardent and consuming patriotism.
Combine all these qualities and all these impulses in one
individual, and you have the modern Boer—the most formidable
antagonist who ever crossed the path of Imperial Britain."
A. C. Doyle,
The Great Boer War,
chapter 1.
Count Adalbert von Sternberg, a German officer who served with
the Boers, and who has since related his experiences in a
book, writes to the same effect. "The Boers," he remarks,
"were mounted, whilst the English were on foot, a matter of
considerable importance in these hot countries. Given the same
or even slightly superior forces, no Continental army would
have played its part better than the English, and I even doubt
whether, in regard to practical equipment and technical smartness
and efficiency the Continent would have done as well. The fact
is the Boer is an enemy of quite exceptional a character, such
as never has been met before, or is likely to be met again.
Mounted sharpshooters, armed with the very best of weapons,
acclimatized, fanatical, and accustomed to habits of war, are
terrible opponents, and cannot be dealt with off hand as if
they were hordes of savages. One must not forget that the
Boers have the keenest eyes imaginable, and that they
understand better than anyone else how to get the fullest
advantage of cover. All these are advantages which go far
towards compensating defective leading and the weakening of
moral due to being always on the defensive. … The Boers would
have had much greater successes if they had not abandoned all
idea of taking the offensive. They could not be brought to
that, for that they lacked courage, and to that lack of
courage they owe their destruction."
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (January-February).
Continued British disasters on the Tugela.
Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener in the field.
Invasion of Orange Free State.
Capture of General Cronje and army.
Relief of Kimberley and Ladysmith.
The dark and heavy clouds of disaster which overhung the
British in South Africa at the close of the year shadowed
England with anxiety and gloom. For the first time, the
seriousness of the task of war in which the country had become
engaged was understood, and energies corresponding to it were
roused. Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, of Indian and Afghan
renown, was sent out to take supreme command, with the equally
famous Lord Kitchener, subjugator of the Egyptian Sudan, for
his chief of staff. Immense reinforcements of troops were
provided for with haste. On the 1st of January it was
estimated that 30,000 fresh troops were afloat or on the point
of embarkation, and that Lord Roberts would have 200,000 men
at command when all then assigned to South Africa should have
reached Natal and the Cape. Lord Roberts landed at the Cape on
the 10th of January, and was occupied for a month in
organizing and preparing for new movements in the field.
Meantime, General Buller had made a second attempt to turn the
strongly fortified position of his opponent on the Tugela,
between his own army and the beleaguered force at Ladysmith,
and had failed more discouragingly than before. Crossing the
Tugela, some miles west of Colenso, on the 17th, he pressed a
hard-fought, uphill advance, from one to another of the rocky
hills (called kopjes) of the region, for several days. On the
23d his troops stormed the fortifications of the Boers on
Spion Kop, a spur of the Drakenberg mountains, and carried
them with heavy loss, only to find that they were commanded
from other heights and could not be held. Again he drew back
to the southern bank of the Tugela, on the 29th; but only for
a few days. On the 5th of February his army was once more
pushed beyond the river, and entrenched in a position among
the hills, which it held until the 9th, and was then, for the
third time, withdrawn. This third movement is supposed to
have been a feint, intended to detain the Boer forces in his
front, either from some assault feared at Ladysmith or from
interference with the campaign which Lord Roberts was about to
open. The besieged at Ladysmith were holding out with grim
resolution, but they were known to be in sore straits.
Occasional messages by the heliograph told of much sickness
and fast approaching starvation in the town. Fever was killing
more than the shells from the bombarding guns; and the chances
of relief seemed to have almost disappeared.
But a sudden change in the whole military situation was about
to be made. Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener had organized
arrangements of transportation and supplies for handling the
immense force now at their command, and were ready to execute
their plans. The former arrived at Modder River on the 9th of
February; two days later his columns were set in motion, and
the Boer forces, under General Cronje, were too greatly
outnumbered to withstand the avalanche which fell upon them.
General French led a cavalry expedition to Kimberley, reaching
the town on the 15th and raising the siege. The next day
General Cronje was in retreat towards Bloemfontein, the Free
State capital, harassed by British cavalry, and with the main
army of Lord Roberts straining every nerve to strike him
before he reached it. On the 18th he was brought to bay, at a
point on the Madder River, near Paardeberg, where he defended
himself for nine days, in a situation that was impregnable to
assault, but terribly exposed to artillery fire from
surrounding heights. He was expecting help from the forces in
Natal and elsewhere, and several attempts were made by his
associates to reach him; but the British were too strong to be
driven from their prey. After suffering to such a degree that
his men would endure no more, the brave and stubborn Boer
surrendered on the 27th, his army, reduced to about 4,000,
laying down their arms. Some 500 had been taken in the
previous fighting, and considerable numbers in the last days
of the siege, are said to have deserted and found means to
slip through the enemy's lines. The prisoners were sent, for
convenience of custody, to the island of St. Helena, the
general being accompanied by his whole family, and treated
with much respect.
{497}
While these operations were being carried to success by Lord
Roberts, General Buller was again attacking the formidable
fortifications of the enemy in his front. From the 14th of
February until the 23d he sacrificed great numbers of men in
assaults which failed to break a passage through the kopjes
defended by Boer guns. But Lord Roberts's invasion of the Free
State had, by this time, caused large withdrawals of Boers
from the line of the Tugela, and they were preparing to raise
the siege of Ladysmith. Consequently, when the British attack
was renewed, on the 27th, it achieved success, at last. The
Boers were driven from their main position and abandoned their
whole line. Ladysmith was reached by a swift advance of
cavalry the next day, and the half-starved garrison and
citizens were soon receiving supplies.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (March).
Overtures of peace from Presidents Kruger and Steyn.
The reply of Lord Salisbury.
Death of General Joubert.
On the 5th of March, the Presidents of the South African
Republic and the Orange Free State addressed the following
telegram, jointly, to Lord Salisbury: "The blood and tears of
the thousands who have suffered by this war, and the prospect
of all the moral and economic ruin with which South Africa is
now threatened, make it necessary for both belligerents to ask
themselves dispassionately, and as in the sight of the Triune
God, for what they are fighting, and whether the aim of each
justifies all this devouring misery and devastation. With this
object, and in view of the assertions of various members of
the British Parliament to the effect that this war was begun
and is being carried on with the set purpose of undermining
Her Majesty's authority in South Africa, and of setting up an
Administration over all South Africa independent of Her
Majesty's Government, we consider it our duty solemnly to
declare that this war was undertaken solely as a defensive
measure for securing the threatened independence of the South
African Republic, and is only continued in order to secure the
incontestable independence of both Republics as sovereign
international States, and to ensure that those of Her
Majesty's subjects who have taken part with us in this war
shall suffer no harm whatever in person or property. On these
conditions, but on these conditions alone, are we now, as in
the past, desirous of seeing peace reëstablished in South
Africa, and of putting an end to the evil now reigning over
South Africa; while, if Her Majesty's Government is determined
to destroy the independence of the Republics, there is nothing
left to us and our people but to persevere to the end in the
course already begun, in spite of the overwhelming
pre-eminence of the British Empire, confident that the God who
lighted the unextinguishable fire of the love of freedom in
the hearts of our fathers will not forsake us, but will
accomplish His work in us and in our descendants. We hesitated
to make this declaration earlier to Your Excellency, as we
feared that as long as the advantage was always on our side,
and as long as our forces held defensive positions far in Her
Majesty's Colonies, such a declaration might hurt the feelings
of honour of the British people; but now that the prestige of the
British Empire may be considered to be assured by the capture
of one of our forces by Her Majesty's troops, and that we are
thereby forced to evacuate other positions which our forces
had occupied, that difficulty is over, and we no longer
hesitate clearly to inform your Government and people in the
sight of the whole civilised world why we are fighting, and on
what conditions we are ready to restore peace."
On the 11th Lord Salisbury replied as follows: "I have the
honour to acknowledge Your Honours' telegram, dated the 5th of
March, from Bloemfontein, of which the purport is principally
to demand that Her Majesty's Government shall recognise the
'incontestable independence' of the South African Republic and
Orange Free State 'as sovereign international States,' and to
offer, on those terms, to bring the war to a conclusion. In
the beginning of October last peace existed between Her
Majesty and the two Republics under the Conventions which then
were in existence. A discussion had been proceeding for some
months between Her Majesty's Government and the South African
Republic, of which the object was to obtain redress for
certain very serious grievances under which British residents
in the South African Republic were suffering. In the course of
those negotiations, the South African Republic had, to the
knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, made considerable
armaments, and the latter had, consequently, taken steps to
provide corresponding reinforcements to the British garrisons
of Cape Town and Natal. No infringement of the rights
guaranteed by the Conventions had, up to that point, taken
place on the British side. Suddenly, at two days' notice, the
South African Republic, after issuing an insulting ultimatum,
declared war upon Her Majesty; and the Orange Free State, with
whom there had not even been any discussion, took a similar
step. Her Majesty's dominions were immediately invaded by the
two Republics, siege was laid to three towns within the
British frontier, a large portion of the two Colonies was
overrun, with great destruction to property and life, and the
Republics claimed to treat the inhabitants of extensive
portions of Her Majesty's dominions as if those dominions had
been annexed to one or other of them. In anticipation of these
operations the South African Republic had been accumulating
for many years past military stores on an enormous scale,
which by their character could only have been intended for use
against Great Britain. Your Honours make some observations of a
negative character upon the object with which these
preparations were made. I do not think it necessary to discuss
the questions you have raised. But the result of these
preparations, carried on with great secrecy, has been that the
British Empire has been compelled to confront an invasion
which has entailed upon the Empire a costly war and the loss
of thousands of precious lives. This great calamity has been
the penalty which Great Britain has suffered for having in
recent years acquiesced in the existence of the two Republics.
In view of the use to which the two Republics have put the
position which was given to them, and the calamities which
their unprovoked attack has inflicted upon Her Majesty's
dominions, Her Majesty's Government can only answer Your
Honours' telegram by saying that they are not prepared to
assent to the independence either of the South African
Republic or of the Orange Free State."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Africa, Number 2, 1900.
{498}
On the 27th of March, the Boer cause experienced a great loss,
in the sudden death, from peritonitis, of General Joubert, the
Commandant-General and Vice President of the South African
Republic.
SOUTH AFRICA: Orange Free State: A. D. 1900 (March).
Proclamation to the burghers by the British commander.
Soon after entering the Orange Free State, Lord Roberts issued
a proclamation addressed to the burghers, assuring them that
the British government did not believe them to be responsible
for the aggressive act of war committed by the government of
the Orange Free State, and bore them no ill-will. "I,
therefore," his proclamation continued, "warn all Burghers to
desist from any further hostility towards Her Majesty's
Government and the troops under my command, and I undertake
that any of them, who may so desist and who are found staying
in their homes and quietly pursuing their ordinary
occupations, will not be made to suffer in their persons or
property on account of their having taken up arms in obedience
to the order of their Government. Those, however, who oppose
the forces under my command, or furnish the enemy with
supplies or information, will be dealt with according to the
customs of war. Requisitions for food, forage, fuel, or
shelter, made on the authority of the officers in command of
Her Majesty's troops, must be at once complied with; but
everything will be paid for on the spot, prices being
regulated by the local market rates. If the inhabitants of any
district refuse to comply with the demands made on them, the
supplies will be taken by force, a full receipt being given.
Should any inhabitant of the country consider that he or any
member of his household has been unjustly treated by any
officer, soldier or civilian attached to the British Army, he
should submit his complaint, either personally or in writing,
to my Headquarters or to the Headquarters of the nearest
General Officer. Should the complaint on enquiry be
substantiated, redress will be given. Orders have been issued
by me, prohibiting soldiers from entering private houses, or
molesting the civil population on any pretext whatever, and
every precaution has been taken against injury to property on
the part of any person belonging to, or connected with, the
Army."
After the occupation of Bloemfontein, Lord Roberts issued a
second proclamation, announcing that he had received authority
from his government to offer the following terms to those "who
have been engaged in the present war": "All Burghers who have
not taken a prominent part in the policy which has led to the
war between Her Majesty and the Orange Free State, or
commanded any forces of the Republic, or commandeered or used
violence to any British subjects, and who are willing to lay
down their arms at once, and to bind themselves by an oath to
abstain from further participation in the war, will be given
passes to allow them to return to their homes and will not be
made prisoners of war, nor will their property be taken from
them."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Cd. 261, 1900, pages 62-63.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal and the Free State:
A. D. 1900 (March).
Boer Peace Commissioners to Europe and America.
In March, three commissioners, Messrs. Fischer, Wolmeraans and
Wessels were sent to Europe and America by the two Boer
governments to solicit intervention in their behalf. They
visited several European countries and proceeded thence to the
United States, in May. There were many demonstrations of
popular sympathy in their reception, on both sides of the
ocean, but they failed to obtain official recognition.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (March-May).
The British in Bloemfontein and Kroonstad.
The relief of Mafeking.
From the scene of the surrender of General Cronje Lord Roberts
moved quickly on the Free State capital. His advance was
resisted by considerable forces of the Boers, but he was able
to turn most of their positions, and fought only one severe
battle, at Driefontein, on the 10th of March. On the 12th his
cavalry was in possession of Bloemfontein, and the
Field-Marshal entered the city on the following day, receiving
from the municipal officers a formal surrender of the keys of the
public buildings, and being welcomed by some part of the
population with demonstrations of joy. President Steyn and
most of the members of the government of the Republic had
retired to Kroonstad and established the seat of authority
there. The lighting and the forced marches of a single month,
since he began his advance, had now exhausted the mobility of
Lord Roberts's army, worn out the means of transportation
which Lord Kitchener had hastily organized for it,—while his
troops were being stricken with fever,—and he was compelled to
suspend his campaign for some weeks. The situation at that
time was probably described with accuracy by a military
contributor to "Blackwood's Magazine" for June, 1900, who
wrote: "Lord Roberts found himself at Bloemfontein with the
wreck of an army and a single narrow-gauge line of railway
between himself and his base, upwards of 700 miles distant. It
was very soon known in Boer headquarters at Kroonstad that he
could not move beyond Bloemfontein for some weeks. The
triumphal march of Generals Gatacre and Clements through the
recently captured territory, accepting submissions, hoisting
union-jacks and picking up rifles of antique date, afforded
much amusement to the Boers, who saw their opportunity and
streamed down in large numbers on the small British posts
which were scattered east and south of the railway."
There was a good deal of raiding and fighting on a minor
scale, with a number of mortifying mishaps to the British
arms; but little of importance occurred in the military field
until near the end of April, when Lord Roberts had reinforced
and mobilized his army sufficiently to move forward again,
towards Pretoria. On the 12th of May he entered Kroonstad, and
the Free State government was again in flight. He paused at
Kroonstad for some days, and while he paused there came news
of the relief of Mafeking, which caused a wilder joy in
England than any other event of the war. There had been
painful anxiety on account of the besieged in that remote
town, in the far corner of Bechuanaland, on the border of the
Transvaal,—so far from help, and so stoutly defended for seven
weary months by a very small force. From a point near
Kimberley, a flying column of mounted men, mostly colonial
troops, commanded by Colonel Mahon, had been started northward
on the 4th of May, taking a route east of the railway, to avoid,
as much as possible, the Boers.
{499}
On the 15th they were 20 miles west of Mafeking, and there
they were joined by another detachment, under Colonel Plumer,
which had been operating in the northern region for some weeks
without being able to break up the siege. The two advanced on
the works of the besiegers, drove them out by hard fighting,
and entered the town on the 18th of May. Meantime, another
column, under General Hunter, had been securing and opening
the railway, to bring up the sorely needed supplies for the
famished and worn-out garrison and people of the town. The
defense of Mafeking was one of the finest performances of the
war, and gave distinction to Colonel Baden-Powell.
SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1900 (April-June).
The question of the treatment of Cape Colonists who had taken
part with the Boers in the war.
Resignation of Premier Schreiner.
On the 28th of April, the Ministers of Cape Colony addressed
to the Governor, Sir Alfred Milner, a Minute upon the subject
of the treatment of those inhabitants of the Colony who had
joined or given aid to the Boers in the war, and who had thus
made themselves liable to the pains and penalties of high
treason. "Ministers submit," they said, "that the ends of
justice would be served by the selection of a certain limited
number of the principal offenders, whose trials would mark the
magnitude of their offence, and whose punishment, if found
guilty, would act as a deterrent. For the remainder, Ministers
believe that the interests both of sound policy and of public
morality would be served if Her Gracious Majesty were moved to
issue, as an act of grace, a Proclamation of amnesty under
which, upon giving proper security for their good behaviour,
all persons chargeable with high treason, except those held
for trial, might be enlarged and allowed to return to their
avocations. Ministers urge such a course not only on the
ground of that natural desire for clemency towards her erring
subjects which they feel sure would spring from Her Gracious
Majesty, but from a deep sense of the importance of such a
step upon the future well-being of this country."
The substance of the Minute was transmitted by cable to Mr.
Chamberlain, and he replied to it on the 5th of May, objecting
to the proposed proclamation of a broad amnesty, saying:
"Clemency to rebels is a policy which has the hearty sympathy
of Her Majesty's Government, but justice to loyalists is an
obligation of duty and honour. The question is how can these
two policies be harmonized. It is clear that in the interest
of future peace it is necessary to show that rebellion cannot
be indulged in with impunity, and above all that if
unsuccessful it is not a profitable business for the rebel.
Otherwise the State would be offering a premium to rebellion.
The present moment, therefore, while the war is still
proceeding, and while efforts may still be made to tempt
British subjects into rebellious courses, is in any case not
appropriate for announcing that such action may be indulged in
with absolute impunity. And if, as has been suggested, a great
many of the Queen's rebellious subjects are the mere tools of
those who have deceived them, it is important that these
should be made aware individually that whatever their leaders
may tell them rebellion is a punishable offence." This
attitude of the Imperial Government on the subject of amnesty
occasioned differences in the Ministry of Cape Colony which
led to the resignation of the Premier, Mr. W. P. Schreiner, on
the 13th of June, and the appointment of a new Ministry, under
Sir Gordon Sprigg.
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
July, 1900, Cape Colony, Cd. 264.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (May).
The British army stricken with fever.
The losses of the British army in battle during this campaign
of Lord Roberts had not been severe; but it had encountered a
worse enemy than the Boers, and was being terribly thinned and
shattered by the ravages of enteric or typhoid fever. The
sanitary condition of the army in May, and the lack of due
provision for dealing with the dreadful epidemic, have been
graphically described by the writer already quoted, in
"Blackwood's Magazine." Referring to the outset of the
campaign, in February, he wrote:
"The movement of men and cattle depends on flesh and muscle—it
cannot go on for ever; the strain of incessant marching on
insufficient food and forage will find out the weak spot even
in the most willing. General French started on his memorable
ride with 4,800 horses, of which 990 dropped by the way,
though the loss in the ranks, exclusive of Paardeberg, was
only fifty men,—the brunt of the battle for life lay with the
horses. But not for long. The men with worn-out boots,
tattered clothes, hurrying through scorching days and frosty
nights, with half a biscuit and water tainted with dead Boers,
to satisfy an appetite and thirst compelled by hard work at an
altitude of 4,000 feet, who marched in as soldiers, proud of the
victory they had won, staggered and fell out, victims to the
curse that creeps in, unnoticed, wherever camps are
crowded—enteric. … Of all things on which we prided ourselves
was the care and the money we had lavished to provide comforts
for our sick soldiers. The foremost surgeons of the day had
volunteered; military hospitals had been arranged on the
latest plan; private benevolence had provided as many more;
ladies of every rank in life had gone out to nurse: the
soldiers, at all events, would be looked after. Letters from
the front had come from patients to say how well they had been
treated. Mr. Treves at the Reform Club made a speech eulogizing
the perfection of the hospitals in Natal, and Sir W. MacCormac
spoke of the medical arrangements as admirable—our minds
rested content. All this was so long ago as the 10th March,
but what happened in March, for all we knew, was happening in
May. Then Mr. Burdett-Coutts told us that hundreds of men were
lying in the worst stages of typhoid, with only a blanket to
cover them, a thin water-proof sheet (not even that for many)
between them and the ground; no milk and hardly any medicines;
without beds, stretchers, or mattresses; without pillows, without
linen of any kind, without a single nurse amongst them, with a
few private soldiers as orderlies, and only three doctors to
attend on 350 patients; their faces covered with flies in
black clusters, the men too weak to brush them off, trying in
vain to dislodge them by painful twitching of the
features—there was no one to do it for them. And this a mile
from Bloemfontein, where the army had been for six weeks. It
is true that a terrible epidemic had followed it from
Paardeberg, to break out when it halted. Lord Roberts tells us
that before he left on May 3rd the sick gradually increased to
2,000, reaching on June 4th the appalling number, in
Bloemfontein, of over 5,000 suffering from typhoid alone.
{500}
Such were the bare facts as stated on either side—a sudden and
devastating epidemic with totally inadequate hospital
arrangements to meet it. … Yet typhoid has always been the
scourge of armies in the field,—in South Africa the
water-supply, invariably surface drainage fouled by dead
animals, is proverbial—that at least was known. The medical
authorities on the spot were repeatedly warned by local
medical men that from February onwards ten men would be down
with typhoid for one with wounds. Ladysmith is in evidence of
the persistent presence of typhoid—every one who has visited
South Africa bears witness to the same—it can hardly be urged
that an outbreak was unreasonable to expect; yet when it did
occur it seems to have been taken by the medical
administration at the base as an unwarrantable intrusion."
The War Operations in South Africa
(Blackwood's Magazine, August, 1900).
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1900 (May).
Speech of President Kruger to the Volksraads.
The following translation of a speech addressed to both
Volksraads by President Kruger, in May, 1900, was published in
England some months later: "It is known to you," said the
President, "how, before the war started, pressure was brought
to bear to obtain the franchise. It is known to you that the
Government conceded, after the Rand had consented, although
this body saw the difficulty in the matter, till even the
burghers made petitions to the effect that we had parted with
all our rights. The Government had in view the prevention of
shedding blood. The Raad then consented to a seven years'
franchise, and also to grant immediately the franchise to
people resident here longer than seven years. There were then
nearly 30,000 who would obtain the franchise immediately, and
so much was conceded that when these had obtained the
franchise they would have been able to out-vote the old
burghers. We consented to this solely to prevent the shedding
of blood. Yet they were not satisfied and they wanted the
franchise after five years' residence. Our burghers were
against this, and there were also members of the Raad who
would not agree to this, yet, nevertheless, the Government
made a proposition about it, because they had discovered that
it was not about the franchise, but that it was a pretence
full of Pharisaic hypocrisy, because documents had been found
that in 1896 it was decided that the two independent Republics
should not be allowed to exist any more. I cannot express
myself otherwise than to call it a devilish fraud. Peace was
spoken of while a resolution had already been passed to
annihilate us. Even if we had conceded more, yea, even if we
had said that the franchise could be obtained after one year,
then that would not have been accepted. It was proved by
documents that, as this nation could not be allowed to be a
free nation, as was pointed out in the address, the
Government, to prevent the further shedding of blood, made a
proposition to Chamberlain and Salisbury about this matter,
and what was the reply? You have, doubtless, read the paper,
and, although I cannot verbally repeat the contents of the
said document, it amounts to this. That they were annoyed ever
to have acknowledged us as an independent nation, and that,
notwithstanding all conventions made, they would never
acknowledge this nation as self-supporting. Honourable
gentlemen, I had to express that which was in my mind. Psalm
83 speaks of the assault of the evil one on the Kingdom of
Christ. That must not exist. The self-same words of Salisbury
also appear, because he says 'this nation must not exist,' and
God says, 'this nation shall exist.' Who will be victorious?
Certainly the Lord. You see therein the deceit which they then
already practised, even they, for though our nation did not
wish to part with any rights, the Executive Council conceded
so far that we nearly lost the country. The intention was not
to obtain these rights. They wanted our country not to be
independent any longer. Every other proposition was
unsatisfactory to them.
"Let us look this matter in the face and see the cunning
deceit enveloped therein. They wrote to the Orange Free State
that they had nothing against them, but that they had some
grievance against this Republic. Their intention was to tear
the two Republics asunder, and it has been proved by
documentary evidence that neither of them would be allowed to
remain. You see the deception which lies therein. The
documents prove that this was already decided in 1896, from
the time of Jameson's invasion, and yet they maintain that if
the Orange Free State had laid down their weapons that that
country would remain in existence. The Orange Free State
decided not to lay down their arms, and we started together.
We were 40,000 men, but everywhere we had to watch the
Kaffirs, and even the commander of Mafeking informed us that
certain Kaffir chiefs would assist him. We know that these
numbered 30,000 able-bodied men. The number of Kaffirs nearly
equalled the number of our forces. Besides them, more than
200,000 English troops arrived, and against these we have to
fight. Now, gentlemen, look on God's government. Is it not
wonderful that 40,000 men having to fight these thousands,
besides the coloured people, still live? Acknowledge therein
the hand of God. The matter I wish to impress is this. It is
remarkable that when we meet the enemy we stand in the
proportion of 10 to 100. Yet the Lord hath spared us thus far.
I do not wish to prophesy, but I wish to point out that our
guidance is in the word of God. It is extraordinary, but this
war is a sign of the times. What it amounts to is this. That
the power of the Beast is an obstinate power to persecute the
Church and will continue this until the Lord says, 'Thus far
and no further: and why? Because the Church must be tried and
purified as there is so much iniquity among us. That is why
the war is extraordinary and is a sign of the times. Every one
will be convinced that the word of God can be plainly traced
in this matter. They say that the people 'shall not exist,'
but God says, 'it shall exist and be purified.' In my mind it
lies clear and discernable that the day of grace is not far
off. The Lord will prove to be ruler, and nothing shall take
place without His will. When He allows chastisement to come
upon us we must bend ourselves and humble ourselves, confess
our sins and turn again to the Lord. When the whole nation has
been humbled, and it is seen that we can do nothing ourselves,
the Lord will help us and we shall have peace immediately.
{501}
This humility has not grasped our hearts sufficiently at
present, and we must perform our earnest duty as Peter says in
1 Peter, chapter v., v. 7 and 8:—'Casting all your care upon
Him; for He careth for you'; but in the eighth verse it
states:—'Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the
Devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may
devour.' That is the point on which we must be careful. If we
fall into disbelief then we lower ourselves.
"I ask you, brothers, what is their behaviour? In an open
letter Kaffirs are called up by them as at Derdepoort, and
women and children are murdered. The English assert that no
Kaffirs were utilized against us but only coloured people, but
it is a fact that Montsioa with his Kaffirs are in Mafeking,
and are employed to fight against us. Now, gentlemen, you must
not come to the conclusion that everyone who fights against us
belongs to the Beast (vide Revelations, chapter 13). There are
certainly hundreds of God's children with them who, however,
through fear are the Beast's, and are forced to act with them,
but God knows all hearts. We did not seek to spill the blood
which lies strewn upon the earth, as we conceded nearly all
our rights; but when they wanted to murder us, we could not
give way any more. How did it fare with Ahab? The mighty foe

came on to the walls of the city, and they lost heart. Then
the prophet of God came and said, Fear nothing. Then God
arose, and in that God we must put our trust, because He is
the same God. Let us not, therefore, live as if no God
existed; He reigns. In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was God, and the Word became flesh and lived amongst us.
Look at history, it must be an example to us. He is still the
same God who led out Israel and hardened the heart of Pharaoh
to the end, until finally all the first-born of the Egyptians
died, whereupon Pharaoh allowed the Israelites to go. He is
still the same God who calmed the winds and storms on the sea,
and His arm is not shortened. Some ask, 'Does not this only
have reference to the Church in the two Republics?' No. See
the three youths in the burning oven. Did these rejoice alone?
No; but God's people of the whole earth. Was it solitary for
Daniel in the lions' den? No, but all Christians on the whole
earth rejoiced. So the Lord often chooses a small body to whom
He shows His miracles as an example for the whole Christian
world. Look upon the blood which has been spilt upon this
earth. Who is the cause of it? We have wanted peace and our
freedom since 1836, and the Lord has given it us, and will the
Lord ever give anything and then withdraw? No. But let us
humble ourselves before the Lord. There is no doubt about it
that eventually the Lord will lead us to victory. The day of
grace is not far from His people. Do not let us doubt but
remain true to God's word and fight in His name. When the cup
of humiliation is brought to our lips and we earnestly humble
ourselves before the Lord, then the day of grace has arrived.
Let each one then acknowledge that it is the hand of God which
makes us free and nothing else, then we shall not boast. Yet He
uses man as His instrument.
"I have laid my address before you, and I hope that the Raad
will not sit over it longer than to-morrow morning. There are
several members of the Raad who are burghers or military
officers in the field, so there will be no time to treat
ordinary subjects. I trust that you will only treat such
subjects as I lay before you. I have appointed an acting
Commandant General since I have lost my right-hand man,
although I do not infer that I have not more such men. The
late most noble Commandant General, Messrs. Kock and
Wolmarans, members of the executive council, are lost to me.
The State Secretary is a newly appointed one, and I am the
only one remaining of the old members of the executive
council, yet I have experienced much assistance and support
from the present members, and God will also support us. The
Lord is still our Commander-in-Chief; He gives orders and He
knows when to say, 'Thus far and no further.' It is surprising
how other Powers are unanimously with us and how the whole of
Europe prays for us, and will the Lord lend a deaf ear to
these prayers? Oh, no! Trust in the Lord and let us stand by
Him, and He will perform miracles. Even if I have to go to St.
Helena, the Lord will bring His people back and make them free,
and the same judgment will fall on the present Babylon, the
cause of all the spilt blood. We fight for the freedom which
God granted to us. I say again, should any brothers from this
Raad and private persons fall by the sword, they fought in the
name of the Lord and believed, and they, so says the word of
the Lord, are sacrificed on the altar for the glorification of
His name and of the glorious Church, which, at this time, is to
be revealed. The Church must be tried and purified, and that
is why I cannot see that this extraordinary war will be
allowed to destroy us. This war will be continued until the
Lord says, 'Thus far and no further,' remain at that, abide by
that, and fight with me. I give myself in the hands of the
Lord, whatever He has destined for me, I shall kiss His rod
with which He chastizes me because I am also guilty. Let
everyone humble himself before the Lord, I have said."
SOUTH AFRICA: Orange Free State: A. D. 1900 (May).
Annexation by proclamation of Lord Roberts to the
Dominions of the Queen.
"In view of Lord Robert's opinion that early annexation would
tend towards the pacification of the country, by removing a
feeling of uncertainty as to the return of President Steyn's
government," the following commission by the Queen to Lord
Roberts was issued on the 21st of May:
"Victoria R. I., by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith,
Empress of India: To Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved
Councillor Frederick Sleigh, Baron Roberts of Kandahar, Field
Marshal of Our Forces, Knight of Our Most Illustrious Order of
Saint Patrick, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Honourable Order
of the Bath, Knight Grand Commander of Our Most Exalted Order
of the Star of India, Knight Grand Commander of Our Most
Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, upon whom We have
conferred the Decoration of the Victoria Cross. Greeting:
Whereas the territories in South Africa heretofore known as
the Orange Free State have been conquered by Our forces, And
whereas it is expedient that such territories should be
annexed to and should henceforth form part of Our Dominions:
Now know you that We, reposing especial trust and confidence
in you the said Frederick Sleigh, Baron Roberts of Kandahar,
do hereby authorize and empower you in Our name to annex the
said territories and to declare that the said territories
shall henceforth form part of Our Dominions.
{502}
And We do hereby constitute and appoint you to be thereupon
Administrator of the said territories provisionally and until
Our pleasure is more fully known. And We do authorize and
empower you as such Administrator to take all such measures,
and to make and enforce such laws as you may deem necessary
for the peace, order, and good government of the said
territories. And we do strictly charge and command all Our
officers, civil and military, and all other Our faithful
subjects, that in their several places, and according to their
respective opportunities, they do aid and assist you in the
execution of this Our Commission, and for so doing this shall
be your Warrant. Given at Our Court at St. James's, this 21st
day of May, One thousand nine hundred, in the Sixty-third Year
of Our Reign." The commission was executed by a public reading
of the proclamation of Lord Roberts at Bloemfontein on the
24th of May.
Great Britain, Papers by Command: 1900,
Cd. 261, pages 136, 144.
A counter-proclamation, referring to that of the British
commander, was issued by President Steyn, from Reitz, on the
11th of June, declaring: "Whereas an unjust war was forced on
the people of the Orange Free State and of the South African
Republic by Great Britain in the month of October 1899, and
whereas these two small Republics have maintained the unequal
struggle with the powerful British Empire for more than eight
months and still maintain it; … Whereas the forces of the
Orange Free State are still in the field and the Orange Free
State has not been conquered and whereas the aforesaid
proclamation is thus in contradiction with International Law;
Whereas the independence of the Orange Free State has been
acknowledged by nearly all the civilised Powers; Whereas it is
notorious that the British authorities have lately recognised
that the Orange Free State is governed in an exemplary manner,
and that it is both a violation of the laws of civilization
and a denial of the fundamental rights of such people to rob
it on what a pretence soever, of its freedom, and whereas I
consider it desirable to make known to all whom it may concern
that the aforesaid Proclamation is not recognised by the
Government and the people of the Orange Free State; So,
therefore, I, M. T. Steyn, State President of the Orange Free
State, in consultation with the Executive Council, and in the
name of the independent people of the Orange Free State, do
hereby proclaim that the aforesaid annexation is not
recognised and is hereby declared to be null and of no avail.
The people of the Orange Free State is and remains a free and
independent people, and refuses to submit to British rule."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Cd. 261, 1900, page 155.
SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1900 (May).
Opposition of Cape Colony Afrikanders to the annexation
of the Republics.
A "People's Congress" of the Afrikanders, or Bondmen, of Cape
Colony, was held at Graaff-Reinet, on the 30th of May, to
protest against the annexation of the Boer Republics. The
following resolution was adopted by acclamation: "Whereas,
were the Republics to be annexed the majority of Cape
Colonists would feel themselves bound morally to work
unceasingly by every right and lawful means for the
restoration of independence to the Republics, and to make that
end their first political object; And whereas from our
knowledge of the history and character of the Republics we are
convinced they would never become the willing subjects of the
Empire, but would seize any and every opportunity which might
offer itself to recover their independence, possibly by force
of arms, once they were to be deprived of it; And whereas
instead of the annexation of the Republics tending to promote
the welfare of their people, as has been claimed, it would, if
successfully maintained for any long period, tend to degrade
those people and their offsprings, seeing that the servitude
of a self-governing State is as demoralising to its people as
the more direct form of personal slavery; And whereas, as the
annexation of the Republics by Great Britain would be as great
a wrong morally as the theft by a rich man of a poor man's
hard-earned savings; On that general ground alone it is not
believable that permanent good could result from such a
policy. Therefore be it resolved now that we, on behalf of the
majority of Cape Colonists, do hereby declare our solemn and
profound conviction that the annexation of the two South
African Republics would be disastrous to the peace and welfare
of South Africa and of the Empire as a whole." Also the
following: "Be it resolved that it is the opinion of the
people in Congress here assembled that a settlement of the
South African question on the following basis would prove a
blessing to South Africa and the Empire, namely, that the two
Republics should have their unqualified independence; that the
Colonies should have the right to enter into treaties of
obligatory arbitration with the Republics for the settlement
of all disputes affecting the internal affairs of the South
African Continent, and that this colony, and any other colony
so deserving it, should have a voice in the selection of its
Governors. Be it further resolved that a settlement on the
above basis would make the majority of the people who have
made South Africa their home the warm friends and staunch
allies of the British Empire, and that in no other way known
to us can that end now be attained."
In transmitting a report of this meeting to Secretary
Chamberlain, the High Commissioner, Sir Alfred Milner, wrote:
"I do not myself take a very gloomy view of the prospect of
racial relations in the Colony, much less in South Africa
generally. If it is true, as the conciliators are never tired
of threatening us, that race hatred will be eternal, why
should they make such furious efforts to keep it up at the
present moment? The very vehemence of their declarations that
the Africanders will never forgive, nor forget, nor acquiesce,
seems to me to indicate a considerable and well-justified
anxiety on their part lest these terrible things should after
all happen."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
July, 1900, South Africa, Cd. 261, pages 182-188.
{503}
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (May-June).
The British invasion of the Transvaal.
Occupation of Johannesburg and Pretoria.
Expulsion of the Boers from Natal.
Discussion of terms of surrender.
On the 22d of May, Lord Roberts resumed his forward movement
from Kroonstad, with a strong column of cavalry, under General
French, in advance on the west, and another, of mounted
infantry, under General Ian Hamilton, on the east. The Boers,
under General Botha, had prepared defensive works on the
Rhenoster River, but were too much endangered by the flanking
column of General Hamilton to make a stand there, and fell
back. Again at the Vaal River, their fortifications were
untenable, as against an invasion of such numbers, with so
large a mounted force. With little resistance the British army
crossed the Vaal on the 26th and 27th and entered the
territory of the South African Republic. On the 30th it was
before Johannesburg, and the town was surrendered on the
following day. Thence the invading force moved upon Pretoria,
meeting some opposition, but evidently none that was hopefully
made, and the capital was surrendered unconditionally to Lord
Roberts on the 5th of June. President Kruger and the officials
of his government had left the town, with their archives and
their treasure, and movable offices had been prepared for them
in railway cars, which were transferred for the time being to
Machadodorp, at some distance eastward. Most of the armed
burghers had escaped from the town, and they had been able to
remove about 900 of their British prisoners; but a large
number of the latter were set free. General Botha gathered up
his broken and discouraged forces and intrenched them in a
strong position on the Lorenzo Marquez railway, only 15 miles
eastward from Pretoria. Lord Roberts moved against him on the
11th and compelled him to retreat, after hard fighting for
five hours. This ended important operations in that part of
the field.
In Natal, General Buller, since early in May, had been pushing
his army northward, in a movement co-operative with that of
Lord Roberts. He had turned the flank of the Boer forces in
the positions they had fortified against his advance, regained
Glencoe and Dundee, and moved on to Newcastle. Then, with more
serious fighting, he forced Botha's Pass through the
mountains, compelled the Boers to evacuate their strongholds
on Laing's Nek and Majuba Hill, and was substantially in
possession of Natal.
On the 30th of May, General Buller sent word to General Chris
Botha that Lord Roberts had crossed the Vaal, and suggested
surrender, further resistance appearing useless. This led to a
meeting of the opposed commanders, at which Botha asked what
terms Lord Roberts would offer. Buller immediately referred
the question to Lord Roberts, saying: "Can you let me know
your terms of peace for individual and separate commandos? … I
think they are inclined to give in, and that I have in front
of me about half the Transvaal forces now in the field. If you
think it worth while please let me know if I may mention any
terms of peace to them. I think, even if assisted from the
Orange Free State, it will cost me about 500 men killed and
wounded to get out of Natal." The reply of Lord Roberts, dated
June 3, 1900, was as follows: "Your telegram of yesterday. My
terms with the Transvaal Government are unconditional
surrender. With regard to troops, those who deliver up their
arms and riding animals are allowed to go to their homes on
signing pledge that they will not fight again during present
war. The exceptions to this rule are those who have commanded
portions of the Republican forces, or who have taken an active
part in the policy which brought about the war, or who have
been guilty of or been parties to wanton destruction of
property, or guilty of acts contrary to the usages of
civilized warfare. Principal officers should remain with you
on parole until you receive instructions regarding their
disposal." General Botha declined the terms.
Nine days later (June 12) Lord Roberts opened correspondence
on the same subject with General Louis Botha, Acting
Commandant-General of the Boer forces, endeavoring to persuade
him, "in the cause of humanity, to refrain from further
resistance." The Commandant-General wrote in return: "For the
purpose of arriving at a decision, it is not only absolutely
necessary for me to call a General Council of War of my
Officers and to consult them, but above all it is necessary
for me to consider the subject with my Government. I trust
that for the sake of humanity your Excellency will give me the
opportunity for such consideration and consultation. As some
of my Officers are near the Natal Border, and I am also a long
way separate from my Government, this will require some time.
I ask your Excellency kindly, therefore, for an armistice for
six days, beginning from to-morrow morning at sunrise, during
which time no forward movement will be made on either side
within the territory of the South African Republic."
Lord Roberts replied: "I am anxious to meet your wishes and to
enable your Honour to communicate with the Government of the
South African Republic, but as the movement of my troops in
that Republic are intimately connected with operations in
progress in other parts of South Africa, it is impossible for
me to accede to your Honour's request that there should be an
armistice for 6 days, during which time no forward movement
will be made on either side within the territory of the South
African Republic. I am willing, however, to refrain from
making further movements in the district to the east of the
Elands River Railway Station, our present most advanced post
in that direction, and also in the district north of the
Volksrust and Johannesburg Railway, for a period of five (5)
days, commencing at dawn on the 15th June, on the condition
that no movement westward or southward is made by the Army of
the South African Republic during that same period. This will,
I trust, give your Honour the opportunity you desire of
consulting your Officers and conferring with your Government,
and I sincerely hope that the result will be of such a
satisfactory nature as to prevent further unnecessary loss of
life."
The proposal was declined by General Botha, in the following
note (June 15): "In answer to your letter, dated 14th June,
just received by me, wherein your Excellency consents to an
armistice for five days, but with the reservation of the right
to your Excellency to move your Army in all directions within
the South African Republic, except cast of Elands River
Station and north of the Volksrust-Johannesburg Railway line,
I must, to my great regret, inform your Excellency that this
reservation makes it impossible for me to accept this
armistice, which I have so much desired."
{504}
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Continued resistance of the Boers in guerilla warfare.
An outline of the events of seven months.
A British view of the later situation.
"After the occupation of Pretoria, exhaustion of the mounted
forces and of the transport again supervened and Lord Roberts
was preoccupied with the double task of bringing up large
numbers of horses and masses of stores by a railway exposed to
attack along a distance of 290 miles, and at the same time of
dealing, as best he could, with scattered bodies of the enemy,
nowhere formidable in a military sense, but capable of much
mischief. The period beginning with the occupation of
Bloemfontein, during which the Boers developed and maintained
warfare of guerilla type, imposed highly responsible duties
upon British officers in charge of scattered posts and
convoys. In some cases those duties were not adequately
discharged, and for a time the defences of the important line
of communications appeared to be somewhat imperfectly
organized and supervised. There were signs of the tendency to
relax precautions after a conspicuous success, which has been
shown by British armies on other occasions. It was clear that
the main centre of Boer activity was in the Bethlehem
district, and at the end of June Lord Roberts despatched a
strong column south under Lieutenant-General Hunter to
co-operate with Major-Generals MacDonald, Clements, and Paget
from the west. Bethlehem was captured on July 7, and by the
end of the month Commandant Prinsloo, caught in the Brandwater
Basin between the forces of Lieutenant-Generals Hunter and
Rundle, surrendered with more than 4,000 men and a large
number of horses and wagons. … Meanwhile, Lord Roberts, who
had driven back the Boers along the Lorenzo Marques line, in
two actions near Eerste Fabrieken, on June 11 and 12, began an
advance eastward on July 23, and on August 7 Sir R. Buller
moved northwards from Paarde Kop. On August 25 the
Commander-in-Chief met Sir R. Buller and Generals French and
Pole-Carew at Belfast, and after the fighting of the 27th the
resistance of the Boers in this district practically
collapsed. Starting from Machadodorp on September 1, Sir R.
Buller moved slowly towards Spitzkop, driving the enemy before
him through a difficult mountainous region, and General French
pressed on to Barberton, which was occupied on the 13th
without opposition. On the 24th the Guards reached Komati
Poort. The rugged hill country east of Belfast offered great
opportunities for the tactics in which the Boers appeared to
excel; but the 'natural fortress surrounded by a glacis of
about 1,500 yards absolutely without cover' near Bergendal
Farm was not defended with the tenacity shown on previous
occasions, and the subsequent British advance led to a
wholesale destruction of artillery material and to the
surrender of some 3,000 men to the Portuguese. This, the third
great disaster which has befallen the Boers, left them without
any centre of resistance or any considerable gathering of
fighting men.
"Before the outbreak of war we estimated their available
strength at about 45,000, to which must be added some 10,000
colonial rebels and perhaps 5,000 mercenaries. It is doubtful
whether the force actually in the field at any one time
reached 45,000, and the total loss in killed, wounded and
prisoners, cannot be much less than 30,000. … Exhaustion of
supplies and of ammunition must soon begin to tell heavily
upon the Boers; but it cannot be said that they have at
present given evidence of personal demoralization.
Comparatively small bodies, lightly equipped, still hold the
field and show much activity over a wide area. It is
impossible to provide British garrisons for every town and
village, and wherever the roving bands of the enemy appear
there is a recrudescence of local hostility, even in districts
which have been apparently tranquil for months. Large mobile
columns are employed in pursuit, but the Boers carefully avoid
general engagements and attack only when there appears to be a
chance of surprising and overpowering small detachments. …
Mounted forces, marching as light as possible and capably
commanded, are the principal requirements of the situation. It
is necessary to give the roving commandos no rest and to make
every effort to capture their leaders. The work is not easy,
and it requires great energy and sound military judgment; but
it will be successfully accomplished, and the scale of the
operations will steadily dwindle into measures of police.
Meanwhile a gradual withdrawal of troops from South Africa is
taking place, and progress is doubtless being made with the
new organization under Lieutenant-General Baden-Powell, which
will be specially fitted for the work that now lies before us.
…
"The total casualties of the war up to the 31st ult. are
estimated at about 46,000, and 'the reduction of the military
forces' due to a campaign of more than a year is returned at
12,769, of which total 11,739 are accounted for by death,
including 6,482 victims to disease. It is impossible to rank
the Boer war among the great campaigns of the British Army;
but the peculiar difficulties must never be forgotten. The
closest parallel is probably that of the American Civil war,
in which an armed people long resisted far superior forces and
carried invasion into the territory of the stronger Power. The
military potentiality of the Southern States was at first as
little realized in Washington as was that of the Boers in
London, and disasters therefore resulted. In both cases the
issue was certain as soon as adequate force in strong hands
was available. The Southern leaders, like the Boers, hoped and
strove for foreign intervention in vain; but the former were
far less prepared for war than the latter. On the other hand
the Boers, though ably led in a limited sense, have produced
no commanders with a genius for war comparable to that of Lee
and of Jackson, nor have they shown the discipline and the
cohesion which characterized the Southern armies when at their
best. Desultory and irregular warfare may still be prolonged
for a time; great activity and ample vigilance will still be
required."
London Times,
November 5, 1900.
At the end of the year the "Times" summed up the later
features of the situation as follows: "The spirit of the Boers
remained unbroken, and small mobile commandos, scattered over
the vast area of the countries which we had undertaken to
occupy, perfectly familiar with the ground, and in close touch
with the civil population, have succeeded up to the present
time in making the task of the British Generals one of extreme
difficulty. The Boer resistance has centered chiefly in three
men, Commandants Louis Botha in the northeast, Delarey to the
west of Pretoria, and De Wet in the Orange Free State. The
first, who since the death of General Joubert, was in chief
command in Natal, and afterwards in the Eastern Transvaal, has
not been conspicuously active since September, but the other two
have achieved a great deal with their very limited resources,
and have earned enduring fame as guerrilla
chieftains.
{505}
De Wet, especially, after having been 'routed' and
'surrounded' times without number, has succeeded in giving
occupation to several British Generals and their forces up to
the present time, has kept the eastern part of the Orange
Colony in a continual ferment, and till now has defied the
energetic efforts of General Charles Knox to capture him.
Delarey, after remaining fairly quiescent for several weeks,
suddenly advanced through the Magaliesburg in the middle of
the present month with a force variously estimated at 1,500 or
3,000 men, surrounded and captured a position held by four
companies of the Northumberlands, and compelled the retreat of
General Clements and the evacuation of his camp. It is true
that these things are but the episodes of the later stages of
a war in which there will be no more great battles, but they
are exhausting, costly, and sometimes humiliating."
London Times,
December 31, 1900.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (August-December).
Farm-burning by the British troops.
Under proclamations issued by Lord Roberts in August and
September, aimed at the suppression of irregular warfare, a
punitive policy was adopted, which included the burning of
farmhouses where guerrilla bands were sheltered, or whose
inmates acted with such bands, and which soon came to be
denounced as one of shameful barbarity. Such different
representations have been made, as to the manner in which the
orders of Lord Roberts were carried out, and as to the measure
of devastation and suffering produced, that it seems to be
impossible to judge whether the British farm-burning in the
Transvaal and Orange Free State has or has not gone beyond the
usual brutalities that belong to the very nature of war. Mr.
Kruger, in speeches made after he went to Europe, represented
it as monstrous beyond example. "The war waged against us," he
said, on landing at Marseilles, "is a war of barbarians. I
have witnessed wars of barbarians and never have I seen
committed barbarities so monstrous as those committed daily
among us. Our farms, which we had had so much difficulty to
construct, are burned. The women whose husbands are at the war
are hunted down and brutally separated from their children,
who are deprived of bread and necessaries." The Afrikanders of
Cape Colony held similar language. Men of conscience and heart
in England were troubled by such accusations. Mr. Trevelyan, M.
P., wrote to "The Times," on the 24th of November: "What so
many of us feel, in the first place, is that we are not in a
position to form a fair judgment from sheer lack of the most
elementary reliable information of what has been done and is
still doing. An officer returned from the war about two months
told me the other day that he supposed only about 40 farms had
been burnt. I read in the 'Westminster Gazette' from an
equally honourable gentleman that it would not be an
exaggeration to say that one-third of the farms in the Orange
River Colony were in ashes. Clearly it is impossible for the
nation to make out the truth when such contradictory
statements are universally current. … One thing we do know for
certain—that on September 2 Lord Roberts, regarding the war as
having degenerated into guerrilla fighting, proclaimed that
all farms would be burnt within a radius of ten miles of any
point upon the railway raided by the Boers. It is now November
24. We know that many people innocent of any dealing with De
Wet have lost all they possess owing to his misguided energy.
Has it diminished sensibly the Boer forces in the field? If
not, what is its utility? … If the resistance of the Boers is
being lessened by these destructions, let us at least have the
poor consolation of knowing it. Again, we want to know what
really happens to the women and children whom our soldiers
conduct, I believe, generally to the nearest town after their
homes have been burned. People whose property has been totally
destroyed in a country where war has stopped all industry
obviously cannot keep themselves."
When Parliament met in December the subject was brought up
there, by Mr. Trevelyan and others, and debated at length,
without much clearer light on it being found. The government
could give no definite information as to what was being done,
but stoutly upheld the course which the military leaders had
taken. Mr. Balfour said: "The ordinary laws of war as
practised by civilized countries depend essentially upon
drawing a sharp distinction between combatant and
non-combatant. The combatant has his particular privileges,
the non-combatant has his particular privileges. What has been
universally found intolerable is that a man should oscillate,
according to his convenience, from one category to the
other—be a peaceful agriculturist when it suits him and an
effective combatant when circumstances seem to be favourable.
That practice is so intolerable that I believe all nations
have laid down the severest rules for repressing it. I have in
my hands the instructions to the army of the United States in
the field, dated 1898. I should like to read to the House two
extracts from this document. Rule 52 says:— 'If a people of a
country, or any portion of same already occupied by the army,
rises against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and
are not entitled to their protection.' The 82nd rule is to the
effect that men, or squads of men, who take part in raids of
any kind without permission, and without being part or portion
of an organized hostile army, are not public enemies, and
therefore if captured are not entitled to be treated as
prisoners of war, but shall be treated as highway robbers or
pirates."
Mr. Chamberlain said: "Lord Roberts's proclamation was to the
effect that, in the first instance, general officers were
authorized to burn down farmhouses as a punishment in cases in
which they were used as fortified places or places for the
concealment of arms, or in which the white flag had been
improperly used, or where they had been the scenes of gross
treachery and of acts contrary to the laws of war. As a matter
of right and morality, the Government are prepared to sustain
Lord Roberts absolutely. … Lord Roberts was placed in the most
difficult position in which a general could possibly be
placed. He had his base 1,500 miles away at least from his
front, through a most difficult country, and he was served
only by a single line of railway, and any catastrophe to the
railway might have meant a catastrophe to the whole army. It
is all very well to talk of humanity, but you must take first
account of our own people.
{506}
Now, Sir, it was of the first importance, it was the clear
duty of Lord Roberts, to take any steps in his power to
prevent the cutting of the line and the danger which would
thereby accrue to his force, and he accordingly issued a
proclamation that in the case of the destruction of the line
persons in the vicinity would be held responsible, and that
farmhouses in the vicinity might be destroyed. We understood
his proclamation to mean that he would require evidence of
some complicity on the part of the persons whose farmhouses
were destroyed. … We inquired the other day, when the matter
assumed greater importance, whether the construction we
placed upon the proclamation was true, and we have a reply
from Lord Kitchener, who has now taken the place of Lord
Roberts, that we are perfectly right in that assumption. …
According to the proclamation of Lord Roberts, whose humanity
is proverbial, and who therefore could not under any
circumstances be accused of unnecessary cruelty, cattle are
always to be paid for by the troops, or a receipt given,
which is as good as payment, except in those cases in which
the owner of the cattle has been guilty of acts of war or of
outrages which are punishable by all civilized nations who
are at war. Therefore the taking of cattle does not mean
necessarily that the owner of the cattle is placed in the
impossibility of continuing his occupation. If he has not got
the cattle he has got the money for them except in the cases
in which destruction has taken place as a punitive measure.
In all other cases the instructions are precise, and I
believe from all the information we have obtained from the
reports of the generals in the field they have been strictly
carried out. Never in the history of war has war been carried
out with so much humanity on the part of the officers and of
the soldiers concerned as in the present war. The honourable
member also spoke of the deportation of women. That sounds
like something serious, but I believe it will be found that
it is only for their own protection. If we are unable in this
vast country to occupy and garrison every bit of it, when our
troops are removed, if women and children are left alone they
remain there in some danger—in danger from those marauding
bands of which I have spoken and also from the vast native
population. And, Sir, this native population is answerable, I
believe, for every case of proved outrage either upon women
or children. I believe, and the last reports we have received
confirm that belief, that in no case has a British soldier
been justly accused of such an outrage."
The following proclamation, issued by Lord Roberts, November
18, seems to indicate that there had been practices in
farm-burning, before that time, which he could not approve:
"As there appears to be some misunderstanding with reference
to burning of farms and breaking of dams, Commander-in-Chief
wishes following to be lines on which General Officers
Commanding are to act:—No farm is to be burnt except for act
of treachery, or when troops have been fired on from premises,
or as punishment for breaking of telegraph or railway line, or
when they have been used as bases of operations for raids, and
then only with direct consent of General Officer Commanding,
which is to be given in writing, the mere fact of a burgher
being absent on commando is on no account to be used as reason
for burning the house. All cattle, wagons, and foodstuffs are
to be removed from all farms; if that is found to be
impossible, they are to be destroyed, whether owner be present
or not."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Cd. 426, 1900, page 23.
SOUTH AFRICA: Rhodesia: A. D. 1900 (September).
Protectorate over Barotsiland.
The "Cape Times" of September 19, 1900, stated that a
"Government Gazette Extraordinary" had been issued containing
an Order in Council proclaiming a protectorate over
Barotsiland—North-Western Rhodesia. "The limits of the country
included in the protectorate are the parts of Africa bounded
by the River Zambesi, the German South-West African
Protectorate, the Portuguese possessions, the Congo Free
State, and the Kafukwe or Loengi River. The Order provides
that the British South Africa Company may nominate officials
to govern the territory, and that these are to be confirmed by
the High Commissioner. The High Commissioner may, amongst
other things, from time to time by proclamation provide for
the administration of justice, the raising of revenue by the
imposition of taxes (which may include a tax in respect of the
occupation of native huts), and Customs duties or otherwise,
and generally for the peace, order, and good government of all
persons within the limits of the order, including the
prohibition and punishment of acts tending to disturb the
public peace. The expenses of the administration of this
country, if not entirely borne by the revenues of the country,
will be borne by the British South Africa Company, and if the
revenue more than meet the expenses, the excess will be paid
to the Chartered Company."
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1900 (September).
Leave of absence to President Kruger.
His departure for Europe.
Proclamation of Lord Roberts.
The following proclamation by the Executive Council of the
Boer government was issued from Nelspruit on the 10th of
September, 1900: "Whereas the advanced age of His Honour the
State President makes it impossible for His Honour further to
accompany the Commandos; and whereas the Executive Council is
convinced that the highly-valued services of His Honour can
still be usefully applied in the interest of Land and People,
the Executive Council hereby determines to grant His Honour
leave of absence to Europe for the period of six months, in
order still to advance our cause there, and Mr. S. W. Burger,
Vice-President, takes his place according to law.
[Signed] S. W. BURGER, Vice President.
F. W. REITZ, State Secretary."
Lord Roberts seems to have regarded the acceptance of this
"leave of absence" by President Kruger as equivalent to a
resignation of his office; for he published, on the 14th of
September, a proclamation in the following words:
"The late President, Mr. Kruger, and Mr. Reitz, with the
archives of the South African Republic, have crossed the
Portuguese frontier, and arrived at Lourenço Marques with a
view to sailing for Europe at an early date. Mr. Kruger has
formally resigned the position he held as President of the
South African Republic, thus severing his official connection
with the Transvaal. Mr. Kruger's action shows how hopeless in
his opinion is the war which has now been carried on for
nearly a year, and his desertion of the Boer cause should make
it clear to his fellow burghers that it is useless for them to
continue the struggle any longer.
{507}
"It is probably unknown to the inhabitants of the Transvaal
and Orange River Colony that nearly 15,000 of their
fellow-subjects are now prisoners of war, not one of whom will
be released until those now in arms against us surrender
unconditionally. The burghers must by this time be cognisant
of the fact that no intervention on their behalf can come from
any of the Great Powers, and, further, that the British Empire
is determined to complete the work which has already cost her
so many valuable lives, and to carry to its conclusion the war
declared against her by the late Governments of the South
African Republic and Orange Free State, a war to which there
can be but one ending. If any further doubts remain in the
minds of the burghers as to Her Britannic Majesty's
intentions, they should be dispelled by the permanent manner
in which the country is gradually being occupied by Her
Majesty's Forces, and by the issue of the Proclamations signed
by me on the 24th May and 1st September 1900, annexing the
Orange Free State and the South African Republic respectively,
in the name of Her Majesty.
"I take this opportunity of pointing out that, except in the
small area occupied by the Boer army under the personal
command of Commandant-General Botha, the war is degenerating,
and has degenerated, into operations carried on in an
irregular and irresponsible manner by small, and in very many
cases, insignificant bodies of men. I should be failing in my
duty to Her Majesty's Government and to Her Majesty's Army in
South Africa if I neglected to use every means in my power to
bring such irregular warfare to an early conclusion. The means
which I am compelled to adopt are those which the customs of
war prescribe as being applicable to such cases. They are
ruinous to the country, and entail endless suffering on the
burghers and their families, and the longer this guerrilla
warfare continues the more vigorously must they be enforced."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
1900, Cd. 420, page 78, and Cd. 426, page 17.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Transvaal: A. D. 1900 (October).
Proclamation of annexation to the British Dominions.
In terms similar to those used in proclaiming the annexation
of the Orange Free State (see above: MAY) the annexation of
the Transvaal to the Dominions of Her British Majesty was
proclaimed with great ceremony at Pretoria on the 25th of
October.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (November).
Return of Lord Roberts to England, leaving Lord Kitchener
in command.
Having been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the British Army,
in the place of Lord Wolseley, Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, on
the 29th of November, delivered the command in South Africa to
Lord Kitchener, and returned to England. At the same time,
Lord Kitchener was raised to the rank of Lieutenant-General.
SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony and the Transvaal:
A. D. 1900 (December).
Afrikander Congress.
Lord Kitchener to the burghers of Pretoria.
From 6,000 to 8,000 persons were reported to be in attendance
at an "Afrikander Congress," held at Worcester, in Cape
Colony, December 6, which adopted the following resolutions:
"1. We men and women of South Africa assembled and represented
here, having heard the report of the people's deputation to
England, and having taken into earnest consideration the
deplorable condition into which the people of South Africa
have been plunged, and the grave danger threatening our
civilization, record our solemn conviction that the highest
interests of South Africa demand, first, the termination of
the war now raging with untold misery and horror, such as the
burning of houses, the devastation of the country, the
extermination of the white nationality, and the treatment to
which women and children are subjected, which will leave a
lasting heritage of bitterness and hatred, while seriously
endangering further relations between civilization and
barbarism in South Africa; secondly, the retention by the
Republics of their independence, whereby alone the peace of
South Africa can be maintained.
2. The congress desires full recognition of the right of the
people of this colony under its Constitution to settle and
manage their own affairs and to express grave disapproval of
the policy pursued and the attitude adopted in this matter by
the Governor and High Commissioner, his Excellency Sir Alfred
Milner.
3. The congress solemnly pledges itself to labour in a
constitutional way unceasingly for the above resolutions, and
resolves to send a deputation to his Excellency Sir Alfred
Milner, asking him to bring the resolutions officially to the
notice of her Majesty's Government."
On the 21st of December Lord Kitchener addressed a meeting, at
Pretoria, of burghers who had surrendered to the British and
who desired to bring about peace. In his remarks he was
reported to have said: "The Boers had fought a good fight, but
they were overpowered. There would be no dishonour in the
leaders recognizing this fact. The proclamations that had been
issued were of little use, as means were adopted to prevent
them from reaching the burghers. He trusted that the committee
would endeavour to acquaint the Boers in the field with the
true position. He desired to give them every chance to
surrender voluntarily, and to finish the war by the most
humane means possible. If the conciliatory methods now being
adopted failed he had other means which he would be obliged to
exercise. He would give the committee notice if the time
arrived to consider conciliation as a failure. The principal
difficulties were that burghers desirous of surrendering were
afraid they would not be allowed to remain in their own
districts or that they would be punished for violating their
oath of neutrality. General Kitchener declared that he had
issued instructions that burghers who surrendered would, with
their families and stock, be protected in their own districts.
Those who had broken the oath of neutrality under compulsion
would be accorded the same treatment. Deserted women and
children would be kept in laagers, where their friends could
freely join them. It was essential to clear the country. While
food remained the commandos were enabled to continue in the
field. General Kitchener added that it must be understood that
the British would not be responsible for stock unless it was
brought in and kept within protected limits. In conclusion
General Kitchener said that he had come to speak to the
burghers personally in order that they might be able to tell
their friends what they had heard from his own lips."
{508}
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1900 (December).
Numbers of British troops employed in the war from the
beginning, and their losses.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
SOUTH AFRICA: British Colonies: A. D. 1901 (January).
New heads of the Colonial Governments.
The following appointments were announced by the British
Colonial Office on the 4th of January, 1901: Sir Alfred Milner
to be Governor of the Transvaal and British High Commissioner.
The Honourable Sir Walter Francis Hely-Hutchinson (Governor of
Natal and Zululand since 1893) to be Governor of Cape Colony.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Henry C. McCallum (Governor of
Newfoundland since 1898, and aide-de-camp to the Queen since
1900) to be Governor of Natal. Major Hamilton John Goold-Adams
(Resident Commissioner of the Bechuanaland Protectorate) to be
Lieutenant-Governor of the Orange River Colony.
SOUTH AFRICA: Cape Colony: A. D. 1901 (January).
Boer invasion.
Declaration of martial law.
On New Year's Day, 1901, the Cape Town correspondent of the
"London Times" was compelled to write: "The immediate aspect
of affairs in Cape Colony at the opening of the new year is
scarcely less gloomy than at the beginning of 1900. The number
of Boers invading the country to-day may be less than it was a
year ago, but they have penetrated further south, and their
presence near such centres of hostile Dutch feeling as Graaf
Reinet constitutes an element of danger which was not present
last January. The proclamation issued this morning by the High
Commissioner calling for volunteers to defend the lines of
communication proves that the military authorities are at last
alive to the critical nature of the situation, but the measure
comes very late in the day."
On the 17th of January a cable message from Cape Town
announced: "An extraordinary gazette issued this afternoon
contains a proclamation placing the whole of the Cape Colony
under martial law, with the exception of the Cape Town,
Wynberg, Simonstown, Port Elizabeth and East London districts
and the territories of the Transkei, Tembuland, Griqualand and
East Pondoland. The gazette also states that the
peace-preservation act will be enforced in the Cape Colony,
Wynberg and Simonstown districts. Under this act all the civil
population will be called upon to deliver up their arms."
SOUTH AFRICA: Orange Free State: A. D. 1901 (January).
Peace movement.
Condition of country described.
Defiant proclamation of Steyn and De Wet.
Early in January, a "Central Peace Committee," formed at
Kroonstad, addressed an open letter to their fellow citizens,
appealing for submission and peace, saying: "The country is
literally one vast wilderness. The farmers are obliged to go
to the towns for protection, and huge refugee camps have been
formed by the British for them and their families. These
people have lost everything, and ruin and starvation stare
them in the face. All this misery is caused by a small and
obstinate minority, who will not bow to the inevitable and who
make the majority suffer. Any encouragement to the men still
on commando to continue the hopeless struggle can only injure
us and cause us further misery. We have done our best and
fought to get Africa under one flag, and we have lost. Let
there be no mistake about this. England has spent millions and
sacrificed thousands of lives, and no reasonable being can
believe for one moment that she will now give up the fruits of
victory. It is, therefore, a duty for us, her beaten foe, to
accept the terms offered by our conqueror. … We appeal to you
and ask you to appoint another congress, and nominate men of
influence out of your midst to visit Mr. Steyn and General De
Wet, and try to persuade them to accept the terms offered by
England. These two men are the only obstacles to peace. We ask
you to believe us when we say that Mr. Kruger and the late
Transvaal Government have been willing twice already to accept
British terms, but Mr. Steyn refused to have anything to do
with surrender. He continued the war and encouraged the
burghers in the hope that we should get European assistance.
To-day he is cut off from all communication with the outside
world. You know and we know how unfounded that hope is and it
is your duty to assist us to make him understand this. We
appeal to you to help us to make an end to this unhappy state
of affairs, which is plunging everybody into poverty and
despair."
As if in response to this cry for peace, Steyn and De Wet
issued the following proclamation a few days later: "Be it
known to all that the war which was forced on the Republics by
the British Government still rages in the Orange Free State
and in the South African Republic; and that the customs of
civilized warfare and also the Conventions of Geneva and The
Hague have not been observed by the enemy, who has not
scrupled, contrary to the Geneva Convention, to capture
doctors and ambulances and to deport them, in order to prevent
our wounded from getting medical assistance. He has seized
ambulances and material appertaining thereto, and has not
hesitated, contrary to the recognized primitive rules of
warfare, and contrary to his solemn agreement at The Hague, to
arrest neutrals and deport them, and to send out marauding
bands to plunder, burn, and damage the burghers' private
property. He has armed Kaffirs and natives and made use of
them against us in war. He has been continually busy capturing
women and children, old and sickly men. Many women's deaths
have been occasioned because the so-called Christian enemy had
no consideration for women on a sick bed or for those whose
state of health should have protected them against rough
treatment. Honourable women and tender children have not only
been treated roughly, but also in an insulting manner by the
soldiers, by order of their officers. Moreover, old mothers
and women have been raped, even wives and children. The
property of prisoners of war, and even of killed burghers, has
not been respected. In many instances the mother and father
have been taken from the house, which was thus left
unprotected, and all have been left to their fate, an easy
prey to the savage. The world has been untruthfully informed
by the enemy that he was obliged to carry out this destruction
because the burghers blew up the line and cut the wires, or
misused the white flag. Nearly all the houses in the two
Republics have been destroyed, whether in the neighbourhood of
the railway line or not; while with regard to the misuse of
the white flag, that is simply a continuance of the
everlasting calumny against which the Afrikander has had to
strive since God brought him into contact with Englishmen.
Robbing his opponent of his goods has not satisfied him; he
will not be satisfied till he has robbed him of his good name
also.
{509}
"Then he wishes to inform the world that the Republics are
conquered and the war ended, and that only here and there
small plundering bands are to be found who continue the strife
in an irresponsible manner. It is an untruth. The Republics
are not yet conquered. The war is not finished. The burgher
forces of the two Republics are still led by responsible
leaders, as from the commencement of the war, under the
supervision of the Governments of both Republics. The fact
that Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener choose to term the
burgher forces marauding bands does not make them such.
Similarly, saying that the war is over does not put an end to
it while fighting still continues. When was this war over?
After the battle of Spion Kop or after Paardeberg? After the
occupation of Bloemfontein or Pretoria? Or perhaps after the
battles of Dewetsdorp or Commando Nek, in both of which
irregulars were captured and the enemy totally vanquished. The
burghers would be less than men if they allowed the enemy to
go unpunished after ill-treating their wives and destroying
their homes from sheer lust of destruction. Therefore a
portion of our burghers have again been sent into Cape Colony,
not only to wage war, but to be in a position to make
reprisals as they have already done in the case of the
ambulances. Therefore we again warn the officers of her
Majesty's troops that unless they cease the destruction of
property in the Republics, we shall wreak vengeance by
destroying the property of her Majesty's subjects who are
unkindly disposed to us; but at the same time, to avoid being
misunderstood, we hereby openly declare that the women and
children will always remain unmolested, despite anything done
to ours by her Majesty's troops. We ask for nothing from our
brothers in Cape Colony, but we call upon them, as well as
upon the civilized world, to assist on behalf of civilization
and Christianity in putting an end to the barbarous manner of
the enemy's warfare. Our prayer will always be that the God of
our fathers will not desert us in this unrighteous strife.

"On the field, January 14. STEYN. DE WET."
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (February).
Report of British military forces in South Africa from the
beginning of the war, with the number of killed and wounded
and the deaths from wounds and disease.
A Parliamentary paper issued on the 26th of February, 1901,
contained the following table, showing the strength of the
garrison in South Africa on the 1st of August, 1899, before
the beginning of the war, with the subsequent reinforcements
and casualties, and the total strength of forces on the 1st of
February, 1901:
|NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND MEN.
OFFICERS|CAVALRY|ARTILLERY|INFANTRY|OTHERS|TOTAL|TOTAL
AND OFFICERS
MOUNTED AND MEN
INFANTRY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Garrison on
Aug. 1, 1899 318 1,127 1,035 6,428 1,032 9,622 9,940
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
II.
Reinforcements,
Aug. 1, 1899,
to Oct. 11, 1899
(outbreak of war)
(1.) From Home. 280 … 743 5,620 … 6,363 6,643
(2.) From India
(some of these did
not reach South
Africa until after
the outbreak of
hostilities) 259 1,564 653 3,427 … 5,644 5,903
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
539 1,564 1,396 9,047 … 12,007 12,546
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Further
reinforcements
from Oct. 11,
1899, to end
of July, 1900
Regulars
(1.) From Home
and Colonies. 5,748 11,003 14,145 110,292 14,347 149,787 155,535
(2.) From India. 132 713 376 670 … 1,759 1,891
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5,880 11,716 14,521 110,962 14,347 151,546 157,426
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonials
(1.) From Colonies
other than
South African. 550 287 692 9,788 267 11,034 11,584
(2.) Raised in
South Africa. 1,387 … … … … 28,932 30,319
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,937 … … … … 39,966 41,903
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial yeomanry. 536 … … … … 10,195 10,731
Volunteers from
United Kingdom. 342 … 358 9,995 434 10,787 11,129
Militia. 831 … 617 19,753 256 20,626 21,457
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total all arms
sent to, and
raised in,
South Africa
up to Aug. 1, 1900,
including garrison
on Aug. 1, 1899. 10,383 … … … … 254,749 265,132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Further
reinforcements
from Aug. 1, 1900,
to Jan. 31, 1901
(1.) Regulars 820 3,213 652 10,439 975 15,279 16,099
(2.) Militia 7 … … 1,141 … 1,141 1,148
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11,210 … … … … 271,169 282,379
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{510}
NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND MEN.
Officers Cavalry. Artillery. Infantry Others. Total. Total
and Officers
Mounted and Men
Infantry
V. Numbers
(1.) Killed to
Jan. 31, 1901 334. 3,346 3,680
(2.) Wounded to
Jan 31, 1901. 1,242. 14,914 16,156
(3.) Died of disease
or wounds or accidentally
killed in South Africa
to Jan. 31, 1001. 301. 9,008 9,309
(4.) Disbanded and
discharged in South Africa. 299. 5,231 5,530
(5.) In hospital in South
Africa on Dec. 28, 1900
(latest returns). 415. 13,716 14,131
VI. Numbers left
South Africa
(1.) For England
not invalids. 1,214 11,109 12,323
(2.) For England
sick, wounded, and
died on passage 1,703 39,095 40,198
(3.) Returned to India
direct from South Africa. 20 70 90
(4.) Returned to Colonies
direct from South Africa
(a) Regulars, including two
battalions to Ceylon. 98 2,041 2,139
(b) Colonials. 177 3,384 3,561
VII. Present strength of
Forces in South Africa,
Feb. 1, 1901
(1.) Regulars. 4,305 12,600 12,000 99,700 12,885 137,185 141,490
(2.) Colonials. 1,339 27,000 28,339*
(3.) Imperial yeomanry 495 7,500 7,995
4.) Volunteers. 200 7,500 7,700
5.) Militia. 725 18,700 19,425
TOTAL 7,064 197,885 204,949*
* Exclusive of recently raised Colonials whose numbers have not yet been reported.
On the 9th of February the following announcement was issued
officially from the British War Office:
"In view of recent Boer activity in various directions his
Majesty's Government have decided, in addition to the large
forces recently equipped locally in South Africa, to reinforce
Lord Kitchener by 30,000 mounted troops beyond those already
landed in Cape Colony. The recruiting for Imperial Yeomanry
has proceeded so rapidly that it is anticipated not less than
10,000 will be shortly available. The South African Mounted
Constabulary, including those enlisted in the colonies, may be
relied upon to the extent of 8,000. The new colonial
contingents to replace those withdrawn will probably reach
5,000. The remainder of the force will be made up by cavalry
and mounted infantry from the home establishment. The
enlistment of Volunteer companies to replace those who have
served a year in South Africa is also being proceeded with.
Arrangements have been made for the prompt equipment and
transportation of the force."
In reply to a question in Parliament the 18th of February,
1901, Mr. Brodrick, the Secretary of State for War, stated
that the total number of cases of typhoid or enteric fever in
the British army, from the beginning of the war to the end of
December, 1900, had been 19,101; deaths 4,233; invalided and
sent home, 10,075.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (February).
The declared policy of the British Government.
Speaking in the House of Commons on the 18th of February,
1901, the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, declared the
government policy of dealing with the Boers, with strong
emphasis, in the following words:
"From the moment when the invasion took place, and the first
shot was fired by the Boers, from that moment we declared our
policy, that not one shred of the independence which the Boers
had abused should ever again be conceded to them. That was the
policy stated by the Prime Minister in his answer to the
representations which were made to him by the Presidents of
the two Republics. That was the policy, is the policy, and
will be the policy of His Majesty's Government to the end. Let
there be no mistake about that. It is no use arguing with us
on the subject of independence. That, as far as we are
concerned, is a closed question. Raise it, if you like to
raise it, not in speeches, but by amendments. We are quite
ready. We challenged you at the last election. You have never
ceased to complain of the challenge. We challenge you in the
House of Commons. If you believe the annexation we have
announced ought to be repudiated; if you think, with the
honorable and learned gentleman who has just spoken, that we
ought to restore the independence of these two Republics, in
any form, it is for you to say so in a definite amendment. It
is for you to put the issue before the House of Commons and
the country and we are perfectly prepared to meet you.
Assuming that we are all agreed that annexation cannot be
undone, then the policy of the Government is to establish
equality and protection and justice for the native population
and to grant the fuller liberties involved in our definition
of self-government as soon as that can safely be conceded. …
The Boers know perfectly well, they have been told again and
again, directly and indirectly, and it has been repeatedly
stated in this House that at the earliest possible moment they
will be granted self-government."
{511}
The Liberal leader interrupted the speaker to intimate that he
understood a Crown colony government to be in contemplation,
and that his objection was to that. On which Mr. Chamberlain
proceeded to say: "Either the right honourable gentleman does
not know what Crown colony government is or else he is
quibbling about words. Will he be satisfied if I call it a
civil government, with Ministers and a Governor appointed by
his Majesty and a council to advise him? That is civil
government, and it has this about it—that the Imperial
Government has control in the last resort. That is what we
mean. … We are quite ready to establish the civil government
of which I have spoken, we are ready to maintain equality, we
are ready to secure justice to all the inhabitants of the
Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, but we are not prepared
to put into their hands the whole control of the
administration and civil government until we know it will be
safe to do so. It is said that our views have not been
communicated to the Boers and that a proclamation which I
promised I would endeavour to have circulated has not yet been
so distributed. I wish to say that, so far as the leaders are
concerned, I am convinced they know perfectly well what terms
we are willing to offer. There is no excuse on their part. It
is possible that many of their followers, being ignorant
people—when they come to us we find they have been deceived as
to what is going on—do not know the terms we are willing to
offer. We have by various means endeavoured to get to the rank
and file a knowledge of the terms which are being offered, and
we know what the result has been. The emissaries have been
sent—emissaries not sent by us, permitted by us to go, who
volunteered themselves in what they believed to be the
interests of their countrymen, to make these representations—
these emissaries have been apparently, as far as our
information goes, brutally ill-used, tortured before
execution, shot as spies after having been flogged. "
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (February).
Attitude of the English Liberal party towards the war.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (February-March).
Unsuccessful peace parley between Lord Kitchener and
Commandant Botha.
By the intermediation of the wife of the Boer Commandant Louis
Botha, an interview between that officer and Lord Kitchener
was brought about, on the last day of February, for discussion
"as to means of bringing the war to an end." The questions raised
in the conversation were reported by Lord Kitchener to Mr.
Brodrick, the British Secretary for War, in a telegram from
Pretoria, March 1, as follows: "I have had a long interview
with Botha, who showed very good feeling and seemed anxious to
bring about peace. He asked for information on a number of
subjects which he said that he should submit to his Government
and people, and if they agreed he should visit Orange River
Colony and get them to agree. They should all then hand in
their arms and finish the war. He told me that they could go
on for some time, and that he was not sure of being able to
bring about peace without independence. He tried very hard for
some kind of independence, but I declined to discuss such a
point, and said that a modified form of independence would be
most dangerous and likely to lead to war in the future.
Subject was then dropped, and—
"Firstly.—The nature of future government of Colonies asked
about. He wanted more details than were given by Colonial
Secretary, and I said that, subject to correction from home, I
understood that when hostilities ceased military guard would be
replaced by Crown Colony administration, consisting of
nominated Executive, with elected assembly to advise
administration, to be followed after a period by
representative government. He would have liked representative
government at once, but seemed satisfied with above.
"Secondly.—Whether a Boer would be able to have a rifle to
protect him from native? I said I thought he would be by a
licence and on registration.
"Thirdly.—He asked whether Dutch language would be allowed? I
said that English and Dutch would, I thought, have equal
rights. He expressed hope that officials dealing with farmers
would know Dutch.
"Fourthly.—The Kaffir question. This turned at once on
franchise of Kaffirs, and a solution seemed to be that
franchise should not be given to Kaffirs until after
representative government was granted to Colonies. Orange Free
State laws for Kaffirs were considered good.
"Fifthly.—That Dutch Church property should remain untouched.
"Sixthly.—Public trusts and orphan funds to be left intact. He
asked whether British Government, in taking over the assets of
Republics, would also take over legal debts. This he made
rather a strong point of, and he intended it to include debts
legally contracted since the war began. He referred to notes
issued amounting to less than a million.
"Seventhly.—He asked if any war tax would be imposed on
farmers? I said I thought not.
"Eighthly.—When would prisoners of war return?
"Ninthly.—He referred to pecuniary assistance to repair burnt
farms, and enable fanners to start afresh. I said I thought
some assistance would be given.
"Tenthly.—Amnesty to all at end of war. We spoke of Colonials
who joined Republics, and he seemed not adverse to their being
disfranchised.
"I arranged with him that I should write and let him know the
view of the Government on these points. All I said during the
interview was qualified by being subject to confirmation from
home. He was anxious to get an answer soon."
Two days later, General Kitchener drafted and submitted to
High Commissioner Sir A. Milner the reply which he wished to
be authorized to make to the questions of Commandant Botha.
This was transmitted, in turn, by the High Commissioner to
Colonial Secretary Chamberlain, with approval of all the
suggestions of Lord Kitchener, except on the subject of
amnesty to the rebel "Afrikanders" of Cape Colony and Natal,
who had joined the ranks of the Boers. Lord Kitchener wished
to say that "on the cessation of hostilities and the complete
surrender of arms, ammunition, cannon, and other munitions of
war now in the hands of the burghers in the field or in
Government depots or elsewhere, His Majesty's Government is
prepared at once to grant an amnesty in the Transvaal and
Orange River Colony for all bona fide acts of war committed
during the recent hostilities; as well as to move the
Governments of Cape Colony and Natal to take similar action
but qualified by the disfranchisement of any British subjects
implicated in the recent war."
{512}
Sir Alfred Milner proposed to amend the latter clause as
follows: "British subjects of Cape Colony or Natal, though
they will not be compelled to return to those Colonies, will,
if they do so, be liable to be dealt with under the laws of
those Colonies specifically passed to meet the circumstances
arising out of the present war and which greatly mitigate the
ordinary penalties of rebellion." "While willing," he said,
"to concede much in order to strengthen Botha in inducing his
people to submit, the amnesty of rebels is not, in my opinion,
a point which His Majesty's Government can afford to concede.
I think it would have a deplorable effect in Cape Colony and
Natal to obtain peace by such a concession." Mr. Chamberlain
agreed with the High Commissioner, writing in reply: "His
Majesty's Government feel that they cannot promise to ask for
complete amnesty to Cape and Natal rebels who are in totally
different position to burghers without injustice to those who
have remained loyal under great provocation, and they are
prepared substantially to adopt your words, but you must
consider whether your last line is strictly applicable to
Natal." Mr. Chamberlain made numerous other criticisms of Lord
Kitchener's suggested letter, and amended it in many
particulars, the most important of which related to the form
of government under which the late republics would be placed.
Lord Kitchener would have said: "Military law will cease and
be at once replaced by civil administration, which will at
first consist of a Governor and a nominated Executive with or
without an advisory elected Assembly, but it is the desire of
His Majesty's Government, as soon as circumstances permit, to
establish representative Government in the Transvaal and
Orange River Colony." His political superior instructed him to
change the statement as follows: "For 'military law will
cease' say 'military administration will cease.' It is
possible that there may be disturbed districts for some time
after terms have been accepted, and Governor of Colonies
cannot abandon right of proclaiming martial law where
necessary. In the same sentence omit the words 'at the same
time' and 'at once' and substitute at the beginning the words
'at the earliest practicable date.' For 'consist of a
Governor' down to 'Assembly' read 'consist of a Governor and
an Executive Council composed of the principal officials with
a Legislative Council consisting of a certain number of
official members to whom a nominated unofficial element will
from the first be added.' In place of the words 'to establish
representative government' substitute 'to introduce a
representative element, and ultimately to concede to the new
Colonies the privilege of self-government.' It is desirable at
this stage to be quite precise in order to avoid any charge of
breach of faith afterwards."
Out of the instructions he received, Lord Kitchener finally
framed the following letter to Commandant Botha, sent to him
on the 7th of March: "With reference to our conversation at
Middelburg on 28th February, I have the honour to inform you
that in the event of a general and complete cessation of
hostilities and the surrender of all rifles, ammunition,
cannon, and other munitions of war in the hands of the
burghers or in Government depots or elsewhere, His Majesty's
Government is prepared to adopt the following measures:
"His Majesty's Government will at once grant an amnesty in the
Transvaal and Orange River Colonies for all bona fide acts of
war committed during the recent hostilities. British subjects
belonging to Natal and Cape Colony, while they will not be
compelled to return to those Colonies, will, if they do so, be
liable to be dealt with by the law of those Colonies specially
passed to meet the circumstances arising out of the present
war. As you are doubtless aware, the special law in the Cape
Colony has greatly mitigated the ordinary penalties for high
treason in the present cases.
"All prisoners of war now in St. Helena, Ceylon, or elsewhere
will, on the completion of the surrender, be brought back to
their country as quickly as arrangements can be made for their
transport.
"At the earliest practicable date military administration will
cease and will be replaced by civil administration in the form
of Crown Colony Government. There will therefore be, in the
first instance, in each of the new Colonies a Governor and an
Executive Council, consisting of a certain number of official
members, to whom a nominated unofficial element will be added.
But it is the desire of His Majesty's Government, as soon as
circumstances permit, to introduce a representative element
and ultimately to concede to the new Colonies the privilege of
self-government. Moreover, on the cessation of hostilities a High
Court will be established in each of the new Colonies to
administer the law of the land, and this Court will be
independent of the Executive.
"Church property, public trusts, and orphans funds will be
respected.
"Both the English and Dutch languages will be used and taught
in public schools where parents of the children desire it, and
allowed in Courts of Law.
"As regards the debts of the late Republican Governments, His
Majesty's Government cannot undertake any liability. It is,
however, prepared, as an act of grace, to set aside a sum not
exceeding £1,000,000 to repay inhabitants of the Transvaal and
Orange River Colonies for goods requisitioned from them by the
late Republican Governments, or, subsequent to annexation, by
Commandants in the field being in a position to enforce such
requisitions. But such claims will have to be established to
the satisfaction of a Judge or Judicial Commission appointed
by the Government to investigate and assess them, and if
exceeding in the aggregate £1,000,000, they will be liable to
reduction pro rata.
"I also beg to inform your Honour that the new Government will
take into immediate consideration the possibility of assisting
by loan the occupants of farms who will take the oath of
allegiance to repair any injury sustained by destruction of
buildings or loss of stock during the war, and that no special
war tax will be imposed on farmers to defray the expense of
the war.
"When burghers require the protection of fire-arms such will
be allowed to them by licence and on due registration,
provided they take the oath of allegiance. Licences also will
be issued for sporting rifles, guns, &c., but military
firearms will only be allowed for means of protection.
{513}
"As regards the extension of the franchise to Kaffirs in the
Transvaal and Orange River Colony, it is not the intention of
His Majesty's Government to give such franchise before
representative government is granted to these Colonies, and if
then given it will be so limited as to secure the just
predominance of the white races. The legal position of
coloured persons will, however, be similar to that which they
hold in Cape Colony.
"In conclusion, I must inform your Honour that if the terms
now offered are not accepted after a reasonable delay for
consideration they must be regarded as cancelled."
On the 16th of March the following reply came from the Boer
Commandant: "I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your
Excellency's letter stating what steps your Excellency's
Government is prepared to take in the event of a general and
total cessation of hostilities. I have advised my Government
of your Excellency's said letter; but, after the mutual
exchange of views at our interview at Middelburg on 28th
February last, it will certainly not surprise your Excellency
to know that I do not feel disposed to recommend that the
terms of the said letter shall have the earnest consideration
of my Government. I may add also that my Government and my
chief officers here entirely agree to my views." This ended
the negotiations.
A discussion of the negotiations in Parliament occurred on the
28th of March, when Mr. Bryce (Liberal) said "they were agreed
that the Government took an onward step when they allowed the
peace negotiations to be entered into, and it was important to
observe that, not only Lord Kitchener, but Sir Alfred Milner
was persuaded that General Botha meant business. It was
possible there were causes at work with which the House were
not acquainted which caused the negotiations to be broken off.
General Botha wrote to Lord Kitchener:—'You will not be
surprised to hear that my answer is in the negative.' One of
two things must have happened—either Lord Kitchener heard from
General Botha something that the House had not heard of, or
else General Botha was so much struck by the difference
between the terms which Lord Kitchener had discussed and the
terms contained in the letter that he conceived a distrust of
us altogether and believed that the Government would not
accept what Lord Kitchener had offered. He thought the
Government were right in asking that the oath of allegiance
should be taken, that they were entitled to insist upon the
provision that all hostilities must cease, and that they could
not pledge themselves as to the precise time when they would
bring back the prisoners. But there were three points on which
there were substantial differences between the terms Lord
Kitchener appeared to have offered and the terms in the final
letter. The first is the question of amnesty for the Cape
rebels. Lord Kitchener and General Botha appeared to have come
to an agreement on that subject. General Botha did not object
to the disfranchisement of the Cape rebels, and Lord Kitchener
did not appear to have conveyed any suggestion whatever of
anything except disfranchisement. He could conceive nothing
more likely to turn back the pacific desires of the Boers than
the fact that they found that, instead of the Cape rebels
having nothing but disfranchisement to fear, they were to be
held subject to the Cape laws as to treason. He was not
arguing whether that was right or wrong. The question was what
the Boers would think, and he put it to the House that it was
the most natural thing that they should be struck by the
contrast between the terms which Lord Kitchener appeared to
offer and the terms which were offered when the final letter
came, and that that was just the point upon which brave men,
feeling for their comrades, would be inclined to stand out.
They would be told that they would displease the loyalists at
the Cape if they did not exact all the penalties for treason.
He hoped they would never in that House consider it any part
of their business to satisfy the vindictive feeling of the
colonists at the Cape."
As to the difference between the terms of future government
for the inhabitants of the late republics proposed by Lord
Kitchener and those laid down by the Colonial Secretary, Mr.
Bryce said: "He should like to have known what the proposals
were that General Botha made with regard to a modified
independence, for he thought it was quite possible that it
might turn out in the long run that some kind of what was
called modified independence, protection, would be a great
deal easier for this country to work than a system of Crown
colony government. He thought the contrast between the
elective assembly which Lord Kitchener offered and the purely
arbitrary and despotic system which the final letter conveyed
must at once have struck the Boers as indicating the
difference between the views which the military man on the
spot entertained and the proposal which they might expect from
the Government. Of course there were objections to the
immediate grant of self-government. So also there were
objections to any course, and that course should be chosen
which was open to the fewest objections. But the proposal of
Crown colony government was, of all courses, the worst that
could be suggested. It had been suggested that members of the
Liberal party had asked for full-grown representative and
responsible government, but they never had suggested that.
What they had objected to was Crown colony government. They
admitted that when the war ended there must be an intermediate
period of administration, military or civil, but there was all
the difference in the world between an admittedly provisional
administration understood to be provisional and the creation
of the whole apparatus of Crown colony government. The Boer
population had an aversion to Crown colony administration,
associated in their minds with the days of Sir Owen Lanyon,
and an arbitrary form of government it was known to be. Of
course it was arbitrary; honourable members who questioned
that could not know what Crown colony administration was. The
existence of a nominated council did not prevent it being
arbitrary inasmuch as the members were obliged to vote as they
were directed by the Governor. He could not help thinking that
Lord Kitchener might, if he were asked to do so, throw some
light on a remarkable expression in the letter from General
Botha in which he said, after the mutual interchange of views
at their meeting, Lord Kitchener would not be surprised to
learn that he was not disposed to recommend the terms
proposed."
{514}
The radical Mr. Labouchere was sharper in his criticism: "He
held that it was nonsense to call the terms offered to the
Boers liberal and lenient; they were neither. We had burnt
their farms and desolated their country, and then we offered
them a small gift of money to put them back on their farms
while we took away their independence and their flag. He
honoured the men who resisted, no matter at what cost, when
the question was the independence of their native land. How
right General Botha was in distrusting the alterations made by
the Secretary for the Colonies in the matter of the gift was
shown by the right honourable gentleman himself, when he said
that, whereas the gift was to be limited to a certain sum, the
loyalists were to be paid first. In that case what would
remain to the burghers of the two colonies? The position of
the Boers in the Empire under the terms of the Colonial
Secretary would be little better than that of Kaffirs. As far
as ultimate self-government was concerned, they were to put
their faith in the Colonial Secretary. If he might offer them
a word of advice it would be—Put no faith in the Colonial
Secretary; get it in black and white. We had lost a great
opportunity of ending the war and settling South Africa. Peace
won by the sword would create a dependency in which racial
feuds would go on and the minority would be maintained over
the majority by a huge British garrison. The Dutch majority
was certain to increase every decade. The Transvaal farmers
lived in a poor, rude manner which English people would not
accept. …
"He did not particularly admire the Boers. To his mind they
had too much of the conservative element in them; but, judging
between the Afrikanders and the English who went to South
Africa, whilst fully recognizing that among the latter there
were many respectable men, he thought, taking them
collectively, the Boers were the better men. If we wanted to
maintain our rule in South Africa the Boers were the safest
men with whom to be on good terms. What were the Boers ready
to do? As he read the correspondence, they were ready to enter
the area of the British Empire, but only upon terms. Surely
our problem was to find terms honourable to us and to them,
which would lead to South Africa becoming one of those great
commonwealths connected with the Empire such as existed in
Australia and Canada. He suggested that, in the first place,
we should offer a full and absolute amnesty. He urged that the
Orange State and the Transvaal should as soon as possible be
made self-governing colonies. The Orange State was regarded by
every Englishman who had written about it as a model State. As
to the Transvaal, he admitted there was a difficulty, but he
would suggest that the main area of the country should be
separated from the Rand. The Rand might be administered by a
governor, a military governor if they liked, while in the rest
of the country the Dutch would have a majority. If this course
were adopted, instead of our giving some sort of pecuniary aid
to the Transvaalers, they might be paid a reasonable rent for
the Rand district, of which they would be deprived. … They on
that side of the House would be perfectly ready to agree to
the establishment of a provisional government, military or
civil—he should himself prefer Lord Kitchener to Sir Alfred
Milner—to carry on the country while they were arranging for
the colony to be self-governing. They were accustomed to be
told that Sir Alfred Milner was a sort of divine pro-consul.
He believed Sir Alfred Milner to be a most honourable man, and
very intelligent in many walks of life; but the truth was that
he began life as an Oxford don and then became an official in
the Treasury, facts which militated against his success in
practical politics. He believed that a man like Lord Dufferin
would do more for the cause of peace in South Africa than all
our soldiers."
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (February-April).
The High Commissioner, Sir Alfred Milner, on the situation
and prospects.
Leave of absence obtained by Sir Alfred.
A British Blue Book, made public in London on the 18th of
April, contains an interesting despatch from Sir Alfred
Milner, frankly reviewing the general situation in South
Africa, as it appeared to him on the 6th of February, when he
wrote, from Cape Town, and giving his forecast of future
prospects. The following are the more important passages of
the communication:
"A long time has elapsed since I have attempted to send to you
any general review of South African affairs. The reason is
twofold. In the first place, I am occupied every day that
passes from morning till night by business, all of which is
urgent, and the amount and variety of which you are doubtless
able to judge from the communications on a great variety of
subjects, which are constantly passing between us. In the next
place, I have always hoped that some definite point would be
reached at which it might be possible to sum up that chapter
of our history which contained the war, and to forecast the
work of administrative reconstruction which must succeed it.
But I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that there will
be no such dividing line. I have not the slightest doubt of
the ultimate result, but I foresee that the work will be
slower, more difficult, more harassing, and more expensive
than was at one time anticipated. At any rate, it is idle to
wait much longer in the hope of being able to describe a clear
and clean-cut situation. Despite the many other calls upon my
time, and despite the confused character of the present
position, I think it better to attempt to describe, however
roughly and inadequately, the state of things as it exists
to-day.
"It is no use denying that the last half-year has been one of
retrogression. Seven months ago this Colony was perfectly
quiet, at least as far as the Orange River. The southern half
of the Orange River Colony was rapidly settling down, and even
a considerable portion of the Transvaal, notably the
south-western districts, seemed to have definitely accepted
British authority, and to rejoice at the opportunity of a
return to orderly government, and the pursuits of peace.
To-day the scene is completely altered. It would be
superfluous to dwell on the increased losses to the country
caused by the prolongation of the struggle, and by the form
which it has recently assumed. The fact that the enemy are now
broken up into a great number of small forces, raiding in
every direction, and that our troops are similarly broken up
in pursuit of them, makes the area of actual fighting, and
consequently of destruction, much wider than it would be in
the case of a conflict between equal numbers operating in
large masses.
{515}
Moreover, the fight is now mainly over supplies. The Boers
live entirely on the country through which they pass, not only
taking all the food they can lay hands upon on the farms,
grain, forage, horses, cattle, &c., but looting the small
village stores for clothes, boots, coffee, sugar, &c., of all
which they are in great need. Our forces, on their side, are
compelled to denude the country of everything moveable, in
order to frustrate these tactics of the enemy. No doubt a
considerable amount of the stock taken by us is not wholly
lost, but simply removed to the refugee camps, which are now
being established at many points along the railway lines. But
even under these circumstances, the loss is great, through
animals dying on the route, or failing to find sufficient
grass to live upon when collected in large numbers at the
camps. Indeed, the loss of crops and stock is a far more
serious matter than the destruction of farm buildings, of
which so much has been heard. I say this not at all as an
advocate of such destruction. I am glad to think that the
measure is now seldom if ever resorted to. At the same time,
the destruction of even a considerable number of farms, having
regard to the very rough and inexpensive character of the
majority of these structures in the Orange River Colony and
Transvaal, is a comparatively small item in the total damage
caused by the war to the agricultural community.
"To the losses incidental to the actual course of the
campaign, there has recently been added destruction of a
wholly wanton and malicious character. I refer to the injury
done to the head-gear, stamps, and other apparatus of some of
the outlying mines by Boer raiders, whose sole object was
injury. For this destruction there is, of course, no possible
excuse. … Fortunately the damage done to the mines has not
been large, relatively to the vast total amount of the fixed
capital sunk in them. The mining area is excessively difficult
to guard against purely predatory attacks having no military
purpose, because it is, so to speak, 'all length and no
breadth'—one long thin line, stretching across the country
from east to west for many miles. Still, garrisoned as
Johannesburg now is, it is only possible successfully to
attack a few points in it. Of the raids hitherto made, and
they have been fairly numerous, only one has resulted in any
serious damage. In that instance the injury done to the single
mine attacked amounted to £200,000, and it is estimated that
the mine is put out of working for two years. This mine is
only one out of a hundred, and is not by any means one of the
most important. These facts may afford some indication of the
ruin which might have been inflicted, not only on the
Transvaal and all South Africa, but on many European
interests, if that general destruction of mine works which was
contemplated just before our occupation of Johannesburg had
been carried out. However serious in some respects may have
been the military consequences of our rapid advance to
Johannesburg, South Africa owes more than is commonly
recognized to that brilliant dash forward, by which the vast
mining apparatus, the foundation of all her wealth, was saved
from the ruin threatening it.
"The events of the last six or seven months will involve a
greater amount of repair and a longer period of recuperation,
especially for agriculture, than anybody could have
anticipated when the war commenced. Yet, for all that, having
regard to the fact that both the Rand and Kimberley are
virtually undamaged, and that the main engines of prosperity,
when once set going again, will not take very long to get into
working order, the economic consequences of the war, though
grave, do not appear by any means appalling. The country
population will need a good deal of help, first to preserve it
from starvation, and then, probably, to supply it with a
certain amount of capital to make a fresh start. And the great
industry of the country will need some little time before it
is able to render any assistance. But, in a young country with
great recuperative powers, it will not take many years before
the economic ravages of the war are effaced.
"What is more serious to my mind than the mere material
destruction of the last six months is the moral effect of the
recrudescence of the war. I am thinking especially of the
Orange River Colony, and of that portion of the Transvaal
which fell so easily into our hands after the relief of
Mafeking, that is to say, the country lying between
Johannesburg and Pretoria, and the border of Bechuanaland.
Throughout this large area the feeling in the middle of last
year was undoubtedly pacific. The inhabitants were sick of the
war. They were greatly astonished, after all that had been
dinned into them, by the fair and generous treatment they
received on our first occupation, and it would have taken very
little to make them acquiesce readily in the new regime. At that
time too, the feeling in the Colony was better than I have
ever known it. The rebellious element had blown off steam in
an abortive insurrection, and was glad to settle down again.
If it had been possible for us to screen those portions of the
conquered territory, which were fast returning to peaceful
pursuits, from the incursions of the enemy still in the field,
a great deal of what is now most deplorable in the condition of
South Africa would never have been experienced. The vast
extent of the country, the necessity of concentrating our
forces for the long advance, first to Pretoria and then to
Komati Poort, resulted in the country already occupied being
left open to raids, constantly growing in audacity, and fed by
small successes, on the part of a few bold and skilful
guerrilla leaders who had nailed their colours to the mast.
The reappearance of these disturbers of the peace, first in
the south-east of the Orange River Colony, then in the
south-west of the Transvaal, and finally in every portion of
the conquered territory, placed those of the inhabitants who
wanted to settle down in a position of great difficulty.
Instead of being made prisoners of war, they had been allowed
to remain on their farms on taking the oath of neutrality, and
many of them were really anxious to keep it. But they had not the
strength of mind, nor, from want of education, a sufficient
appreciation of the sacredness of the obligation which they
had undertaken, to resist the pressure of their old companions
in arms when these reappeared among them appearing to their
patriotism and to their fears. …
{516}
"As the guerrilla warfare swept back over the whole of the
western Transvaal, and practically the whole of the Orange
River Colony, its effect upon the Cape Colony also became very
marked. There was a time, about the middle of last year, when
the bulk of the Dutch population in the Cape Colony, even
those who had been most bitter against us at the outset,
seemed disposed to accept the 'fait accompli,' and were
prepared to acquiesce in the union of all South Africa under
the British flag. Some of them even began to see certain
advantages in such a consummation. The irreconcilable line
taken in the Cape Parliament, during its recent Session from
July to October, was a desperate effort to counteract this
tendency. But I doubt whether it would have succeeded to the
moderate extent to which it has, had it not been for the
recrudescence of the war on the borders of the Colony, and the
embittered character which it assumed. Every act of harshness,
however necessary, on the part of our troops, was exaggerated
and made the most of, though what principally inflamed the
minds of the people were alleged instances of needless cruelty
which never occurred. Never in my life have I read of, much
less experienced, such a carnival of mendacity as that which
accompanied the pro-Boer agitation in this Colony at the end
of last year. And these libels still continue to make
themselves felt. …
"The present position of affairs, alike in the new territories
and in a large portion of the Cape Colony, if by no means the
most critical, is possibly the most puzzling that we have had
to confront since the beginning of the war. Naturally enough
the public are impatient, and those who are responsible for
the government of the country are bombarded with most
conflicting advice. On the one hand, there is the outcry for
greater severity and for a stricter administration of Martial
Law. On the other hand, there is the expression of the fear
that strict measures would only exasperate the people.
Personally, I am of the opinion, which I have always held,
that reasonable strictness is the proper attitude in the
presence of a grave national danger, and that exceptional
regulations for a time of invasion, the necessity of which
every man of sense can understand, if clearly explained and
firmly adhered to, are not only not incompatible with, but
actually conducive to, the avoidance of injustice and cruelty.
I am satisfied by experience that the majority of those Dutch
inhabitants of the Colony who sympathize with the Republics,
however little they may be able to resist giving active
expression to that sympathy, when the enemy actually appear
amongst them, do not desire to see their own districts
invaded, or to find themselves personally placed in the
awkward dilemma of choosing between high treason and an
unfriendly attitude to the men of their own race from beyond
the border. There are extremists who would like to see the
whole of the Cape Colony overrun. But the bulk of the farmers,
especially the substantial ones, are not of this mind. …
"The inherent vice, if I may say so, of almost all public
discussion of our South African difficulties is the tendency
to concentrate attention too exclusively upon the Boers. Say
what we will, the controversy always seems to relapse into the
old ruts—it is the British Government on the one hand, and the
Boers on the other. The question how a particular policy will
affect, not merely our enemies, but our now equally numerous
friends, seems seldom to be adequately considered. And yet it
would seem that justice and policy alike should lead us to be
as eager to consider the feelings and interests, and to retain
the loyalty, of those who are fighting on our side, as to
disarm the present enmity and win the future confidence of
those who are fighting against us. And this principle would
seem an the easier to adhere to because there is really
nothing which the great body of the South African loyalists
desire which it is not for the honour and advantage of the
Mother Country to insist upon. Of vindictiveness, or desire to
oppress the Afrikanders, there is, except in hasty utterances,
inevitable in the heat of the conflict, which have no
permanent significance, or in tirades which are wholly devoid
of influence, no sign whatever. The attitude of almost all
leading and representative men, and the general trend of
public feeling among the loyalists, even in the intensity of
the struggle, is dead against anything like racial
exclusiveness or domination. If this were not so, it would be
impossible for a section of pure bred Afrikanders, small no
doubt in numbers but weighty in character and position, to
take the strong line which they do in opposition to the views
of the majority of their own people, based as these are, and
as they know them to be, upon a misconception of our policy
and intentions. These men are among the most devoted adherents
to the Imperial cause, and would regard with more disfavour
and alarm than anyone the failure of the British nation to
carry out its avowed policy in the most complete manner. They
are absolutely convinced that the unquestioned establishment
of the British supremacy, and the creation of one political
system from Cape Town to the Zambesi, is, after all that has
happened, the only salvation for men of their own race, as
well as for others. Of the terms already offered, a great
majority, I believe, of the South Africans at present in arms
on our side entirely approve. There is, no doubt, an extreme
section who would advocate a sterner attitude on our part, but
they are not numerous, and their feelings are not lasting. The
terms offered by Lord Kitchener, which are, in substance,
identical with repeated declarations of policy on the part of
His Majesty's Government, are generally regarded as a generous
and statesmanlike offer, as one which, if firmly adhered to,
will ultimately be accepted, but as an offer which we cannot
afford to enlarge. On the other hand, there is a very general
desire that no effort should be spared to make the generous
character of our intentions widely known, and to encourage any
disposition on the part of the enemy to parley, with the object
of making them better acquainted with the terms on which we
are prepared to accept their submission.
"If I might sum up the predominant, indeed, the almost
unanimous feeling of those South Africans who sympathise with
the Imperial Government, I should describe it as follows:—They
are sick to death of the war, which has brought ruin to many of
them, and imposed considerable sacrifices on almost all. But
they would rather see the war continue for an indefinite time
than run the risk of any compromise which would leave even the
remotest chance of the recurrence of so terrible a scourge in
the future. They are prepared to fight and suffer on, in order
to make South Africa, indisputably and for ever, one country
under one flag, with one system of government, and that system
the British, which they believe to ensure the highest possible
degree of justice and freedom to men of all races.
{517}
But, with that object accomplished, they are willing, and,
indeed, ready, to bury racial animosities. They have fought
against the principle of race oligarchy in one form, and they
do not wish to re-establish it in another. For the attainment
of that object, they would rely for the present on the
vigorous prosecution of the war in which they are prepared
themselves to take the most active part, coupled with every
inducement to the enemy to come in on the terms already
offered, and for the future, as soon as public security is
assured and the circumstances permit, on the extension to the
newly acquired territories of a system of Colonial
self-government. For my own part, I have no doubt that this
attitude is a wise one, and that it only requires persistence
in it, in spite of the discouraging circumstances of the
moment, to lead us to ultimate success."
Great Britain, Papers by Command, Cd. 547.
The same Blue Book made known the fact that, on the 3d of
April, Sir Alfred Milner applied for and obtained leave of
absence for three months from his duties in South Africa.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (April).
The situation.
Early in April it was announced that the seat of government of
the South African Republic had been transferred from
Pietersburg to Leydsdorp in the Zoutpansberg by the
Vice-President, General Schalk-Burger, which seems to indicate
the beginning of another stage of the South African war. The
Boers are said to have been for some time past collecting
great quantities of cattle and sheep in the fastnesses of the
Zoutpansberg, where also they have ample supplies of
ammunition, and intend making it a point of ultimate
resistance as well as a base of present operations.
SOUTH AFRICA: The Field of War: A. D. 1901 (April).
The cost of the war to Great Britain as stated
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In his speech (April 18), on introducing the budget for 1901,
in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir
Michael Hicks-Beach, made the following statements of the cost
of the war to Great Britain: "I would remind the Committee
that so far we have borrowed towards the cost of the war
£67,000,000—£13,000,000 Treasury bills, £10,000,000 Exchequer
Bonds maturing rather less than three years hence, £14,000,000
Exchequer Bonds maturing about five years hence, and
£30,000,000 War Loan maturing in 1910. Now, Sir, in what mode
may we fairly borrow such a large sum as we now require? This
can no longer be considered a small war. In cost it is a great
war. Let me just make a statement to the Committee as to what,
so far, the estimated cost of this war has been. In 1899-1900 the
Estimates were £23,217,000. Last year they were £68,620,000,
and this year's Estimates amount to £60,230,000, including in
each case the interest on the sums borrowed. That amounts to
over £152,000,000. I must ask the Committee to remember that
in those figures I include the cost of both the South African
and Chinese wars. Then I have to add a million and a quarter
for this year's borrowing, making in all over £153,000,000.
That is double the cost of the Crimean War, and when I look
back at the Peninsular War I find the two most expensive years
were 1813 and 1814. The forces engaged, of course, were very
much smaller than those engaged now; but in those two years
the total cost of our Army and Navy amounted to £144,581,000.
This amount is less than the charges of the South African and
Chinese wars. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that
in cost this has been a great war. I think, then, it is clear
we can no longer, in borrowing towards the cost of it, rely
upon temporary borrowing. We have already £67,000,000 of
unfunded debt borrowed for this purpose and maturing within
the next ten years. We have also some £36,000,000 of 2¾ and 2½
per cent., redeemable in 1905. Therefore, whatever may be the
prosperity of the country, whatever may be the condition of
our finances, it is perfectly obvious to my mind that the
stanchest advocate of the redemption of the debt will have
ample scope for his energies in the years that are now before
us. For this reason I propose to ask the Committee to extend
the powers of borrowing which they gave me in previous Acts,
to Consols."
----------SOUTH AFRICA: End--------
SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC, The.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL);
also,
CONSTITUTION (GRONDWET) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1892-1899.
The Dispensary Law.
In 1892 the Legislature of South Carolina passed an Act,
commonly called the Dispensary Law, which caused turbulent
agitations in the State, and excited much interest in the
country at large. It was based upon the principle of what is
known as the Gothenburg system of regulation for the sale of
intoxicating liquors, making the traffic a State monopoly,
carried on by officials, under rigorous restrictions, with
profit to the public treasury, and none else. It provided for
the creation of a State Board of Control, under the direction
of which a Commissioner, appointed by the Governor, should
purchase all intoxicating liquors allowed to be sold in the
State, and should furnish the same to such agents (called
"dispensers") in the several counties as might be appointed by
county boards to sell them, in accordance with the regulations
prescribed. It required all liquors purchased by the
Commissioner to be tested by an official chemist and declared
to be pure and unadulterated. It allowed nobody but the
official "dispensers" to deal in any manner with any kinds of
intoxicating liquors after the 1st of July, 1893. It forbade

the selling of such drinks by the authorized salesmen to
minors and drunkards, and it required all who bought to sign
and date a printed or written request, stating their residence
and age.
The law was fiercely resisted in many parts of the State by
mobs, and powerfully assailed in the courts; but Governor
(afterwards Senator) Tillman, who then occupied the executive
chair, gave it resolute enforcement and support. The attack in
the courts had momentary success in 1894, the Supreme Court of
the State rendering a decision adverse to the
constitutionality of the law; but, meantime, the Legislature,
in 1893, had made changes in the Act, and its new enactment
was held to be untouched by the judgment of the court.
{518}
Before a new case could be brought to issue, the retirement of
one of the justices of the Supreme Court brought about a
change of opinion in that tribunal, and the law in its new
form was sustained. Disorderly resistance to the enforcement
of the law was long kept up; but in the end such resistance
seems to have been mostly overcome.
In January, 1897, however, one provision of the Act, which
forbade all importation of liquors into the State by private
persons, even for their own use, was declared by the Supreme
Court of the United States to be an interference with
inter-state commerce, and therefore unconstitutional. This
breaks down the Dispensary Law, so far as concerns citizens
who are able to import liquors for themselves. Otherwise the
law seems to be now stoutly entrenched, and other States are
being sufficiently satisfied with its success in South
Carolina to adopt it. The following testimony as to its
success is from the pen of a North Carolinian, who became
instrumental in carrying the system into his own State.
"The familiar features of the dispensary were its closing
promptly at sundown; no drinking on the premises; the sale of
liquor to those only who were of age, who were not in the
habit of drinking to excess, who were sober at the time of the
sale, and who signed an application for what they bought on a
public book; and the fact that the dispenser was a salaried
officer, and thus free from pecuniary interest in stimulating
sales. To this was added in South Carolina a force of
constables whose special business it was to arrest those who
sold liquor contrary to law.
"The fact that the dispensary law was a substitute for
Prohibition made the law odious at first to those who had
fought most ardently for the Prohibition cause. And the
political faction over which Mr. Tillman had triumphed,
containing a good proportion of the best blood and brains of
the State, opposed the dispensary on personal grounds. The spy
system, as it was called, and the resistance to the
constables, sometimes resulting in bloodshed, set many of the
more peaceable and conservative citizens against the law.
Added to this, the constitutionality of the law as a whole and
of important provisions separately was strenuously contested
in the United States Courts, with varying success until the
Supreme Court settled the matter forever in favor of the law.
These difficulties are mentioned to show what the system has
had to face in South Carolina, and for the purpose of
remarking that the system has triumphed over all opposition.
The amended Constitution of the State decrees against the
re-establishment of the saloon. The Dispensary candidate for
Governor in the last election defeated the Prohibition
candidate. And the testimony of sober, conservative citizens
of every rank and profession is now practically unanimous to
the effect that drunkenness and the crimes resulting therefrom
have decreased beyond expectation."
A. J. McKelway,
The Dispensary in North Carolina
(Outlook, April 8, 1899).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1896.
New constitution.
Introduction of a qualified suffrage.
Practical disfranchisement pf the greater part of the negroes.
On the 1st of January, 1896, a new constitution, promulgated
by a constitutional convention the previous month, without
submission to popular vote, came into effect. It was framed
especially to accomplish a practical disfranchisement of the
larger part of the negro population, which it did by the
operation of an educational qualification with peculiar
conditions attached. Until the first of January, 1898, it
permitted the enrollment of voters who could read, or who
could explain to the satisfaction of the registering officer a
section of the constitution read to them; and all citizens
registered before that date were to be qualified voters
thereafter. But subsequent to the date specified, none could
be registered except those able to read and write any required
part of the constitution, or else to prove themselves owners
of property and taxpayers on not less than $300. Registration
to be conducted by county boards appointed by the governor.
See, also (in this volume)
MISSISSIPPI.
Speaking in the United States Senate in justification of this
measure, Senator Tillman, of South Carolina, said: "We took
the government away. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We
are not ashamed of it. The Senator from Wisconsin would have
done the same thing. I see it in his eye right now. He would
have done it. With that system—force, tissue ballots, etc.—we
got tired ourselves. So we called a constitutional convention,
and we eliminated, as I said, all of the colored people whom
we could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. … I
want to call your attention to the remarkable change that has
come over the spirit of the dream of the Republicans; to
remind you gentlemen from the North that your slogans of the
past—brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God—have gone
glimmering down the ages. The brotherhood of man exists no
longer, because you shoot negroes in Illinois, when they come
in competition with your labor, as we shoot them in South
Carolina when they come in competition with us in the matter
of elections. You do not love them any better than we do. You
used to pretend that you did, but you no longer pretend it
except to get their votes. … You deal with the Filipinos just
as we deal with the negroes, only you treat them a heap
worse."
Congressional Record,
56th Congress, 1st Session, pages 2347, 2349.
SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1898.
Constitutional amendment introducing the
Initiative and the Referendum.
A constitutional amendment, adopted by popular vote at the
November election, introduces the principle of the Swiss
Initiative and Referendum, providing that the Legislature must
render obedience to petitions signed by 5 per cent. of the
voters of the State, which call for the enactment and
submission to popular vote of any stipulated law, or which
require the submission to a popular vote of any Act which the
Legislature may have passed.
SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1899.
Adoption of the Dispensary System.
A constitutional amendment, providing for a dispensary system
of regulation for the liquor traffic was adopted in 1899 by a
majority of 1,613 votes.
See, (in this volume),
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1892-1899.
The newly adopted clause reads as follows: "The manufacture
and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be under exclusive
State control, and shall be conducted by duly authorized
agents of the State, who shall be paid by salary and not by
commission."
{519}
SOUTHWEST AFRICA, German:
Trade, etc.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (JUNE).
SPAIN: A. D. 1868-1885.
Affairs in Cuba.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.
SPAIN: A. D. 1895-1896.
Conflict between army and Press.
Change of Ministry.
Renewed insurrection in Cuba.
A violent conflict between the military authorities and the
newspaper Press arose in consequence of an attack made by
officers of the army on a Republican editor who had sharply
criticised certain details of army administration. They not
only assaulted him in person, but broke up his presses and
type. This military mob outrage was resented and denounced by
the whole Press, of every party; whereupon the military
authorities began prosecutions in the military courts, and
making arrests of publishers and editors, with a contempt for
law which seemed to be ominous of some revolutionary intent.
The Liberal Ministry, under Señor Sagasta, not able,
apparently, to control these proceedings, resigned office, and
a Conservative Cabinet was formed by Señor Canovas del
Castillo. The new Ministry had many difficulties to face, the
fresh outbreak of revolt in Cuba being the most serious.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1895.
But student rioting at Barcelona, caused by the dismissal of
11 professor whose writings were condemned at Rome, became
grave enough to require the sending of the redoubtable General
Weyler to the scene; and popular excitements in Madrid,
growing out of exposures of corruption in the municipal
council, drove two of the colleagues of Canovas from their
posts. In January, 1896, Weyler was sent to Cuba, to pursue in
that unhappy island a policy which produced conditions that
horrified the world.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897, and 1897-1898 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
Elections held in April, 1896, gave the government of Canovas
an overwhelming majority in the Cortes.
SPAIN: A. D. 1896-1897,
Administration of General Weyler in Cuba.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.
SPAIN: A. D. 1896-1898.
Insurrection in the Philippines.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1896-1898.
SPAIN: A. D. 1897 (August-October).
Assassination of the Prime Minister, Canovas del Castillo.
Return of Sagasta to power.
Condition of the country.
On the 8th of August, the Spanish Prime Minister, Señor
Canovas del Castillo, was shot by an Italian anarchist, a
Neapolitan, named Angiolillo, while sojourning for a few days,
with his wife, at the baths of Santa Aguada. He lived but two
hours after receiving his wounds. General Azcarraga, Minister
of War, was called by the Queen to take temporary charge of
the government; but before the end of September he and his
cabinet were forced to resign, and the Liberals, under the
lead of Señor Sagasta, returned to power. "Canovas was the
strong man of Spain. He was not the educator of the people, or
the worker of the popular inclination. His vigorous
understanding was their muscular master. The police were on
his side; a useful portion of the press, hired judiciously for
the purpose; the army; and the brains to set them all in
motion; and, so equipped, Antonio Canovas del Castillo
confronted the Spanish people and said, 'Come on.' It was a
resolute and daring attitude, and kept the crowd triumphantly
at bay for thirty years. But of late a change had taken place.
A good deal of the old fire had burned out. Fifteen years of
colonial revolt, again, impress even the thickest-headed
Spanish peasant into conceiving that the trouble has no
business to last so long, and that his rulers, if hard and
exigent towards himself, are weak, extravagant, and
undexterous elsewhere. And this suspicion ripens into
certainty when he sees his sons torn from his side and packed
over sea, and when his taxes swell and swell, and the price of
bread goes up and up, and still no alteration for the better.
This cumulative truth is what the Spanish plebs have learned
at last, within a year ago, and if Canovas had had the
foresight of the true statesman, instead of the blind egoism
of the autocrat, he would have thrown up his losing cards
while there was time and said, 'The Cuban War is a mistake.
Forgive me.' But his unflagging obstinacy held him to his
desperate and aimless course. Although his complicity with his
emissary, Weyler, in sending and publishing one lying telegram
after another, was manifest as day, he smiled and rubbed his
hands, and vowed the war was all but over; and behind that
smile he half despised and half defied the victims he invited
to believe him. He made no claim to be a patriot. He knew he
was unpopular. He knew that for every cottage whence a son had
been torn away to that disastrous strife in Cuba the Conservative
Government of the nation may count upon one bitter foe—the
Republicans or the Duke of Madrid upon one sure ally. What
would have happened in Spain, had he lived longer, is quite
beyond the average power to say. The prospect was too horrible
for words. However, he died, and his ministry, after feebly
mimicking the stubborn temper of their chief, succumbed also,
leaving to the Liberal Party a legacy which may be likened to
a bomb with time-fuse well alight and sputtering into the
explosive. In plainer words what faces Señor Sagasta is the
following: Spain is a beggar. Her credit is gone. Her army,
always of late years behindhand in discipline, instruction,
commissariat, and the thousand and one minutiæ other nations
are solicitous to attend to, is decimated by disease,
dispirited, and utterly incompetent to engage in war with any
civilised power. Her navy is rotten. Her people are
discontented and divided into various creeds. Some are for the
existing regime, some for Don Carlos, and some for the
Republic."
L. Williams,
Can Sagasta save Spain?
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1897).
SPAIN: A. D. 1897 (November).
Autonomous Constitution granted to Cuba and Porto Rico.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER);
and 1897-1898 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).
SPAIN: A. D. 1898.
War with the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1899 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
SPAIN: A. D. 1898 (February-March).
Destruction of the United States
battle-ship Maine in Havana harbor.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
SPAIN: A. D. 1898 (March-April).
Discussion of Cuban affairs with the Government of the
United States.
Message of the President to Congress,
asking for authority to intervene in Cuba.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-APRIL).
{520}
SPAIN: A. D. 1898 (April).
Demand of the United States Government that the authority and
Government of Spain be withdrawn from Cuba, and its result
in a state of war.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL).
SPAIN: A. D. 1898 (July-December).
Suspension of hostilities and negotiations of Treaty of
Peace with the United States.
Relinquishment of sovereignty over Cuba, and cession of Porto
Rico, Guam and the Philippine Islands to the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1898 (August 21).
Letter from Spanish soldiers, on their departure from
Santiago de Cuba, to the soldiers of the American army.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (AUGUST 21).
SPAIN: A. D. 1899.
Abolition of the Ministry of the Colonies.
Resignation of the Sagasta Cabinet.
Ratification of the Treaty of Peace.
The new conditions in Spanish government resulting from the
loss of Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines were promptly
acknowledged, in January, by the abolition of the Ministry of
Colonies, for which no sufficient duties remained. On the 20th
of February the Cortes was summoned, and on the same day the
"state of siege," declared during the war, which had
practically suspended constitutional rights, was removed by
proclamation. The Treaty of Peace with the United States was
laid before the Cortes; but the military party, led by General
Weyler, opposed the approval of the Treaty, evidently for the
purpose of embarrassing and weakening the government. They
were so far successful that Señor Sagasta and his cabinet were
forced to resign, on the 28th of February, and a Conservative
Ministry, under Señor Silvela, was formed. But the Cortes,
which declined to support the government in accepting the
Treaty of Peace, was dismissed a few days later by the
Queen-Regent, who signed the Treaty on her own responsibility,
March 11. The Silvela Ministry proved inharmonious, made so
especially by the Minister of War, General Polavieja, and in
September it was reconstructed, with Polavieja dropped out.
SPAIN: A. D. 1899 (January).
Relinquishment of sovereignty in Cuba.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1899 (February).
Sale of the Caroline, Pelew and Marianne Islands to Germany.
See (in this volume)
CAROLINE AND MARIANNE ISLANDS.
SPAIN: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
SPAIN: A. D. 1900 (October-November).
Weyler appointed Captain-General of Madrid.
Resignation of the Silvela Ministry.
The army in control.
The army won control of the government in October, when
General Linares, Minister of War, without consulting his
colleagues of the cabinet—if report be true—appointed General
Weyler to be Captain-General of Madrid. Several members of the
cabinet resigned in protest, and the Premier, Señor Silvela,
found it necessary to place the resignation of the Ministry as
a whole in the hands of the Queen-Regent (October 21). A new
cabinet was formed, with General Azcarraga for its chief,
General Linares retaining the portfolio of the War Office, and
Weyler holding the military command in Madrid. The military
party appears to be fully in power, and a token of the spirit
it has carried into the government was given within ten days
after the formation of the new Ministry, by the promulgation
of a decree suspending the guarantees of the constitution and
establishing martial law throughout the kingdom. Some
movements of Carlist agitation and insurrection furnished a
pretext for this measure, but they appear to have had no
serious character.
It is probable that the military reaction at Madrid will
stimulate a revival of the old independent aspirations of the
Catalonians, which have been showing of late many signs of new
life. The desire for separation from Spain has never died out in
Catalonia, and a resolute new effort to accomplish it may
easily appear among the incidents of the near future.
SPAIN: A. D. 1900 (November).
Spanish-American Congress.
At the instance of the "Sociedad Union Ibero-Americana," an
unofficial organization which has been in existence for more
than 15 years, a congress was held in Madrid in November,
1900, with the object of strengthening the relations between
Spain and those American peoples who are of Spanish origin.
The proposal of the "Union Ibero-Americana" met with the
approval of the Spanish Government, and on April 16 a Royal
decree was issued appointing Señor Silvela, the Prime
Minister, to be president of a congress to be held in Madrid.
The Government of Spain then issued invitations to the
Spanish-American Republics, asking them to send
representatives, which invitations were accepted by the
governments of Mexico, the Argentine Republic, Chile, Uruguay,
Peru, and other States. The list of subjects for discussion
included proposals of treaties of commerce, international
arbitration, the harmonizing of the civil, penal, and
administrative legal codes of the various countries
represented, emigration, the international validity of
professional diplomas, the establishment of Ibero-American
banks, and others. The most important result of the Congress
was the voting of a plan of compulsory arbitration by the
South American republics. The motion was introduced by Peru,
which has the most to gain by arbitration. Chile's was the
sole dissenting voice. "This," remarks "The Nation," of New
York, "recalls the fact that Chile consented to take part in
the Pan-American Congress at the City of Mexico, only on
condition that any arbitration there provided for should not
concern her own disputed boundaries."
SPAIN: A. D. 1901.
Anti-clerical agitation, directed
especially against the Jesuits.
Marriage of the Princess of the Asturias.
A case arising in Madrid in February produced excitements of
feeling against the Jesuits which spread to all parts of the
country, and were the cause of serious political
demonstrations and rioting in many cities. A wealthy young
lady, Señorita Ubao, had been persuaded by her confessor, a
priest of the Jesuit order, to enter a convent, against the
wish of her family. The family applied to the High Court for a
mandate to secure her release. The prominence of the parties
drew universal attention to the case, and it was discussed
with passion throughout Spain, stirring up, as appears to be
evident, a latent anti-clerical feeling which only waited to
be moved.
{521}
It seems, moreover, to have served as an occasion for
demonstrations of the republicanism that continues to be
strong in Spain. Students of the universities were active
promoters of the excitement, and set examples of disorder
which were followed by rougher mobs. In Madrid, Zaragoza,
Valencia, Valladolid, Santandar, Granada, Malaga, Barcelona,
and other towns the excitement ran high, and was not quieted
by a decision of the High Court on the 19th of February,
restoring Señorita Ubao to her friends. At Barcelona, on the
last day of March, a meeting of 9,000 citizens, held in the
bull-ring, is reported to have passed resolutions in favor of
the separation of Church and State, advocating the prohibition
of religious orders, and expressing a desire that their
property should be taken possession of by the State. The
meeting voted messages congratulating France and Portugal on
their Anti-Clerical attitude. The meeting was followed by a
riotous attack on the Jesuit convent, and by a conflict of the
mob with the civil guard, in which blood was shed. From
various parts of the country, demands for the expulsion of the
religious orders were reported, in April, to be reaching the
government.
A royal wedding which occurred in the early days of this
anti-clerical agitation added something to the disturbance of
the public mind. Dona Maria de las Mercedes, eldest of the
children of the late King Alphonso XII. and his second wife,
was married on the 14th of February to Prince Charles, of the
Neapolitan Bourbon family, son of the Count of Caserta. The
Princess was Queen of Spain, in her infancy, for a few months
after her father's death, until the posthumous birth of her
brother, in 1886, and presumptively she may again inherit the
crown. In itself, the marriage does not seem to have been
unpopular; but, for some reason, the Count of Caserta was
odious to the public of Madrid, and became the object of
unpleasant attentions from the mob, while the bride and
bridegroom, and other members of the family of the latter,
were treated with respect.
SPANISH-AMERICAN CONGRESS, The.
See (in this volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1900 (NOVEMBER).
SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1899 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
SPANISH SOLDIERS: Letter to American soldiers.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (AUGUST 21).
SPION KOP, The storming of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
SPITZBERGEN: Claimed by Russia.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1898.
SPITZBERGEN: Recent Exploration of.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1900-.
SPOILS SYSTEM, The:
As maintained in the service of the
United States House of Representatives.
See (in this volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1901.
SPOONER AMENDMENT, The.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
STAMBOULOFF, M. Stephen, assassination of.
See (in this volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: BULGARIA.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.
STATEN ISLAND: Incorporation in Greater New York.
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1896-1897.
STATISTICS: Of the British-Boer war.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER);
and SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR:
A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY), and (APRIL).
STATISTICS: Of Christian Missions.
See (in this volume)
MISSIONS, CHRISTIAN.
STATISTICS: Of finances and exports of the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (JUNE), and (DECEMBER).
STATISTICS: Of the navies of the Sea Powers.
See (in this volume)
NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.
STATISTICS: Of the shipping of the world.
See (in this volume)
SHIPPING OF THE WORLD.
STATISTICS: Of the Spanish-American war.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899, STATISTICS;
and 1900 (JUNE);
also, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (MAY), and (OCTOBER).
STATISTICS: Of war-making expenditure by the leading Powers.
See (in this volume)
WAR BUDGETS.
STEAM TURBINES, The invention of.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: MECHANICS.
STEEL: The Age of.
See (in this volume)
NINETEENTH CENTURY: THE AGE OF STEEL.
STEEL PRODUCTION, Combinations in.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.
STEVENSON, Adlai E.:
Bi-metallic mission to Europe.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
STOCKHOLM, Exposition at.
A Scandinavian industrial exposition, which proved exceedingly
attractive, was held with much success at Stockholm, the
Swedish capital, in the summer and autumn of 1897.
STONEHENGE:
Fall of two stones.
"The last night of the nineteenth century was marked, as a
correspondent pointed out in our issue of yesterday, by a
serious injury to what remains of the majestic monument of
Stonehenge. One of the great uprights of the outer circle of
stones, as well as the cross-piece mortised to it on the top,
fell to the ground, thus destroying still further the most
striking effect of this gigantic temple or sepulchre. The fall
was probably caused by the torrents of rain and the violent winds
that closed the troubled record of the year 1900. One of the
uprights was brought to the ground, where it lies like so many
other of the stones that formed this vast megalithic structure,
and the capstone has been broken in pieces. The continuous
exterior circle of which these formed a part was originally
about one hundred feet in diameter, and though the masses were
less imposing individually than those of the great tritithons
around the centre, the effect of the mighty round of uprights,
sixteen feet high, with huge capstones resting on them, must
have been wonderful in its noble simplicity …
{522}
"The solicitude of the present age has placed Stonehenge, like
other great national monuments, under the permissive
protection of the law, but the law itself cannot prevent the
ravages of weather and the gradual subsidence of the
foundations on which these masses stand. Little, we fear, can
be done to keep the remaining uprights standing. They will
fall when their time comes and will lie where they fall like
those that have already succumbed to their fate. It is better,
perhaps, for the dignity of this venerable monument that it is in
no serious danger of that restoration which is at work on so
many later structures, more splendid as triumphs of art, but
less stubborn in their strength."
London Times,
January 4, 1901.
STORMBERG, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
STRATHCONA'S HORSE.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1899-1900.
STRIKES.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES.
SUDAN, The Egyptian: A. D. 1885-1898.
Abandonment to the Dervishes.
Death of the Mahdi.
Reign of the Khalifa.
Anglo-Egyptian re-conquest.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896; 1897-1898; and 1899-1900.
SUDAN, The Egyptian: A. D. 1899.
Anglo-Egyptian condominium established.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).
SUDAN, The French: A. D. 1895.
Under a Governor-General of French West Africa.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (FRENCH WEST AFRICA).
SUDAN, The French: A. D. 1897.
Definition of Tongoland boundary.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (DAHOMEY AND TONGOLAND).
SUDAN, The French: A. D. 1898-1899.
Agreement with Great Britain as to the limits.
See (in this volume)
NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.
SUDANESE TROOPS: Mutiny in Uganda.
See (in this volume)
UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.
SUFFRAGE:
Qualifications in the several States of the American Union.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY);
also, DELAWARE; LOUISIANA;
MARYLAND; MISSISSIPPI; NORTH CAROLINA; and SOUTH CAROLINA.
SUFFRAGE, Woman.
See (in this volume)
WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
SUGAR BOUNTIES.
An extremely complicated and irrational state of things,
connected with the production and consumption of sugar
throughout the world, has been experienced for many years, as
a consequence of the system of bounties on exportation, by
which a number of European countries have stimulated the
production of beet-sugar, in competition with the sugar
produced from cane. The system was carried to its extreme
development in 1896-1897, in consequence of action taken in
Germany.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (MAY).
The legislation in other countries which followed the German
measure of 1896 was set forth briefly in a memorial from the
Belgian beet-root sugar makers, in February, 1897, to the
Belgian Chamber of Representatives, a translation of which was
transmitted at the time to the State Department at Washington
by the United States Consul at Ghent. Said that memorial:
"The fiscal system applied to sugar factories in force
[previously] in the various countries mentioned [was] chiefly
established by the following laws: Germany, law of May 31,
1891; Austria, law of May 20, 1888; France, law of July 29,
1884; Russia, law of July 13, 1891; Belgium, law of April 16,
1887; Holland, law of April 15, 1891, and preceding
legislation. Since the dates above mentioned, the basis
established in these various countries had undergone only
secondary modifications, rather local than international, and,
generally, of a nature to diminish the fiscal favors instead
of increasing them. From the point of view of competition
among the countries of Europe, a sort of peaceful stability
was thus acquired, resulting in a corresponding equilibrium in
the interior relations of each country between the rural and
industrial systems, as well as between the cultivator and
owner. This situation, slowly established, has, during the
last year, suffered the most serious disturbances. Important
modifications have been adopted by all our competitors, Russia
excepted; the latter, enjoying a special system, suffices
almost entirely for itself without having much to export, it
is, therefore, not necessary to give it special consideration.
"The modifications to which we allude are the following: In
Germany, the law of May 27, 1896, increased the export
bounties in the following proportions: (1) For raw sugar, from
30 cents to 60 cents per 220 pounds; (2) for white sugar, from
41 cents to 72 cents; (3) for refined sugar, from 48 cents to
89 cents. This is not meant to interfere with other measures,
notably the imposition of supplementary taxes, and the
provision by which a factory, under the penalty of having its
proportion of export bounties reduced, is, so to speak,
obliged to increase its output or at least to maintain it at
the same level, even under the most unfavorable circumstances.
Immediately afterwards, Austria, by the law of July 7, 1896,
took corresponding protective and defensive measures,
especially increasing from about $2,000,000 to $3,600,000 the
amount of public funds destined for export bounties. In
France, the Chamber of Deputies has just voted export bounties
even more important than those of other countries, amounting
to—(1) raw sugar, 68 cents per 220 pounds; (2) white sugar,
77 cents; (3) refined sugar, 87 cents. All these export
bounties are independent of the interior advantages accorded
in Germany and Austria, in various forms less tangible,
although not less real, and in France in the form of bonuses
upon the manufacture, which, in the official French
statistics, appear for sums varying from $1.16 to $l.54½ per
220 pounds, and which may be normally fixed at $1.35 per 220
pounds. Holland, in turn, has just revised its system, giving
from the beginning to its producers a bounty of $1.06½ per 220
pounds on raw sugars. It is an economic war to the finish
between rival nations, each desiring the ruin of the others,
which these measures unchain on the sugar interests of Europe."
United States Consular Reports,
June, 1897, page 304.
{523}
The effect of bounty-payments is to enable the sugars-makers
of the country which pays them to sell sugar to foreign buyers
at a lower price than to buyers at home. Consumers in such a
country as England, where no sugar is produced, and where no
duties on imported sugar are levied, reap an enormous gain
from them, at the expense of the sugar consumers of the
bounty-paying countries. At the same time, the cane-sugar
growing colonies of England, especially those in the West
Indies, suffer from the competition which is made unnatural by
this method of governmental support. England, therefore, has
conflicting interests in the matter. The mass of her home
population, who are great consumers of "sweets," delight in
the continental bounties, which give them cheap sugar; while
her West India colonists, and the English sugar refiners, are
groaning under the hard competition they maintain.
In the bounty-paying countries the same conflict of interest
exists between beet-growers and sugar consumers, and
governmental attitudes on the question of adhering to the
bounties seem to depend on the relative strength, or political
weight, of the two bodies. Repeated attempts have been made to
come to an international agreement for their abolition or
modification. A general conference on the subject was held
without result in London, 1887; and another was undertaken in
June, 1898, at Brussels, on the invitation of the Belgian
government. The latter made manifest a strong desire to be rid
of the bounty-paying system, on the part of Germany,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium and the Netherlands. France was
willing to withdraw her direct bounties on the exportation of
sugar, but insisted on maintaining an internal system of taxes
which was said to have the real effect of a bounty. Russia,
likewise, would adhere to a domestic system of regulations
which had that effect. Great Britain declined to engage
herself to impose a duty on what was called "bounty-fed"
sugar, for the purpose of neutralizing the bounty, and so
placing that commodity on a footing of equality with its
rivals in her markets. Hence no agreement of common action
could be reached, and the Conference adjourned without result.
Continental consumers of sugar continue to pay a high price
for the prosperity of their beet-growers and sugar-makers; but
Englishmen, who have reveled in cheap "jams" at foreign
expense, are probably to lose that privilege, since the
exigencies of their Boer war expenditure have forced the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, at last, to introduce a duty of
4s. 2d. per cwt. on refined sugar in his budget for 1901. But
in his speech on introducing the budget, in the House of
Commons (April 18, 1901), the Chancellor expressed hopefulness
that the foreign sugar bounty might save England from a rise
in price for sugar, notwithstanding the tax. His remarks were
as follows:
"What is likely to be the effect on the price of sugar of the
imposition of a duty? In my opinion that is a very doubtful
question, because the price of sugar is not governed solely by
the ordinary conditions, but it is governed largely by the
bounty system. The great bulk of our imports of sugar come
from bounty-giving countries; and what is that system? Why,
Sir, it amounts to this, that the country giving the bounty
encourages the production of sugar within its borders, and at
the same time does its best to restrict the consumption of
sugar by its own people by every possible means, so that the
result is that there is an enormous surplus of sugar produced
which must find a foreign market, and which under present
circumstances can only find a market here. Therefore, it is
quite conceivable, unless, of course, a bounty-giving country
either reduced the area of their sugar production or lowered
their own excise duties on sugar for the benefit of their own
population—both of which would mean the abolition of the
bounty system—it is quite conceivable that the result of the
imposition of a tax on sugar here might be that, though at
first the price might go up and the consumption of sugar might
be consequently decreased, there would be such an influx into
this country of bounty-paid sugar that could not go anywhere
else that the price might be brought down. I merely put the
hypothesis to the Committee, because I think it is one that
ought to be considered by anyone who looks into this
question."
London Times, April 19, 1901.
"The geographical poles of the sugar trade are now Great
Britain and the United States, and the two great areas of
production are the beet-sugar countries of the continent of
Europe and the cane-growing countries of the American and the
Asiatic tropics. These two areas of production have been in
active rivalry for the past thirty years, and out of this
rivalry have come some striking results. The first is, that
beet sugar controls the world's sugar market; for of the
8,000,000 tons that constitute the commercial supply of sugar,
about 5,000,000 are produced from the beet, and the price of
this portion of the supply practically determines the price of
the 3,000,000 tons of cane sugar also. Still more significant
results are the removal of Great Britain from her once
dominant position in tropical sugar production and the
elimination of France and Spain from the struggle for
leadership in the same line of enterprise, as economic
conditions have centered the cane-sugar trade and industry in
America. To-day the continental beet-sugar countries supply
the United Kingdom with seventy-five per cent. of its annual
sugar imports (2,500,000 tons), leaving only one-quarter to
come from the tropics. The United States, on the other hand,
has become the chief market for tropical sugar. …
"India and the United States exclude bounty fed beet sugar;
and the reciprocity treaties with the United States, by
favoring tropical sugar with a minimum duty, put a narrower
limit to beet-sugar development, now prospering under a
protective tariff and state bounties. The general effect of
these positive aids to trade, as well as of the negative
restraints, has been to encourage tropical enterprise in which
sugar plays a leading role. …
"As things stand now, Germany continues to control the world's
sugar situation—not because of any superiority over the
tropics in machinery, nor because of the advantages of fiscal
bounties over tropical resources of the soil, but because all
the natural advantages under the prevailing slipshod methods
of tropical cane cultivation are more than counterbalanced by
the scientific methods of European agriculture applied to beet
farming. When the tropics apply to the cultivation of canes
(which covers half of the cost of producing sugar) the same
degree of scientific attention that has been given to the
methods of manufacturing the canes into sugar, then—and not
until then—need the beet-sugar interests of Europe look to
their laurels, under the present conditions of the trade."
J. F. Crowell, The Sugar Situation in the Tropics
(Political Science Quarterly. December, 1899).
{524}
In the United States, the Dingley Tariff law of 1897 required
the Secretary of the Treasury to levy a special countervailing
duty on all bounty-fed sugar equal to the benefit derived by
the manufacturers of it from the bounty systems under which it
was produced. German and French sugars have had to bear such
countervailing duty, and it was exacted on Russian sugar for a
time after the passage of the Dingley Act; but the Russian
government succeeded in bringing about a suspension of it,
pending negotiations for a commercial treaty, which came to
nothing. It was the Russian contention, that the system
operating in that country for the benefit of the sugar
producers, by means of internal taxes which are not collected
on exported sugar, and by paternal regulations which control
prices in the domestic market, is not a bounty system, within
the meaning of the American law. (The full text of the Russian
law on the subject may be found translated in the
"Congressional Record," February 26, 1901, page 3335.) By
these arguments and by protracted negotiations the Russians
succeeded in keeping the door of the American market open to
their sugar, with no extra levy of duties, until February,
1901, when the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
arrived at the decision that he is required by the law to levy
and collect a countervailing duty or tax of 32 cents on each
pood (about 36 pounds) of Russian sugar imported into the
United States. The order to that effect, issued on the 12th of
February, gave great satisfaction to the American sugar-trust,
and more than equal dissatisfaction to other important
interests in the country, which are threatened by the danger
of retaliatory tariffs on the Russian side. The situation
produced is thus described in a Washington letter to the
"Tribune" of New York: "The iron and steel manufacturers have
been clamoring for the continued suspension of the
countervailing duty on Russian sugars. They have begun, they
say, to build up a market in Russia for American steel
products, and that market will be lost to them if Russia in
retaliation imposes maximum instead of minimum duties on steel
and iron manufactures. The steel industry all over the world
is threatened with a glut in production, and the American
manufacturers especially are keenly looking about for every
possible opportunity to dispose of an increasing surplus. They
deplore, therefore, the reimposition of the sugar duty, and
will help to fight for a reversal of Secretary Gage's action
by the Board of General Appraisers or by the courts. The
Secretary contends that the Russian scheme of encouraging the
sugar interest should be submitted for judgment to some legal
tribunal, and that in such an evident case of doubt it is his
duty to favor the Government to the extent of reimposing the
disputed duty. The case will go to the Board of General
Appraisers in New York, and then to the Federal courts, and a
final decision is, perhaps, two years off. Meanwhile the
German, French and other Continental governments have been
somewhat appeased, and the Sugar Trust has won a substantial
victory at the expense of the iron and steel consolidation.
Russia is disposed to resort to retaliatory decrees, and the
whole horizon is more or less clouded with threats of
commercial warfare."
The immediate consequence of the order of the United States
Treasury Department was a retaliatory order by M. De Witte,
the Russian Minister of Finance, issued four days later
(February 16), directing the collection of an additional
tariff of 30 per cent net upon American hardware, iron, steel,
boilers, pipes, forgings, castings, tools, gas and water
meters, dynamos, sewing machines, when such articles are of
American manufacture. This includes motors and machinery of
all kinds.
SUGAR TRUST, The.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY);
and SUGAR BOUNTIES.
SULU ARCHIPELAGO:
Acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the United States.
The Sultan's Government.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (MAY-AUGUST).
SUMER.
See (in volume 1)
BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;
(in volume 4)
SEMITES;
and (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1895.
Decision against the constitutionality of the Income Tax.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (APRIL-MAY).
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1900-1901.
Hearing of cases involving questions concerning the status of
the new possessions of the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900-1901.
SURGERY, Recent advances in.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: MEDICAL AND SURGICAL,
and CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS (X RAYS).
SUSA, Recent exploration of the ruins of.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: PERSIA.
SUWAROFF ISLAND:
Proposed annexation to New Zealand.
See (in this volume)
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).
SUZERAINTY:
The question between Great Britain and
the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1884-189-1;
1897 (MAY-OCTOBER); and 1898-1899.
SWAT VALLEY:
British India and the tribes of the.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1895 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER);
1897-1898; and 1901 (FEBRUARY).
SWAZILAND:
Administration assumed by the Transvaal Government.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (THE TRANSVAAL).
{525}
SWEDEN AND NORWAY:
Norwegian discontent with the union.
"The question of representation in foreign countries has now
convulsed Scandinavia for some years. A race of democratic
tendencies usually thinks more of its Consular than of its
Diplomatic Service, and Norway, in demanding immediate
permission to appoint her own Consuls, announces that she is
willing to leave for future consideration the subject of
separate Ambassadors for the two countries. Professor Harald
Hjärne crystallizes the reply of Sweden in the words: 'By
granting such a request we run the risk of our foreign policy,
and with it also our satisfactory relations with foreign
Powers, in fact, the whole external safety of our country,
becoming a mere ball for the Norwegian parties during their
contests for power.' However, the King, who is ever ready to
grant privileges to his Norwegian subjects, even when acting
against his better judgment, declared himself willing to
accede to the petition as to the Consuls, and to allow the
sister country to have the direct voice in the regulation of
foreign affairs which she has so long demanded, but only on
condition that she would contribute to the defence of the two
Kingdoms in proportion to her population. … Many leading
Norwegians declare that those who shout so loudly for a
revision of the Constitution are, after all, in the minority.
They argue that claims on Sweden are, for the most part,
merely advanced as a party cry, and that if a general appeal
were made to the country, the majority would pronounce,
without hesitation, in favor of a continuation of the Union to
the State which has given Norway, for the first time in her
history, a period of nearly a century of peace and
uninterrupted prosperity. …
"The Left support their plea for separate Consuls by pointing
out that the mercantile navy of Norway is far larger than that
of Sweden; they claim for it, in fact, that it is the third
largest in the world. A reply to this is that a large
proportion of this navy consists of old wooden sailing-boats,
unfit for any purpose but that of carrying timber, that Norway
has increased her mercantile navy at the expense of her
warships, and that in time of war she would have to depend
exclusively on the splendid modern battleships of Sweden for
the defence both of her harbours and her shipping, since she
is not now herself the owner of one single modern ironclad. It
may be mentioned, in connection with this matter, that the
exports and imports of Sweden are nearly treble those of
Norway, the timber trade of the former country alone being the
largest in Europe, and that it is in consequence of Sweden
leaving so much of her carrying trade in the hands of the
sister country, thereby contributing no little to her
prosperity, that she has been encouraged and enabled to
increase her merchant navy to such an extent. Sweden has
throughout the century made enormous sacrifices for her navy,
and especially has this been the case since King Oscar came to
the throne. She is, therefore, so far as can be foreseen, in a
position to defend both her own ports and her merchant
vessels. She does not, however, profess to be equal to the
task of protecting the long coast-line of Norway and that vast
fleet of merchant vessels, of which the land last named is
justly proud, without any aid whatever from the sister
country, and statistics prove that, however willing in an
emergency Norway might be, she would be unable to offer for
this purpose help that would be of any practical use. …
"In March, 1895, during the Consular crisis, King Oscar went

over to Christiania and did his utmost to effect a compromise.
Demands were made on him by the Extreme Left, to which he
could not consent, and he referred the Storthing to the Act of
Union proving that should he agree to the claim, he would
himself be guilty of a violation of the Constitution. Some
painful scenes ensued, and the King left Norway almost at
once. On his arrival in Stockholm he received an ovation such
as few Swedish monarchs can ever have had before. Every
distinguished man in the country seemed to have assembled at
the railway-station to greet him; each public body was
represented by its leading member, the whole of the Swedish
Parliament was present, and the fervour and enthusiasm with
which he was saluted is beyond description. The Press, without
a single exception, took the King's side, praising His
Majesty's action in most lavish terms; this produced more
effect than anything in Norway, where the Left had counted on
the support of the Radical Press in Sweden, not realising
that, when once there was a question of attacks on the Union
and the Constitution, all parties were equally prepared to
rally round the King. …
"In view of the strained relations between Sweden and Norway,
it may be said that Russia's encroachment on the liberties of
Finland is extremely ill-timed if, as is probable, she
contemplates offering her protection to Norway as she did to
the neighbouring country at the beginning of the century.
Even if no such extreme step on the part of Russia be in view,
should those among Norway's two million inhabitants who demand
separation, have their way, the country would be able to offer
the Imperial Government a splendid bribe as the price of its
non-intervention, for to the north of the territory of
Norrland lies the Varanger Fjord, an inlet including several
fine harbours, which is practically free from ice throughout
the year. This bay, so much coveted by the greater power, is
only separated from the Czar's dominions by a narrow strip of
Norwegian soil, which has already been crossed by a railway
constructed by Russia with the permission of Norway. The value
of this fjord to the Empire in time of war would be
incalculable, and to have this magnificent gift at its
disposal is a perpetual temptation to Norway to win the
suffrages of the only European Power she has reason to fear
should she ever hoist the flag of revolt she has so long held
half-unfurled in her hand."
Constance Sutcliffe,
Scandinavia and her King
(Fortnightly Review, October, 1897).
In 1899, an Act directing the removal of the emblem of union
from the flag of Norway was passed by the Norwegian Storthing
for the third time over the veto of the King, and became law,
under the provisions of the Constitution.
SWEDEN AND NORWAY: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894-1898.
The Initiative and the Referendum in practice.
Three times during the year 1894, with a conservative result
in each instance, important questions of legislation were
submitted to the vote of the Swiss people. In one instance
they were asked to demand that a portion of the federal
customs dues should be assigned to the cantons for cantonal
use, the avowed aim of the proposition being to weaken the
Confederation. They rejected the scheme by a vote of 347,491
against 145,270.
{526}
A still heavier majority was given against Socialist proposals
for a constitutional article guaranteeing the right of every
Swiss citizen to remunerated work. This was supported by only
75,880 votes, against 308,289. For another Socialist proposal,
of gratuitous medical attendance, the necessary petition (with
50,000 signatures) in order to bring it to a popular vote, could
not be obtained. A third, for extending factory regulations to
all shops in which manual work is done, and for establishing
obligatory trade syndicates, to fix salaries, prices, number
of apprentices, was lost by a vote of 135,713 against 158,492.
Again, in 1895, the result of appeals made to the Referendum
seemed to show that the disposition of the people was more
conservative than that of the government. An Army Reform Bill,
which enlarged the federal control of military administration,
was rejected by 270,000 votes, against 195,000. Two or three
other proposals of less moment were voted down by considerable
majorities, and it appeared unmistakably that changes dependent
on the popular will were not to be easily made.
In 1896 a proposal from the Federal Council to make the head
of the War Office commander-in-chief of the army in time of
peace was voted down, on a referendum, by 310,992 against
77,169. During that year there was much agitation of a project
for the establishment of a State Bank, which the Chambers had
sanctioned; but, on being submitted to the people, early in
1897, it was defeated by a majority of about 60,000.
Another measure, supported by the Federal Council and adopted
in the Chambers, for the purchase of the five principal
railways of the republic, was submitted to the decision of the
Referendum in February, 1898, and carried by 384,272 votes
against 176,002. Accordingly, the five railways known as the
Swiss Central, the Union, the Northeastern, the St. Gothard,
and the Jura Simplon, about 1,650 miles in total length,
became the property of the state. The general plan of the
government was to purchase the railways at twenty-five times
the average net annual earnings for the past ten years,
providing this was not less than the actual cost. The
companies to have the privilege of deducting surplus capital,
but to turn over the roads in first-class condition.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1897.
Constitutional amendments.
Consul Germain wrote from Zurich, July, 1897:
"Constitutional amendments were voted on and adopted by the
Swiss people on Sunday last, July 11. The first amendment
relates to forestry and gives the Federal Government control
over and power to enact uniform laws to regulate Swiss
forests. The second amendment puts the manufacture, sale, and
importation of food products under federal control. These two
amendments will relieve the cantons from vexatious
legislation, heretofore differing in each of the twenty
cantons and four half cantons, and give the whole of
Switzerland uniform laws on forestry and the manufacture,
sale, and importation of food products."
United States Consular Reports,
October, 1897, page 296.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1900.
Rejection of new electoral proposals.
On the 4th of November the Swiss nation gave its decision
regarding two important proposals which under the name of the
"double initiative" had been causing great excitement among
the population of the Confederation. One of these proposals
had for its object the election of members of the National
Council on the system of proportional representation, the
other the election of the Federal Council by the people. Both
proposals were rejected, the first by 242,004 popular votes to
163,548, and by 11½ cantonal votes to 10½, and the second by
264,087 popular votes to 134,167 and by 14 cantonal votes to
8.
SYRIA:
Exploration of ruined cities of the Roman province.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: SYRIA.
SZECHUAN.
See (in this volume)
CHUNG-KING.
T.
TA TAO HUI, The.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
TACNA, The question concerning.
See (in this volume)
CHILE: A. D. 1894-1900.
TAGALOS,
TAGALOGS, The.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.
TAGALOS:
Revolt against the sovereignty of the United States
in the Philippines.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and after.
TAKU FORTS, Allied capture of the.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE 10-26).
TALANA HILL, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
TALIENWAN: A. D. 1895.
Russo-Chinese Treaty.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895.
TALIENWAN: A. D. 1898.
Lease to Russia.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-JULY).
TALIENWAN: A. D. 1899.
Declared a free port.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899 (AUGUST).
TAMMANY HALL.
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1894-1895;
and 1897 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
TARIFF, Chinese.
See (in this volume)
LIKIN.
TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Australia: A. D. 1894-1895.
Defeat of Protection in New South Wales.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTH WALES): A. D. 1894-1895.
TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Australia: A. D. 1901.
Promised protective policy for the new Commonwealth.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1901 (MAY).
TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Canada: A. D. 1897.
Revision of tariff, with discriminating duties in favor of
Great Britain, and provisions for reciprocity.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1896-1897.
TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Europe and America: A. D. 1896-1901.
The question of sugar bounties and countervailing duties.
See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES; and GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (MAY).
{527}
TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Germany: A. D. 1891-1899.
Recent commercial treaties.
Preparations for forthcoming treaties.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1891-1899.
TARIFF LEGISLATION: Germany: A. D. 1895-1898.
Demands of the German Agrarian Protectionists.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1895-1898.
TARIFF LEGISLATION: Germany: A. D. 1901.
Promised increase of protective duties.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).
TARIFF LEGISLATION: Japan: A. D. 1897.
New tariff law.
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1897.
TARIFF LEGISLATION: Philippines: A. D. 1901.
New tariff for the Islands.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).
TARIFF LEGISLATION: Porto Rico. A. D. 1900
Tariff between Porto Rico and the United States.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900.
TARIFF LEGISLATION: United States: A. D. 1897.
The Dingley Tariff.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY);
and 1899-1901.
TARIFF LEGISLATION: United States: A. D. 1899-1901.
Reciprocity treaties.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1899-1901.
TARIFF LEGISLATION: United States: A. D. 1900.
Relations of the tariff to steel and tin plate industries.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.
TASMANIA.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
TEHUANTEPEC RAILWAY, The.
See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1898-1900.
TELEGRAPH, Cape to Cairo.
For the projected line of telegraph from the southern to the
northern extremity of Africa, Mr. Cecil Rhodes has undertaken
to find most of the needed money. He began construction from
the northern terminus of the Cape telegraphic service. In 1899
it was reported: "He has pushed the line northward through
Rhodesia to Umtali, in Mashonaland, which is 1,800 miles from
the Cape, and is pushing it on through Nyassaland to the
southern end of Lake Tanganyika, another 700 miles farther
north. The total distance to be covered is 6,600 miles. At the
same time the Egyptian government, under British auspices, was
pushing its telegraph system southward from Wady Halfa. Its
advance was intermittent, the erection of the telegraph poles
being necessarily dependent upon the pushing back of the
outposts of the Dervishes. Last autumn, however, the
destruction of the power of the Khalifa at Omdurman enabled
the Anglo-Egyptian authorities to reopen the long-closed
telegraph office at Khartoum. Khartoum being 1,300 miles from
Cairo, this reduces the distance to be spanned by the
telegraph wire to 3,500 miles; or, if we reckon Abercorn, on
Lake Tanganyika, as its northern terminus, only 2,800 miles.
It is being rapidly eaten into at both ends, more rapidly in
the south than in the north. Still nearly one-half of the
continent, and that the most difficult part, remains to be
crossed."
W. T. Stead
(in McClure's Magazine, August, 1899).
Soon after this was written, the South African War stopped the
progress of the work.
TELEGRAPHS, Submarine.
"The submarine telegraphs of the world number 1,500. Their
aggregate length is 170,000 miles; their total cost is
estimated at $250,000,000, and the number of messages annually
transmitted over them 6,000,000: All the grand divisions of
the earth are now connected by their wires, and from country
to country and island to island the thoughts and words of
mankind are instantaneously transmitted. … Adding to the
submarine lines the land-telegraph systems by which they are
connected and through which they bring interior points of the
various continents into instantaneous communication, the total
length of telegraph lines of the world is 835,000 miles, the
length of their single wires or conductors 3,500,000 miles,
and the total number of messages annually sent over them
365,000,000, or an average of 1,000,000 messages each day. In
the short half century since the practicability of submarine
telegraphy was demonstrated, the electric wires have invaded
every ocean except the Pacific. Nearly a score of wires have
been laid across the Atlantic, of which no less than thirteen
now successfully operate between the United States and Europe,
while three others span the comparatively short distance
between South America and the African and south European coast
lines. Throughout the Indian Ocean, lines connect the far East
with Europe and America by way of the Red Sea, the
Mediterranean, the western coast of Europe, and the great
trans-Atlantic lines. The Mediterranean is crossed and
recrossed in its entire length and breadth by numerous cable
lines, and the Mediterranean of America,' the Gulf of Mexico
and the Caribbean Sea, is traversed in all directions by lines
which bring its islands and colonies into speaking relations
with each other and with South America, Central America, the
United States, and thence with Europe, Africa, Asia—the whole
world. Along the eastern coast of Asia, cable lines loop from
port to port and island to island, receiving messages overland
from eastern Europe by way of the Russia-Siberian land lines
and forwarding them to Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand,
the Straits Settlements, Hongkong, and the Philippines, and
receiving others in return. South America is skirted with
cable lines along its entire border save the extreme south,
where they are brought into inter-communication by land lines.
Along the entire coast of Africa, cables loop from place to place
and from colony to colony, stretching along the entire
circumference and penetrating the interior by land lines at
various points. Every body of water lying between the
inhabited portions of the earth, with the single exception of
the Pacific Ocean, has been crossed and recrossed by submarine
telegraph lines. Even that vast expanse of water has been
invaded along its margin, submarine wires stretching along its
western border from Siberia to Australia, while its eastern
borders are skirted with lines which stretch along the western
coasts of the two Americas. Several adventurous pioneers in
Pacific telegraphy have ventured to considerable distances and
depths in that great ocean, one cable line running from
Australia to New Zealand, a distance of over 1,000 miles, and
another extending from Australia to the French colony of New
Caledonia, 800 miles seaward."
United States Bureau of Statistics,
Monthly Summary, January, 1899.
TELEGRAPHY, Wireless.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
TELEPHONE SYSTEM, Recent development of.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
{528}
TELEPHONY, Dr. Pupin's improvement in long-distance.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
TEMPERANCE.
See (in this volume)
references under LIQUOR SELLING.
TEMPLE LIBRARY, of ancient Nippur, The.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1897.
Centennial Exposition.
The centennial anniversary of the admission of Tennessee to
the American Union was celebrated by the holding of a very
successful exposition at Nashville, opening May 1, 1897.
TERESA URREA.
See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1896-1899.
TESLA, Nikola: Electrical inventions and discoveries.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
THREE AMERICAS RAILWAY, The.
See (in this volume)
RAILWAY, INTERCONTINENTAL.
THUTMOSIS I., The tomb of.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: EGYPT: NEW DISCOVERIES.
TIENTSIN.
"Tientsin is the most important city of northern China, being
located at the head of the Gulf of Pechili and but 80 miles
from the capital, Pekin, with which it is connected by water
and by a railway line. Another completed railway line runs
northeastwardly to Shanhai-kwan, and an elaborate railway
system is projected southward from this point through the
populous provinces of Shantung and Kiangsu to connect Tientsin
with Shanghai. In addition to these, the Grand Canal, the most
important of the great artificial waterways of China, has for
centuries connected Tientsin with the Yangtze-Kiang and
Shanghai. Its population is in round numbers 1,000,000."
United States, Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Summary,
March, 1899, page 2194.
"Tientsin is situated at the junction of the Huei River
(sometimes called the Grand Canal) with the Peiho River, in
latitude 39° 3' 55" north and longitude 117° 3' 55" east. It
is distant from Pekin by road about 80 miles. Formerly, it was
a military station only, but towards the end of the
seventeenth century became a city of great importance. To-day,
it is the home of 1,000,000 people, with an annual import and
export trade aggregating 65,000,000 taels * ($42,250,000).
[* Consul Ragsdale values the haikwan tael at 65 cents;
the estimate of the United States Director of the Mint,
July 1, 1898, is 68.8 cents.]
… The growth of Tientsin within the past few years is most
astonishing. The mud holes and swamps of a few years ago have
been filled in; one, two, three, and even four story brick
buildings erected; streets macadamized, trees planted, gas
works constructed, and now pipes (from New York) for a very
elaborate and perfect water system are being laid—all due to
foreign enterprise. On the other hand, the Chinese authorities
have been seized with the spirit of progress, and to them is
due the building and furnishing of the Imperial Military
College, the Imperial University, arsenals for the manufacture
of guns and ammunition, a mint for the coinage of silver, and,
last but not least, 320 miles of a splendid railway. …
"The Imperial University was established in 1895 by its
president, Mr. C. D. Tenney (former United States vice-consul
at Tientsin), at the request of His Excellency Sheng Hsuan,
with the advice and approval of the Emperor. His Excellency Wu
Ting-fang, present Chinese minister at Washington, and Mr.
Ts-ai Shao-chin, member of Viceroy Wang's staff, were the
first directors. The university is divided into three
departments, viz, collegiate, preparatory, and railway. The
preparatory course covers four years, after which the students
enter the collegiate department, where they remain another
four years. At the end of the first year in the collegiate
department, the students are drafted into special
classes—civil, mining, and mechanical engineering, and law.
Each special branch is in charge of foreign professors,
assisted by Chinese professors. The railway department was
organized for the purpose of providing men for subordinate
positions in the railway service—draftsmen, engineers, station
masters, etc. The students are admitted to the various
departments by competitive examinations. The government of the
university is solely in the hands of the president and
directors, the former being responsible for the educational
work of the institution. Thirty students in each class are
supported by the Government and are bound to Government
service after their graduation. The present number of students
is 250, and the annual expenses are 60,000 taels ($39,000),
entirely borne by the Government. The president and four of
the five professors are citizens of the United States.
"The Imperial Military College was established by His
Excellency Li Hung-Chang, the viceroy of Chihli, in the year
1884. At the beginning, it was simply intended to give
employment to the German officers under contract with the
Government, but the necessity of training men in the arts of
war led the viceroy to memorialize the Throne in behalf of a
permanent military college. A suitable building was erected,
at a cost of 50,000 taels ($32,500), and the annual expense of
maintenance is about the same amount. The students are drafted
from the different military camps, and they are supported by
the generals under whom they were serving. After a two years'
course, they return to their respective commands as
instructors. The school is under the directorship of Taotai
Yint Chang, a Manchu, who received his military education in
Germany, and held a commission of lieutenancy in the Austrian
army. All the principal instructors are Germans, most of them
being noncommissioned officers."
United States Consular Reports,
December, 1898, pages 550-552.
TIENTSIN: A. D. 1897.
Extension of British settlement.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).
TIENTSIN: A. D. 1900.
Capture by allied forces.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JULY).
TIGRIS, Valley of the:
Recent archæological exploration.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.
TIN PLATE INDUSTRY, in the United States.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.
{529}
TOCHI VALLEY, British-Indian war with the tribes.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.
Inclusion in a new British Indian province.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
TOGOLAND: A. D. 1899.
State of German colony.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (JUNE).
TOGOLAND: A. D. 1900.
Demarcation of the Hinterland.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1900.
TOLEDO, OHIO: A. D. 1899-1901.
The election of Mayor Jones.
Importance was given to the municipal election of April, 1899,
in Toledo, Ohio, by the character of the chosen Mayor, Samuel
M. Jones. He had first made himself known as a manufacturer in
the city, by his dealings with his employees. The Golden Rule
was posted in his shops, as the law by which he expected his
own conduct and that of the men who served him to be governed,
and it was found that he consistently obeyed the rule. In
1897, the Republican party, needing a candidate for Mayor, put
him forward and elected him. In office, he served the people
so well and the politicians and the monopoly interests so
little to their satisfaction, that his party, obedient to the
latter, cast him aside and nominated to the Mayor's office a
more "practical" man. Mr. Jones, thereupon, was induced to
present himself as an independent candidate, on a platform
denounced as "socialistic," and was elected by more than
double the total vote cast against him, for the regular
candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties. In the
following November, Mr. Jones was put forward as an
independent candidate for Governor of Ohio, and was not
elected, but received something over 106,000 votes.
On the 1st of April, 1901, Mr. Jones was reelected Mayor of
Toledo for a third term, again as an Independent, and as a
champion of municipal ownership for all public utilities.
TONGA ISLANDS, The:
Renunciation of German rights to Great Britain.
See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.
TORAL, General:
The Spanish defense of Santiago de Cuba.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).
Surrender of Spanish forces in eastern Cuba.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY 4-17).
TOSKI, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.
TOWER BRIDGE.
See (in this volume)
LONDON: A. D. 1894.
TRANS-MISSISSIPPI EXPOSITION.
See (in this volume)
OMAHA: A. D. 1898.
TRANS-SIBERIAN RAILWAY.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895;
and RUSSIA IN ASIA: A. D. 1891-1900.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, English royal declaration against.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
TRANSVAAL, The.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL).
TRANSVAAL NATIONAL UNION, The.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1895-1896.
TRIADS, Rebellion of the.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JULY).
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION, The Permanent.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.
The treaty of the Triple Alliance, or Dreibund, of Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Italy, formed in 1882 and renewed in 1887,
for common defense against France and Russia, expires in 1903.
See, in volume 5,
TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
Rumors of an intention on the part of Italy to withdraw from
the Alliance arose in the spring of 1901, and received some
color from a marked exchange of friendly courtesies between
Italy and France in April, when an Italian squadron was
entertained at Toulon, on the occasion of a visit from the
President of the French Republic to that city. But there seems
to be little reason to believe that any such action has been
determined by the Italian government.
TROCHAS.
A Spanish term applied to military entrenchments or fortified
lines.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897; and 1897-1898 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
TROY: Later researches on the site.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: TROY.
TRUST, The Sugar, and the Dingley Tariff.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY); and SUGAR BOUNTIES.
----------TRUSTS: Start--------
TRUSTS:
Industrial combinations in the United States.
An "Industrial Commission," was created by Act of Congress in
June, 1898.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
It submitted a preliminary report on the 1st of March, 1900,
on the subject of "Trusts and Industrial Combinations," from
which the following historical information is taken:
"The form of organization that has given them [industrial
combinations] their name 'trusts' was the one started by the
Standard Oil Trust in 1882, afterwords followed by the Whisky
combination—the Distillers and Cattle Feeders' Trust—and by
the Sugar Trust—the American Sugar Refineries Company. The
plan of that organization was as follows: The stockholders of
the different corporations entering the combination assigned
their stock in trust to a board of trustees without the power
of revocation. That board of trustees then held the voting
power of the stocks of the different companies, and was thus
enabled, through the election of directors, to control them
absolutely. In place of the stock thus received the trustees
issued trust certificates upon which the former holders of the
stock drew their dividends, these being paid upon the
certificates regardless of what disposition was made of the
plants of the different corporations. Owing largely to hostile
legislation and to the bitter feeling against the trusts above
named, these trusts, after some adverse decisions of the
courts, went out of existence, reorganizing as single
corporations in most cases, and none at the present time
remain.
{530}
A somewhat similar form of organization, however—the voting
trust—is found at times. In this form of trust the holders of
at least a majority of stock of a single corporation put their
stock into the hands of trustees for the purpose of voting it,
retaining for themselves all the privileges of drawing
dividends and making transfers. Such a voting trust has been
formed, it is claimed, in the case of the Pure Oil Company—an
organization of the independent oil interests—for the sake of
protecting a majority of the stock against purchase by the
Standard Oil Company. … As a form of corporate combination for
the sake of securing monopolistic control, the voting trust
does not seem to be now in vogue.
"The form of organization that seems most common at the
present time is that of the single large corporation, which
owns outright the different plants. A combination of this kind
is formed by the purchase of all of the plants of the
different corporations or individuals who enter into it, the
corporations then dissolving as separate corporations. Often
payments for the plants are made largely in stock of the new
corporation, so that many of the former owners maintain their
interest in the business. The affairs are then managed
entirely by the stockholders of the one corporation through
their board of directors, elected in the ordinary way. It is
usual for these larger corporations to choose a very liberal
form of charter.
"A third form of organization, which is in many particulars
quite like the original trust form, is that which has been
taken by the Federal Steel Company, by the Distilling Company
of America, and others. In this form the central company,
instead of purchasing the plants of the different corporations
which it is proposed to unite, simply buys a majority of the
stock, or possibly the entire stock of each one of the
corporations. The separate corporations keep in separate
corporate existence, but a majority of the stock being held by
the one larger corporation, its officers, of course, elect the
boards of directors of all of the separate corporations, and
in this way hold ultimately complete control. It is usually
true that the separate corporations manage their own affairs
practically independently, although they are furnished
information regarding the workings of the other establishments
in the combination through the central officers, and are
doubtless largely directed in their policy in this way.
"In the case of the Standard Oil Company, when the original
trust was dissolved, there were issued to the holders of trust
certificates proportional amounts of stocks of each of the
constituent companies, and since the trustees themselves had
held a majority of the certificates, they retained as
individuals a majority of the stock in each one of the
companies that had formerly been in the trust. The separate
corporations were named as separate corporations, but the
majority of the stock of all being held in the same hands, the
directors of the different companies were largely the same men,
and their affairs were managed in unison in substantially the
same way as had been the case before. The new Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey has recently been formed with the
intention of transferring the stocks of the different
corporations into the stock of the new company, so that when
the transfer has been finally made, one single corporation,
the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, will own outright the
property now owned by the separate companies which are
commonly known and mentioned together under the name of the
Standard Oil Company. This combination at present has no
formal unity. It has a practical unity as great as it will
have probably after the complete change into the New Jersey
company is effected.
"As most of the larger corporations have, within the last few
years, been organized in New Jersey, it will be worth while to
note the special advantages given by the corporation laws of
that State. The advantages that seem to be brought out most
clearly are:
First, taxation. The organization tax is considerably lower
than that of most of the States, while the annual tax is fixed
upon the amount of capital paid in, so that it is an
absolutely certain quantity and can be determined by anyone,
thus leaving no opportunity for corruption on the part of
either the corporation itself or of State officials. The rate
of the tax is moderate, and decreases as the amount of capital
increases.
Second. Perhaps a greater advantage is to be found in the
liberal form of the New Jersey charter. The amount of capital
is unlimited, the period of organization is unlimited, the
amount of indebtedness is not limited, the powers that are
granted to corporations are also practically unlimited, with
the exception that an ordinary business corporation is
forbidden to engage in banking. The Federal Steel Company
would have found it impossible to organize for the purpose of
engaging in the various enterprises which it has undertaken
had it incorporated in the State of Illinois or of
Pennsylvania. The same thing holds also with reference to the
American Steel and Wire Company.
Third. There is less liability on the part of the stockholders
than in several other States.
Fourth. The directors have also less liability. In case of
issuance of stock for property the judgment of the directors
is conclusive as to the value of the property taken, unless
there is evidence of fraud. Stock issued thus for property is
considered fully paid up, and the stockholders can not be held
further liable in case the property proves to have been taken at
less than its cash value. The directors are not personally
liable for the debts of the corporation if they fail to file
reports or to conform with certain other requirements. …
"During the past few years the total capitalization of the new
industrial combinations has reached an enormous sum, well into
the billions, and in many cases at least the nominal
capitalization of the corporations far exceeds the cash value
of their property. … Regarding most of the combinations
concerning which testimony has been taken the facts appear
quite clear. None of the witnesses believe that the Standard
Oil Company is on the whole over-capitalized, as compared with
the present value of the plants. Its opponents believe that
its profits are enormous on the capitalization. The witnesses
representing the Standard Oil Company itself, while admitting
very large profits and presenting no very definite facts
regarding the capitalization, still give the same impression
from their testimony. The American Sugar Refining Company
seems to be, beyond question, capitalized at a sum twice as
large at least as the cost of reconstruction of the plants
themselves. The capitalization was shown to be several times
the original capitalization of its constituent members. …
{531}
"Perhaps the clearest testimony on this subject of
capitalization came from the witnesses connected with some of
the iron and steel companies. The witnesses regarding the
tin-plate combination were in substantial agreement in stating
that the owners of most of the plants gave an option on their
plants at what they considered was the fair cash value,
although, owing to the good times and to the fact that, in
many cases, the industries were quite prosperous, the prices
were high. They were then given, by the promoter, the option
of taking this valuation of their property in cash, or of
taking instead the same amount in preferred stock with a like
amount of common stock added as bonus. … One of the witnesses,
at least, conceded that the total amount of stock thus paid
for the plants, since the cash option was taken in prosperous
times and included not merely the value of the plant but also
the good will of the running business, probably amounted in
some instances to three or four or even five times the cash
cost of the plants at that time. … Exactly the same system
seems to have been followed in the capitalization of the
National Biscuit Company, the National Steel Company, and the
American Steel Hoop Company. In all these cases there was a
clear understanding that the common stock represented simply
bonus or anticipated profits. …
"In the case of the American Tin Plate Company there was also
added ten millions of common stock, which was issued to the
promoter for his services and for the cost of organization. It
is presumed, of course, that not a little of this ten millions
had to be paid out in commissions etc. to those who aided in
securing the required amount of capital, including cash
furnished for working capital. The amount of extra common
stock issued for purposes of promotion in the American Steel
Hoop Company and in the National Steel Company was $5,000,000
in each case."
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 1). pages 10-15.
TRUSTS: Standard Oil Company.
As the rise of the Standard Oil Company seems to have marked
the beginning of the movement towards combination in
productive industries, on the great scale of recent times, the
following passages from testimony concerning the history of
the Company and of the oil business is especially interesting.
The first is from the examination of Mr. John D. Rockefeller:
"Q. 'What was the first combination in which you were
interested of different establishments in the oil industry?
A. The first combination of different establishments in the
oil industry in which I was interested was the union of
William Rockefeller & Co., Rockefeller & Andrews, Rockefeller
& Co., S. V. Harkness, and H. M. Flagler, about the year 1867.
"Q. What were the causes leading to its formation?
A. The cause leading to its formation was the desire to unite
our skill and capital in order to carry on a business of some
magnitude and importance in place of the small business that
each separately had theretofore carried on. As time elapsed
and the possibilities of the business became apparent, we
found further capital to be necessary, obtained the required
persons and capital, and organized the Standard Oil Company
with a capital of $1,000,000. Later we found more capital
could be utilized and found persons with capital to interest
themselves with us, and increased our capital to $3,500,000.
As the business grew, and markets were obtained at home and
abroad, more persons and capital were added to the business,
and new corporate agencies were obtained or organized, the
object being always the same, to extend our business by
furnishing the best and cheapest products.
"Q. Did the Standard Oil Company or other affiliated interests
at any time before 1887 receive from the railroads rebates on
freight shipped, or other special advantages?
A. The Standard Oil Company of Ohio; of which I was president,
did receive rebates from the railroads prior to 1880, but
received no special advantages for which it did not give full
compensation. The reason for rebates was that such was the
railroads' method of business. A public rate was made and
collected by the railway companies, but, so far as my
knowledge extends, was never really retained in full, a
portion of it was repaid to the shippers as a rebate. … The
Standard Oil Company of Ohio, being situated at Cleveland, had
the advantage of different carrying lines, as well as of water
transportation in the summer, and taking advantage of those
facilities made the best bargains possible for its freights.
All other companies did the same, their success depending
largely upon whether they had the choice of more than one
route. The Standard sought also to offer advantages to the
railways for the purpose of lessening rates of freight. It
offered freights in large quantity, car-loads and train loads.
It furnished loading facilities and discharging facilities. It
exempted railways from liability for fire. For these services
it obtained contracts for special allowances on freights.
These never exceeded, to the best of my present recollections,
10 per cent. But in almost every instance it was discovered
subsequently that our competitors had been obtaining as good,
and, in some instances, better rates of freight than
ourselves. …
"Q. About what percentage of the profits of the Standard Oil
Company came from special advantages given by the railroads
when these were greatest?
A. No percentage of the profits of the Standard Oil Company
came from advantages given by railroads at any time. Whatever
advantage it received in its constant efforts to reduce rates
of freight was deducted from the price of oil. The advantages
to the Standard from low freight rates consisted solely in the
increased volume of its business arising from the low price of
its products. …
"Q. To what advantages, or favors, or methods of management do
you ascribe chiefly the success of the Standard Oil Company?
A. I ascribe the success of the Standard to its consistent
policy to make the volume of its business large through the
merits and cheapness of its products. It has spared no expense
in finding, securing, and utilizing the best and cheapest
methods of manufacture. It has sought for the best
superintendents and workmen and paid the best wages. It has
not hesitated to sacrifice old machinery and old plants for
new and better ones.
{532}
It has placed its manufactories at the points where they could
supply markets at the least expense. It has not only sought
markets for its principal products, but for all possible
by-products, sparing no expense in introducing them to the
public. It has not hesitated to invest millions of dollars in
methods for cheapening the gathering and distribution of oils
by pipe lines, special cars, tank steamers, and tank wagons.
It has erected tank stations at every important railroad
station to cheapen the storage and delivery of its products.
It has spared no expense in forcing its products into the
markets of the world among people civilized and uncivilized.
It has had faith in American oil, and has brought together
millions of money for the purpose of making it what it is, and
holding its markets against the competition of Russia and all
the many countries which are producers of oil and competitors
against American oil."
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 2). page 794.
Against the testimony of Mr. Rockefeller that the Standard Oil
Company obtained no exclusive advantages from railway
companies, other witnesses contended that such advantages were
given to it. On this point, the Commission say in their report:
"It was charged by most of the leading opponents of the
Standard Oil Company that the chief reason for the rapid
growth of the Standard, and its apparent great success in
underselling rivals and winning markets, was the special
advantages that it had received from the railroads. It was
claimed that the company not merely received discriminating
rates on its own shipments, but that it was frequently paid
rebates on the shipments of its competitors. It was conceded
by representatives of the Standard Oil Company that before the
passage of the interstate-commerce act special freight rates
and rebates were frequently received. It was asserted,
however, that this was the usual custom on the part of all
railroads with all large shippers, and that competitors of the
Standard had received similar favors. …
"Much greater differences of opinion exist with reference to
the condition of affairs since the passage of the
interstate-commerce act. It has been charged as a matter of
general belief on the part of almost all of the opponents of
the Standard Oil Company that these discriminations in various
forms have been continually received even up to date. On the
other hand, these charges have been denied in toto and most
emphatically by every representative of the Standard Oil
Company with reference to all cases excepting one, which they
claim was a mistake, the amount of freight due being promptly
paid on discovery of the error. … Certain opponents of the
company claimed that the Standard Oil Company received
commissions for shipping freight over railroads, which
commissions amounted to rebates. This charge is emphatically
denied by the Standard Oil Company and no positive proof on
the subject has been offered."
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 1). pages 25.
Of testimony on the subject of pipe-line consolidations in the
oil business, the report says:
"Mr. Boyle [publisher of the 'Oil City Derrick'] gives a
somewhat detailed history of the development of pipe-line
transportation in the oil business. The first successful pipe
lines were established in 1864 from Pithole to the Miller
farm. Others were soon constructed in the same district. These
were usually short, scarcely over 5 miles in length, and at
first did not even connect directly with the wells themselves,
although this practice was soon established. Numerous lines
soon grew up in different parts of the oil region, but the
first more extended systems date from 1869, when the Mutual
Pipe Line was laid more or less throughout Clarion County.
Vandergrift and Forman later established a system through
Butler County which became the nucleus of what is now known as
the United Pipe Line System. The original pipe lines were only
transporters of oil, but the nature of their work soon led them
to purchase oil, although at first it was not in the name of
the company itself. …
"Mr. Emery [of Bradford] also makes a brief statement of the
early history of pipe lines. He states that the first attempt
to combine separate pipe lines into a more complex system was
made by William H. Abbott and Henry Harley, beginning about
1866. By 1869 they had a capital of nearly $2,000,000, and 500
miles of pipe centering in the Miller farm. The concern was
then known as the Pennsylvania Transportation Company.
"Several witnesses describe the process by which the Standard
Oil Company gradually secured control of the various pipe
lines throughout the oil regions. The opponents of the trust
attribute the success of the Standard Oil Company in this
movement to the railway discriminations upon oil received from
pipe lines controlled by that company. It appears that for a
considerable period a rebate of 22 cents per barrel was
allowed on oil from pipe lines maintaining the agreed rates of
pipage. … Other opponents of the combination ascribe its
success in driving out competing pipe lines largely to the
practice of paying premiums upon oil in the territory of such
competing lines.
"Mr. Boyle gives the fullest statement of the growth of the
pipe-line consolidation during the seventies and attributes it
to the natural advantages arising from large capital and from
skill in organizing. He testifies that during the early part
of that decade very numerous pipe lines had been established.
These were at first constructed on a small scale by separate
oil producers, but, having entered the business, many
producers were inclined to extend their lines and form a
system. There thus arose an excessive number of competing
lines, and the solvency and integrity of some of them became a
matter of doubt. This excessive competition was the cause of
driving the pipe lines into a more complete organization. As
early as 1873 or 1874 a pooling arrangement was made by some
of the pipe lines, and rebates were paid by railways on oil
received from such lines. The United Pipe Line Company was
established in 1877, with a capital at first of $3,000,000,
and acquired by purchase a large number of lines. The new
company included many producers and stockholders of the
smaller companies, but it is estimated that the persons
controlling the Standard Oil Company had somewhat more than a
one-half interest in the United Pipe Lines. The National
Transit Company is the present owner of the United Pipe Lines
System, and the Standard Oil Company controls the National
Transit Company. …
{533}
"It was pointed out by several witnesses that the almost
complete control of the pipe-line system by the Standard Oil
Company gives it great power in fixing the prices of crude
oil, since producers can dispose of their product only through
the pipe lines, especially in view of the further fact, which
is alleged, that railway rates on crude oil are by agreement
kept at least as high as, if not higher than, the pipe-line
charges. The pipe-line system also gives the combination great
advantage over other refiners, who must pay the rates of

pipage fixed by the Standard, which are claimed to be
excessively high, or the high rates of freight."
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 1), pages 100.
TRUSTS:
Sugar Trust.
The following is from the testimony of Mr. Henry O. Havemeyer:
"Q. The history and organization of the Sugar Refining Company
has been gone over so many times in testimony before that it
is not worth while to dwell on it at length, but in order that
we may have the record somewhat complete, will you give a
brief sketch of its development, going back to the conditions
of the old sugar trust? [1887]
A. There were about twenty-five different firms or
corporations in the sugar business. I think the evidence
before some one of the Congressional committees was that for a
period of 5 or 6 years before the formation of the trust, 18
of those failed or went out of business.
"Q. Eighteen out of 25?
A. Not out of 25; 18 out of about 40. It occurred to some one
to consolidate the others, and 18 out of 21, I believe, went
into the trust, leaving 3 or 4 outside, who represented, I
think, 30 per cent. Then Spreckles built a refinery in
Philadelphia, and, 2 or 3 years after the formation of the
trust, the trust or its successor bought the Philadelphia
refineries.
"Q. Will you explain in a word or two the difference between
the trust and its successor and the reason for its going into
this other form?
A. The trust was attacked, and the courts decided it was
illegal, and a company was organized in New Jersey which
bought outright and paid for the different companies, which
were the constituent companies of the trust. They then
represented, I think, over 90 per cent of the output; then
other refineries began to be constructed, until now I think
they would represent 50 per cent of the consumption. …
"Q. The condition before the formation of the trust was about
this: When these 18 different companies failed, business was
in such a condition, as a whole, that it was considered
unprofitable?
A. Very unprofitable—ruinous.
"Q. Now, can you tell what special advantages—if you can give
this in some detail I shall be glad—come from this
organization, and in what way you make your savings?
A. The greatest advantage is in working the refinery full and
uninterruptedly. Of course, if you have a capacity of
140,000,000 and can only melt 100,000,000 somebody has got to
cut down materially. The moment you cut down you increase the
cost; by buying up all the refineries … and concentrating the
meltings in four refineries and working them full, you work at
a minimum cost. That enables us to pay a dividend on the
common stock.
"Q. SO the chief advantage in the combination was in
concentrating the production and destroying the poor
refineries?
A. Precisely."
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 2). pages 109.
See, also (in this volume),
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY).
TRUSTS:
The earlier combinations in steel production.
Mr. Reis, president of the National Steel Company, states that
that company was organized in February, 1899, under the laws
of New Jersey, with a capital of $59,000,000, $27,000,000 of 7
per cent cumulative preferred stock and $32,000,000 of common
stock. The company includes six steel plants, located at New
Castle, Youngstown, Sharon, Mingo Junction, Bellaire, and
Columbus. These plants are engaged in producing steel billets
and slabs, which are the raw materials for making tin plates
and various other products. The plants include 15 blast
furnaces. The company also owns iron mines in northern
Michigan at Iron Mountain and Ishpeming. These are expected to
produce from 1,250,000 to 1,400,000 tons of ore annually, the
total amount required for the use of the steel plants in the
combination being about 3,000,000 tons. The National Steel
Company also owns nine lake boats for transporting ore,
capable of carrying about 1,000,000 tons annually. … Mr. Reis
testifies that the National Steel Company is not a 'trust' in
the ordinary sense, since it makes no attempt to secure
control of a large proportion of the output of steel. Its
economies are sought in the combination of steel plants with
sources of raw materials. The National Steel Company produces
only about 18 per cent of the Bessemer steel made in this
country. The other chief concerns engaged in steel production
are the Carnegie Steel Company; Federal Steel Company; the
Maryland; Jones & Laughlin Steel Company; Wheeling Steel and
Iron Company, and the Lorain Steel Company. …
"Mr. Reis states that the tariff, so far as it is placed upon
steel billets, bars, and sheets, is no longer necessary for
the protection of the industry. No steel is imported, and
during the past 8 or 10 years the tariff has cut no figure.
But if the tariff should be removed from tin plate or from
certain other branches of the iron and steel industry there
would be an indirect effect upon the making of steel. …
"Mr. Gary states that the Federal Steel Company owns all the
capital of the Minnesota Iron Company, the Illinois Steel
Company, the Lorain Steel Company, and the Elgin, Joliet and
Eastern Railroad Company. The Minnesota Iron Company is the
owner of 150,000 acres of iron ore property on the Vermilion
and Mesaba ranges. It owns the Duluth and Iron Range Railroad
Company, connecting its mines with Lake Superior at Two
Harbors and Duluth. It owns large ore docks and also 22 steel
lake vessels capable of carrying 2,000,000 tons per annum. The
product of the Minnesota Iron Company will probably be
3,500,000 tons in 1900. The Lorain Steel Company manufactures
chiefly steel rails for street railways, and to some extent
steel billets. It produces about 500,000 tons of pig iron per
year. The Illinois Steel Company has plants at North Chicago,
West Chicago, South Chicago, Milwaukee, and Joliet. It
produces about 1,500,000 tons of pig iron per year, and also
manufactures steel rails, billets, plates, etc. It owns the
Chicago, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, which connects its
plants in the neighborhood of Chicago. It also owns large
tracts of coal property in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and
makes there about 1,500,000 tons of coke per year. This
company also owns iron mines in Wisconsin and Michigan. …
{534}
"Mr. Stetson, a lawyer, who drafted the charter and conducted
the legal arrangements in the organization of the Federal
Steel Company, testified that it was organized in September,
1898, with an authorized capital of $100,000,000 6 per cent
noncumulative preferred stock and $100,000,000 common stock.
Of this, $98,000,000 in all was originally issued. … Mr. Gary
states that the Federal Steel Company is not a trust in any
sense. It has not sought to restrict competition and has not
brought together companies which were competing with one
another, as is the case with most so-called trusts. The
company has bought the stocks of companies doing different
lines of business, just as an individual might do. …
"The American Steel and Wire Company operates iron mines in
the Lake Superior region. It controls, perhaps, one-sixth or
one-seventh of the output of that region. It owns and operates
coal mines and burns coke. It operates 8 or 9 blast furnaces, 17
open-hearth furnaces, from 22 to 25 rod rolling mills, and
from 20 to 30 wire mills. Its finished product is plain wire,
barbed wire, wire fencing, rope, etc., wire nails, and all
kindred articles. … Mr. Gates, chairman of the American Steel
and Wire Company of New Jersey, testified concerning the
formation of that company. It was organized on January 12,
1899. A gradual process of consolidating wire plants had been
going on previously. As early as 1890 companies in which Mr.
Gates was interested practically controlled the manufacture of
barbed wire in this country. In December, 1897, and January,
1898, J. P. Morgan & Co. investigated the value of the various
wire plants throughout the country with a view to further
consolidation. The American Steel and Wire Company of
Illinois, formed in March, 1898, seems to have resulted from
this effort. … The combination into the American Steel and
Wire Company was not rendered necessary by excessive
competition and consequent losses among the wire companies.
The Consolidated Steel and Wire Company, for example, made
between 27 and 28 per cent during the last three years of its
existence. It was believed, however, that more profit would be
made through better management under consolidation.
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 1), pages 190.
TRUSTS:
Tin Plate Industry.
"The American Tin Plate Company was incorporated under the
laws of New Jersey on January 6, 1899. Its authorized capital
is $20,000,000 of 7 per cent cumulative preferred stock and
$30,000,000 of common stock. Of this, $18,000,000 of preferred
and $28,000,000 of common stock has been issued. … It is made
clear by the evidence of all the witnesses that the tin-plate
industry in the United States has been built up practically
since the McKinley tariff of 1890, which raised the duty on
tin plates from 1 to 2.2 cents per pound. Without the
protection, all the witnesses agree, the industry could not
have been profitably established. Having once been
established, it was able to submit to the reduction of the
duty to 1.2 cents by the Wilson tariff of 1894, and is now
sufficiently protected by the duty of 1.5 cents under the
Dingley tariff of 1897."
United States Industrial Commission,
Preliminary Report (56th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document Number 476, part 1), pages 174 and 187.
TRUSTS:
The climax of consolidation in steel industries.
Formation of the United States Steel Corporation.
In February, 1901, the climax was reached in movements of
industrial combination, so far as concerns the production and
greater uses of iron and steel, by the formation of one
gigantic corporation, to embrace not only the companies named
above, but to purchase the enormous interests of the Carnegie
Company outright, and to take in several organizations of more
than considerable magnitude besides. The combination was
effected by the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co., New York, as
"syndicate managers," and an official statement of its
essential terms was published in a circular from that firm, on
the 2d of March, addressed to the stockholders of the Federal
Steel Company, National Steel Company, National Tube Company,
American Steel and Wire Company of New Jersey, American Tin
Plate Company, American Steel Hoop Company, American Sheet
Steel Company, to whom the following announcement was made:
"The United States Steel Corporation has been organized under
the laws of the State of New Jersey, with power, among other
things, to acquire the outstanding preferred stocks and common
stocks of the companies above named, and the outstanding bonds
and stock of the Carnegie Company. A syndicate, comprising
leading financial interests throughout the United States and
Europe, of which the undersigned are managers, has been formed
by subscribers to the amount of $200,000,000, (including among
such subscribers the undersigned and many large stockholders
of the several companies,) to carry out the arrangement
hereinafter stated, and to provide the sum in cash and the
financial support required for that purpose. Such syndicate,
through the undersigned, has made a contract with the United
States Steel Corporation, under which the latter is to issue
and deliver its preferred stock and its common stock and its
five per cent. gold bonds, in consideration for stocks of the
above named companies and bonds and stock of the Carnegie
Company and the sum of $25,000,000 in cash.
"The syndicate has already arranged for the acquisition of
substantially all the bonds and stock of the Carnegie Company,
including Mr. Carnegie's holdings. The bonds of the United
States Steel Corporation are to be used only to acquire bonds
and 60 per cent. of the stock of the Carnegie Company. The
undersigned, in behalf of the syndicate, and on the terms and
conditions hereinafter stated, offer, in exchange for the
preferred stocks and common stocks of the companies above
named, respectively, certificates for preferred stock and
common stock of the United States Steel Corporation, upon the
basis stated."
Details relating to the terms and the procedure of exchange
are then given, and several statements of public interest are
made, among them these: "The authorized issue of capital stock
of the United States Steel Corporation presently provided for
in said contract is $850,000,000, of which one-half is to be
seven per cent. cumulative preferred stock and one-half is to
be common stock. The company will also issue its five per
cent. gold bonds to an aggregate amount not exceeding
$304,000,000. In case less than all of the bonds and stock of
the Carnegie Company or less than all of the stocks of the
other companies above referred to shall be acquired, the
amounts of bonds and stocks to be issued will be reduced as
provided in said contract. The forms of the new bonds and of
the indenture securing the same, and of the certificates for
the new preferred and common shares, and the entire plan of
organization and management of the United States Steel
Corporation, shall be determined by J. P. Morgan & Co.
{535}
Every depositor shall accept in full payment and exchange for
his deposited stock the shares of the capital stock of the
United States Steel Corporation, to be delivered at the rates
above specified, in respect of the stock by him so deposited;
and no depositor or holder of any receipt issued hereunder
shall have any interest in the disposition of any other of the
shares of stock, or of the bonds of the United States Steel
Corporation, by it to be issued and delivered to or for
account of the syndicate or of any proceeds thereof. All
shares of the United States Steel Corporation deliverable to
or for account of the syndicate, which shall not be required
for the acquisition of the stock of the Carnegie Company or
for delivery to depositors under the terms of this circular,
are to be retained by and belong to the syndicate. … It is
proper to state that J. P. Morgan & Co. are to receive no
compensation for their services as syndicate managers beyond a
share in any sum which ultimately may be realized by the
syndicate."
Subsequently the American Bridge Company and the Lake Superior
Consolidated Iron Mines were taken into the consolidation,
and, on the 1st of April, 1901, the United States Steel
Corporation filed with the Secretary of State at Trenton, New
Jersey, amended articles of incorporation increasing its
authorized capital stock to $1,100,000,000. The stock is
equally divided into 7 per cent. cumulative preferred stock
and common stock. The total is greater by $250,000,000 than
the amount stated in the circular issued by J. P. Morgan &
Co., on March 2, as "presently provided for," and with the 5
per cent. gold bonds, not exceeding $304,000,000, brings the
security issues of the great steel combination up to
$1,404,000,000.
TRUSTS:
Industrial combinations in European countries.
"Trusts of the magnitude and influence of those now so
numerous in the United States are as yet rare in the Old
World. … It is in Germany, … of all European countries, that
trusts have spread most extensively and have been most
successful. … The German technical journals for 1897 enumerate
about 180 trusts, of which, it is true, only a few would
correspond to American ideas, but all of which demonstrate a
capacity for wider combination and fuller development. … As
regards great industrial combinations, the most striking
advance has been made in the German coal industry; the most
prominent organization in this department being the
Rheinisch-Westfälische Kohlensyndikat, which is distinguished
by the characteristics of a genuine trust, exercising within
its sphere of activity almost unlimited power. Like the
American Standard Oil Company, it directly controls the sales,
leaving the matter of production entirely to the separate
companies. Under the innocent title of 'eines Vereins zum
Ankauf und Verkauf von Kohlen' (a society for the buying and
selling of coal), this trust has, for the past five years,
completely controlled the West German coal industry, and
dictated prices. …
"In Austria and Hungary trusts have not yet extended so
rapidly. Nevertheless, on various occasions several of them
have given rise to such unfavorable comment that the sentiment
in favor of a legislative restriction of the movement is
to-day much more pronounced in the Austrian than in the German
Parliament. …
"As far as England is concerned, it must be admitted that,
notwithstanding her great industrial activity and a
competitive warfare not less pronounced than that of other
states, the Trust system has as yet found but tardy acceptance
in that country. This is doubtless due in some degree to the
thorough application of the principle of Free Trade; for it is
well known that the largest trusts are powerless unless their
interests are secured by a protective tariff excluding from
the home market the products of foreign countries.
Furthermore, we should remember that in England the principle
of individual freedom is regarded as inviolable. There, it
still obtains more widely than in most other countries; and
the majority of British merchants consider the principle
involved in the formation of trusts as a serious menace to the
freedom of the individual. …
"France is a country in which the Trust system has long
flourished and assumed extensive proportions. In the iron
trade, great trust companies—local in their character, it is
true—have existed for the last twenty years; and the most
powerful of these, like those of Germany, limit their activity
to the establishment of sales-depots. The chemical industry of
France, like that of Germany, is now controlled almost
exclusively by combinations. … Several international trusts,
such as the Zinc Trust, also have their headquarters at Paris.
Belgium, like France, is interested in most of the
international trusts; and there, as in France, the Trust
system has been successful largely in those enterprises which,
in other industrial countries, have hitherto maintained a
stubborn resistance to the inroads of the Trust. …
"In respect to the economic value of trusts in Europe, it may
be said that the influence exerted by them, both for good and
for evil, is, in its essential features, similar to that
exerted by the trusts of America."
W. Berdrow,
Trusts in Europe
(Forum, May. 1899).
TRUSTS:
Industrial combinations in England.
"England no longer enjoys that immunity from monopoly which
was the boast of its own economists and the object-lesson of
American free-traders. While the position of trusts has not
greatly changed in the United States during the past ten
years, except to develop on the same lines, a commercial
revolution is taking place in England. The country is becoming
honey-combed with combinations and trusts; and, what is more
and perhaps worse, there is no agitation against the system.
No effort is made to check trusts or control them. … There are
a large number of informal combines in England which give some
advantages of monopoly without unity of control or financial
association. Thus, the railroad corporations have long ceased
to compete as regards rates. It is perfectly well understood,
and has been admitted over and over again by railroad men
before Parliamentary committees, that the railroad companies
combine. They agree in their rates, but compete in facilities,
speed, etc. If it were not that the railroad companies are
strictly regulated by the Board of Trade, this system of
concerted action would be a very serious factor. As it is, the
railroads represent the most powerful interest in Parliament. …
Similarly, the leading shipping companies have fixed rates for
freight, to stop under-cutting, competing only in speed and
facilities. … There are various understandings and agreements
in the coal-trade. …
{536}
"Until a few years ago, England was not ripe for trusts. The
early efforts failed either through the overcapitalization of
the concerns, opposition from outsiders, or defective
management. … The monopoly that has been most prejudicial to
public interests—the National Telephone Company—is now being
undermined. … The agitation against this monopoly on the part
of municipalities became so strong that in 1898 the House of
Commons appointed a committee to investigate the question. The
result was that last year an act was passed giving
municipalities the right to establish telephones, and
authorizing the post-office to spend $10,000,000 in creating a
competitive system in London. …
"During the last three years, there has been a prolific crop
of amalgamations—half-way houses to trusts. … There is one
kind of amalgamation taking place that deserves special note.
Great mining, iron, engineering, and shipbuilding firms have
come together. Instead of having between the raw material and
the completed ship or engineering work the intermediary
profits of the iron-ore miner, the coal-miner, the
iron-master, the steel-maker, the iron-founder, the forger,
the marine-engine builder, and so forth,—all these middlemen
are got rid of, and the whole business placed, as it were,
under one roof. …
"Consumers in England have not so much to fear from combines
regulated by the Companies' Act, and held in check by free
trade, as consumers in the United States."
R. Donald,
Trusts in England
(Review of Reviews, November, 1900).
TRUSTS:
The question in American politics.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
----------TRUSTS: End--------
TSUNG-LI-AMEN, The Chinese.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899 (MARCH).
TUBUAI ISLANDS.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRAL ISLANDS.
TUGELA RIVER, Military operations on the.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1900 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
TUNIS: A. D. 1881-1898.
During the French Protectorate.
In 1881, under pretexts which were much condemned at the time,
the government of France compelled the Bey of Tunis to sign a
treaty by which he submitted himself and country to the
Protectorate of France.
See, in volume 2,
FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
This action gave bitter offense to the Italians, who had been
intending to lay their own hands on Tunis, and it is to be
counted among the causes of the entrance of Italy into the
Dreibund or Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary
in 1882. But time had so far worn away the grievance that the
Tunisian protectorate was practically recognized by the
Italian government in a treaty with France, signed in
September, 1896. In 1898, the general results produced in
Tunis by seventeen years of French control were described in
an elaborate report to the British government by its
representative in the Protectorate, or Regency, Sir H.
Johnston. The following is quoted from that report:
"The protectorate of Tunis is nominally an Arab Kingdom, ruled
by a prince of Turkish descent under the guidance and control
of a French Minister Resident-General and a staff of French
officials. The present Bey of Tunis, Sidi Ali Pasha-Bey, is, I
believe, the most aged ruler living, having been born in the
year 1817. He was Heir Apparent at the time of the French
treaty of protection, concluded with his elder brother, Sidi
Sadok Bey. Sidi Ali at his accession to the throne in 1882
accepted the inevitable with a good grace, and has from the
very first lent himself unreservedly to the French efforts for
the regeneration of his country. Two of his ministers are
Arabs (the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Pen), the
remainder of the Council are French officials. M. René Millet,
the Resident-General of France, is at the same time Minister
for the Foreign Affairs of the Tunisian Government and
President of the Council. … The personal staff of the
Resident-General consists of about nine members. In addition,
the French Government is more or less directly represented
throughout the Regency by officials corresponding almost
exactly to our vice-consuls, collectors and
assistant-collectors in our African Protectorates, with this
difference, that the collectors are called 'contrôleurs.' …
"The whole of Tunisia is now under civil administration,
except the Saham district to the south of Gabes, which still
remains under military control. … In the districts which I
visited, the natives, talking to me freely, said that they
would sooner be under the rule of any Frenchman than under
that of their own kaids. The French are face to face here with
the same problem that we find so difficult in other oriental
countries—that of creating amongst the natives a body of
public officials who will keep their hands from picking and
stealing, and their tongues from evil speaking, lying and
slandering. No tyrant is so cruel to an Arab as an Arab; no
one is harder on Muhammadans than their co-religionists.
Justice is administered to Europeans, and to the protected
subjects of European powers, by French tribunals, which
equally deal with cases arising between Europeans and
Tunisians. … Justice is administered to natives, in cases
where natives alone are concerned, by Arab courts depending
directly on the Tunisian Government, but with a Frenchman at
the head of each principal department. At all the centres of
population there are Arab courts of justice. The Court of
Appeal for the French courts in Tunis is the Supreme Court of
Algiers; the appeal from the Arab courts is to the Bey. …
Public works are entirely under French control, though
Tunisians are employed in minor posts. …
"Public education is under French and Arab direction. The
schools and colleges more or less directly supported by the
Government in the city of Tunis are the following:—
The Lycée Carnot,
the College Sadiki,
the secondary school for girls,
the Alawi College,
two lay schools for boys,
a school for Jewish children of the Israelite Alliance,
a Jewish agricultural school,
two schools for Jewish girls,
three schools for boys under the direction of friars, and a
primary school for little girls.
{537}
There is a Muhammadan university at the Great Mosque in Tunis,
and there are 113 primary Muhammadan schools in the same town.
In the interior there are about 98 primary schools for boys
and girls, supported by the Government, and mainly under
French direction. There are also about 500 Muhammadan schools
in the interior, either private or assisted by Government
funds. In addition to Government-supported schools, a large
number of private establishments have sprung up at Tunis and
at Sfax, wherein surprisingly good teaching is given, even in
such subjects as music. … The progress of education is having
very marked results on the indigenous population of the coming
generation—good results in the dissipation of Muhammadan
fanaticism and prejudice, results less pleasing, however, when
the recipient of this education is turned out a creature with
no particular religion, with no principles, and a contempt for
manly labour. …
"In 1880 life and property were thoroughly insecure. The
property of Europeans, perhaps, was safe, provided they were
the subjects of a Power able to coerce the Government of
Tunis, and their lives were not in any great danger in the
principal towns; but it would have been impossible for any
European to have travelled about many parts of the Regency
without a considerable escort; impossible, indeed, to
penetrate some parts of the Regency at all unless at the head
of an army. … It was as difficult, and dangerous, and
expensive to travel about the Regency 18 years ago as it is
now to visit the far interior of Morocco. I spent eight months
in Tunisia at that time, but never succeeded in visiting
Kairwan, the Holy City. … Now, I can go from Tunis to Kairwan
in a few hours by railway, see all the sights unhindered,
enter the mosques without offence, dine and sleep at an
excellent hotel, and be back again at my work in Tunis the
next day. I may further add that I have just traversed much of
the Tunisian Sahara and a good deal of the Jerid country with
no other escort than my servant, and a native cavalryman to
act as guide. I should have been equally safe had I been
alone. The whole Regency of Tunis is now as safe for tourists
as France."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command, 1898, C. 8649-18, pages 10-15, and 2-3).
TUNNELS, New York Rapid Transit and East River.
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-SEPTEMBER).
TURBINES, Steam, The invention of.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: MECHANICS.
----------TURKEY: Start--------
TURKEY: A. D. 1895.
Revolt and massacres in Armenia.
Atrocities on both sides.
A horrible condition of things in Armenia was beginning to
cause excitement throughout the world. On one hand, the
Armenians were in revolt against the foul Turkish government,
and avenging themselves savagely upon their oppressors
whenever they found the opportunity; on the other hand the
Turks were making the revolt an excuse for the atrocities that
are habitual to them in every such case. A special
correspondent sent in January by Reuter's news agency to
investigate the situation reported his conviction "that both
Turk and Armenian are in the wrong, and that, as very often
happens, it is the innocent who have suffered for the
wrong-doings of the guilty. When it is asserted on behalf of
the Turks that they are engaged in suppressing a revolutionary
movement in Armenia, the statement is fully justified by the
facts of the case. There does exist in Armenia an extremely
vigorous revolutionary movement, and it is equally beyond
question that the methods of some of the leaders of this
movement are no less shocking than the barbarity of the Turk
in suppressing it. At every step," he added, "I became more
and more convinced that the inhuman ferocity displayed in this
terrible struggle for the mastery has not been in the least
exaggerated in the reports of the massacres already published
in England. At Bitlis I heard the story of a Turkish soldier
who boasted, as one who had achieved a glorious feat, that he
had taken part in the disembowelling of thirty pregnant
women. 'Two lives in one,' was the rallying cry of the armed
men who perpetrated this butchery. Another soldier, who had
taken part in a massacre in a church, described, gloating upon
every ghastly detail, how he had slipped and slid along the
blood-washed floor while the inhuman work proceeded.
Unfortunately, something very like a counterpart of these
atrocities is presented by the methods of some of the leaders
of the Armenian revolutionary movement. I believe there is no
doubt of the fact that certain of these Armenian conspirators
arranged to murder the Reverend Dr. Edward Riggs and two other
American missionaries at Marsovan, and fasten the blame upon
the Turks, in order that, as they imagined, the United States
might inflict summary punishment upon the Turkish Government,
thereby rendering Armenian independence possible. The
missionaries only escaped through a timely warning which they
received from an Armenian friend. Dr. Riggs has devoted his
life to the education of the Armenian youth in the missionary
schools, but the conspirators, in their blind fanaticism, gave
this fact little heed."
There could be no denial however, that the treatment of
Armenia and the Armenians by their Turkish political masters
was horribly bad. In May, the governments of Great Britain,
France and Russia united in proposing certain reforms for
Armenia, over which there were evasive and dilatory
negotiations carried on by the Porte for several months.
Meantime, the Armenians became more aggressive and
threatening, and a secret society called the "Hintchak," which
had been in existence among them since 1887, assumed great
activity. Connected with the Hintchak there was said to be an
organization of spies and "executioners," the latter of whom
carried out decrees of assassination, arson, and
bomb-explosion which the society had pronounced. Finally, on
the 17th of October, an imperial irade (edict, or decree) was
issued, approving and adopting the project of reform which the
British, French and Russian ambassadors had submitted to the
Porte.
{538}
But the appearance of the sultan's ineffectual irade was
speedily followed by fresh reports of frightful massacres of
Armenians, at Trebizond, Erzeroum, Bitlis, Zeitoun, and
elsewhere, with outraging of women and destruction of
property, which increased rather than diminished as time went
on. There was no sign that anything had been done towards
carrying out the promised reforms; though the sultan wrote
personally to Lord Salisbury to remonstrate against an
expression of skepticism concerning them, which the latter had
let fall in a speech, and to say to the British Premier: "I will
execute the reforms. … This is my earnest determination, as to
which I give my word of honour." But nothing came of it all,
and the Powers which had received the Sultan's promises could
agree on no steps further, except to demand and obtain
permission to bring, each, an additional gunboat into the
Bosphorus.
Annual Register, 1895,
pages 284-294 and 190-193.
In response to a resolution of the Senate of the United States
asking for information relative to the treatment of the
Armenian subjects of the Turkish government, the Secretary of
State, Mr. Olney, on the 19th of December, 1895, communicated
the following, among other statements of fact: Of the
massacres at Sassoun, which occurred in August, 1894, "the
Department of State has little trustworthy information. …
Since that time appalling outbreaks against the Armenians have
occurred in many other parts of Asia Minor, where these
unfortunate people form but a small minority of the
population. At first they were scarcely more than local riots,
as at Tokat, in the vilayet of Sivas, in March last, where one
Armenian was killed outright and more than 30 wounded by the
Turkish soldiery. In June last an attempted rising of
Armenians in the province of Aleppo in the mountains of
Kozar-Dagh and Zeitoun was thwarted without bloodshed by the
arrest of the alleged conspirators. … In July a band of armed
Armenians crossing into the vilayet of Erzerum from Russia was
dispersed, several being killed or captured. By August the
Moslem feeling against Armenians had become so far aroused
that rumors of intended massacres came from several
independent quarters, Harpoot, Marsovan, and Bitlis among
them, which led to urgent demands by the United States
minister for adequate measures looking to the due protection
of American citizens in those places.
"On the 30th of September grave disturbances began at
Constantinople itself. Several hundred Armenians, who had
gathered for the purpose of going in a body to the Sultan's
palace and demanding redress for the grievances of their
countrymen, were dispersed by the police after a severe
conflict in which a number of Turks and Armenians were killed
and wounded. Mob violence followed, the Armenians resident in
various quarters of the capital being assailed by an excited
Turkish rabble, and over 50 were slain. The rioting continued
the next day, October 1, in Constantinople and its suburbs.
Some 800 or 1,000 Armenians were captured or arrested, many of
them being armed with new revolvers of a uniform pattern. By
the third day order was restored, and the Armenians who had
sought refuge in their churches returned to their homes. The
effect of this outbreak at the national capital was most
disastrous in the provinces. The danger of a general massacre
of Christians in the vilayets of Adana and Aleppo seemed so
imminent, that renewed orders for the effective protection of
American citizens in those quarters were demanded and
obtained. Fears for their safety at Hadjin, Mersine, and
Marash were especially felt, and the cruiser Marblehead was
promptly ordered to Iskanderoun (Alexandretta), the nearest
seaport.
"On October 8 a Turkish uprising occurred at Trebizond, due,
it is reported, to an attempt to assassinate the late Vali of
Van as he was about to leave for Constantinople, the Turks
claiming that the act was done by an Armenian and that they
were in danger of a general Armenian attack. On the 9th the
disturbance was renewed, many Armenians being killed and their
homes and shops looted by the mob. The authorities attempted
to quell the riot, but having only some 400 soldiers and
policemen at command, were powerless, and murder and pillage
ran their course as long as an Armenian was in sight. The
official Turkish reports give the number of Armenians slain as
182, of Turks 11, but the general estimate places the total
number at some 500. Reinforcements of troops soon arrived, and
quiet was restored. No injury to American citizens or property
occurred.
"From this time the reports of conflicts between Turks and
Armenians, with great loss of life, become frequent and
confused. At Akhissar, some 60 miles from Smyrna, 50 Armenians
were killed October 9. Koordish raids terrorized many parts of
the Armenian provinces. At Bitlis over 500 were reported
killed, the Turkish accounts alleging that the Armenians
attacked the Moslem mosques during the hour of prayer. At
Diarbekir 5,000 are said to have lost their lives, of which
2,300 were Mussulmans—but the Turkish authorities pronounce
this estimate exaggerated. From Malatia comes the report of a
'great massacre' early in November, when every adult male
Christian is said to have perished. Another sanguinary
outbreak, with great slaughter, is reported from Sivas on
November 12; some 800 Armenians and 10 Koords are said to have
been killed. At Hadjin and Ourfa loss of life is reported, the
American missionaries at those places being protected by
Turkish guards under orders from the Porte.
"The Kaimakam of Hadjin is credibly said to have announced
that he would destroy the town and sow barley on its site.
There being an American school at that place, directed by
American teachers, the United States minister thereupon
notified the Porte that if one of those American ladies
received injury from the riotous conduct of the populace, he
would demand, in the name of the United States, 'the head of
that Kaimakam.' That officer has since been removed. Later
reports allege massacres at Marsovan and Amasia. The consular
agent at Aleppo telegraphs that a severe conflict had occurred
at Aintab, and that great fear prevailed at Aleppo. The
burning of the American buildings at Harpoot took place during
a bloody riot, and many persons are said to have perished in
the province of that name. At Kurun 400 deaths are reported.
Particulars of the recent outbreak at Marash, on November 19,
in which American missionary property was destroyed, have not
yet been received.
{539}
"These scattered notices, for the most part received by
telegraph, are given, not as official averment of the facts
stated, but as showing the alarming degree to which racial
prejudices and fanatical passions have been roused throughout
Asia Minor. As above said, the Department of State has and can
have official knowledge regarding but few of these reported
massacres, and though up to the early part of December the
United States minister estimated the number of the killed as
exceeding 30,000, it is more than likely that the figures are
greatly exaggerated. At latest advices mob violence and
slaughter appear to have been checked, or at least to have
partially subsided. The Turkish Government has been emphatic
in assurances of its purpose and ability to restore order in
the affected localities; new governors have been appointed in
many of the provinces, troops have been sent to the scene of
recent or apprehended disorders, and forces have been massed
to subdue the Armenians who had gained the ascendant in
Zeitoun."
Of the American missionary establishments in Turkey, and of
the extent to which they suffered harm during the outbreaks,
the same report gave the following account:
"The number of citizens of the United States resident in the
Turkish Empire is not accurately known. According to latest
advices there are 172 American missionaries, dependents of
various mission boards in the United States, scattered over
Asia Minor. There are also numbers of our citizens engaged in
business or practicing professions in different parts of the
Empire. Besides these, more or less persons, originally
subjects of Turkey and since naturalized in the United States,
have returned to the country of their birth and are
temporarily residing there. The whole number of persons
comprising these several classes can not be accurately
estimated, but, the families of such citizens being
considered, can hardly be less than five or six hundred, and
may possibly exceed that total.
"Outside of the capital and a few commercial seaport towns,
the bulk of this large American element is found in the
interior of Asia Minor and Syria, remote from the few consular
establishments maintained by this Government in that quarter,
inaccessible except by difficult journeys, and isolated from
each other by the broken character of the mountain country and
the absence of roads. Under these circumstances and in the
midst of the alarming agitation which for more than a year
past has existed in Asia Minor, it has been no slight task for
the representative of the United States to follow the
interests of those whose defense necessarily falls to his
care, to demand and obtain the measures indispensable to their
safety, and to act instantly upon every appeal for help in
view of real or apprehended peril. It is, however, gratifying
to bear testimony to the energy and promptness of the minister
in dealing with every grievance brought to his notice, and his
foresight in anticipating complaints and securing timely
protection in advance of actual need. The efforts of the
minister have had the moral support of the presence of naval
vessels of the United States on the Syrian and Adanan coasts
from time to time as occasion required. …
"While the physical safety of all citizens of the United
States appears up to the present date to have been secured,
their property has, on at least two recent occasions, been
destroyed in the course of local outbursts at Harpoot and
Marash. The details of the Harpoot destruction have so far
been only meagerly reported, although it took place about the
middle of November. It is stated that the buildings at that
place were set on fire separately by Kurds and citizens, in
the presence of the Turkish soldiery, during an Armenian riot.
Besides the chapel, girls' theological school and seminary
building, the ladies' house, boarding house, and residences of
three American missionaries were burned, the aggregate loss on
the buildings, personal property, stock, fixtures, and
apparatus being estimated in the neighborhood of $100,000. The
United States minister has notified the Porte that the Turkish
Government will be held responsible for the immediate and full
satisfaction of all injuries on that score. The American
Missionary School of Science at Marash was burned during a
sanguinary outbreak on November 19. The value of the property
destroyed has not been ascertained, but after prompt
investigation the minister will make like demand for adequate
indemnity."
United States, 54th Congress, 1st Session,
Senate Document, Number 33.
"On November 9 one of tho Foreign Consuls arrived at
Constantinople from Erzeroum on leave, and he reported the
scene on his journey as heartrending. 'The whole country
between Trebizond and Erzeroum was devastated. He counted 100
dead bodies lying by the road near one town. Nearly all the
villages were burnt, and in many cases the male population
entirely wiped out.' At last, on December 13, 1895, Lord
Salisbury received the following telegraphic despatch from Sir
Philip Currie: 'It may be roughly stated that the recent
disturbances have devastated, as far as the Armenians are
concerned, the whole of the provinces to which the scheme of
reforms was intended to apply; that over an extent of
territory considerably larger than Great Britain all the large
towns, with the exception of Van, Sassun, and Moush, have been
the scene of massacres of the Armenian population, while the
Armenian villages have been almost entirely destroyed. A
modest estimate puts the loss of life at 30,000. The survivors
are in a state of absolute destitution, and in many places
they are being forced to turn Mussulmans. The charge against
the Armenians of having been the first to offer provocation
cannot be sustained. Non-Armenian Christians were spared, and
the comparatively few Turks who fell were killed in
self-defence. The participation of the soldiers in the
massacres is in many places established beyond doubt.'
"Of the appalling horror of this account I wish it were
needless to speak. … [It] would be none the less horrible if
the whole of the people massacred and outraged, ruined, and
starved, and driven to the snowy mountains in the middle of
winter, had been all the rudest villagers of the most rustic
village communities. But when we know that many thousands of
the victims have been people educated at Christian schools and
colleges, and who had acquired there, in addition to the
ineradicable virtues of their native and ancient faith, much
also of the refinements and activities of civilised life, we
may reach some true conception of the agonies which have been
inflicted on such a people in the face of Europe and of the
world by the cruelty and brutality of the Turks.
{540}
It is, indeed, right that our first indignation should be
directed against the infamous Government of Turkey. … Let us
remember that this is not a Government with which we have had
nothing to do, or for which we have had no responsibility, but
a Government which the European Powers, and we especially,
have been protecting and nursing for half a century. … Then we
may indeed begin to think, with remorse and shame, of our
handiwork, and of its results. In this particular case,
indeed, the immediate blame lies almost alone with Russia. By
a complete departure from all her previous great traditions
she deliberately refused to join the other Powers of Europe
for the purpose of compelling the Sultan to act with decent
humanity to those of whom she had been the declared defender.
She had the physical power and the geographical opportunity
which others had not; and there can be no doubt whatever that
a joint occupation of the waters of Constantinople by the
fleets of the European Powers would have secured the very
moderate demands that Europe made upon the Porte."
The Duke of Argyle,
Our Responsibilities for Turkey,
pages 116-122.
TURKEY: A. D. 1896.
Conflict in Crete between Christians and Mussulmans,
and its preceding causes.
In 1868, the Cretans, for the second time, were thrust under
the Turkish yoke. "By way of solace the Powers exerted
themselves feebly in inducing the Porte to concede the
so-called 'Organic Statute'
See (in volume 3)
GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
Organic Regulation.
… As the Charter remained a dead letter, the Cretans seized
the next favourable opportunity to rise in 1877. Their case
was brought before the Congress of Berlin; but the only relief
the Powers could extend to them was a fresh promise on the
part of the Porte, recorded in the XXIII Article of the
Treaty, to observe scrupulously that Organic Statute, which
had been proved to be unworkable. Meanwhile, the Cretans had
remained under arms during the whole of 1878, the island being
again almost completely devastated by the half-naked and
famishing troops which had survived the Russo-Turkish War.
Ultimately, through the mediation of England, the Porte was
induced, in November of that year, to concede the Pact of
Halepa, so named after the village near Canea where it was
negotiated, and signed under the supervision of the British
Consul, Mr. T. B. Sandwith—this fact being expressly recorded
in the preamble of the document. The arrangement was accepted
by the Cretans as a compromise, in spite of its many and
manifest drawbacks. Nevertheless, it brought about, at the
outset, certain beneficial results. Political parties were
formed in which the Mohammedan Cretans blended, irrespective
of religious differences, with their Christian countrymen; and
the unprecedented phenomenon of a Christian Vali completing
his four years' tenure of governorship was witnessed in the
person of Photiades Pasha.
"But this tendency to conciliation of the conflicting elements
in the island was by no means to the liking of the Porte. The
presence of a Mussulman military governor was therefore
discovered to be necessary; and as his grade was usually
superior to that of the Vali, and the Mussulman sub-governor
was the official whose recommendations were of weight with the
Porte, nothing was easier than to create insuperable
difficulties for the Christian Vali. Thus successive Valis
were compelled—often by private wire from Constantinople—to
tender their resignation; while, at the same time, the Porte
took care not to fulfil the financial engagements prescribed
by the Pact. By these means an acute crisis was brought about
under the Governorship of Sartinski Pasha, a Pole, in 1889,
when a preconcerted plan of deception and treachery was
carried out by the Porte with consummate skill.
"The Cretans, as it is but natural, are guided in critical
contingencies by the advice they seek at Athens. The Porte
therefore promised to the Greek Government, as soon as things
began to assume a threatening aspect in Crete, to satisfy the
demands of the islanders, provided they were prevailed upon to
abstain from occupying certain important positions. In spite
of the transparent perfidy of the proposal, M. Tricoupis, the
then Greek Premier, fell into the snare. While the Cretans
were held back, troops were poured into the island, and the
strategical points having been seized, the Greek Government
and the Cretans were defied. An Imperial firman, issued in
November of that year, abrogated the Pact of Halepa and the
British Government, under whose auspices it was concluded, was
now powerless to exact respect for what was virtually an
international arrangement. There was no longer any question of
a Christian Vali with a fixed tenure of office, or of an
Assembly of Cretan representatives. Shakir Pasha, the
commander of the Turkish troops, was invested with absolute
civil and military authority; Mussulman Albanians occupied the
Christian villages as gendarmes, and Crete continued to submit
to this kind of martial law up to 1894. When, however, Mahmoud
Djelaleddin Pasha, the then Mussulman Vali, surpassed even his
predecessors in arbitrariness, and actually dictated to the
tribunals decisions in favour of Mohammedan litigants, the
Cretans began to lose patience and another outbreak appeared
imminent. It was only then that the Great Powers moved in the
matter and prevailed upon the Porte to revert partly to the
pre-existing order of things, by appointing Alexander
Karatheodory Pasha, a Christian and a Greek, as Governor.
Beyond this, however, the Pact of Halepa was not observed.
True to its traditional tactics, the Porte took with one hand
what it had given with the other. The Mussulman Deputy
Governor and the military commander frustrated every effort of
the Vali, the very funds necessary for the maintenance of the
gendarmerie being denied him. Karatheodory was consequently
forced to resign. Complete anarchy now reigned in the island."
Ypsiloritis,
The Situation in Crete
(Contemporary Review, September, 1896).
"Occasional skirmishes between the Christian inhabitants and
the soldiers kept the excitement simmering and ushered in the
sanguinary scenes that finally followed. Turkhan Pasha, taking
time by the forelock, armed the Cretan Moslems for the combat
with the approval of the commander of the troops, and the
city of Canea prepared for a blood bath. The Mohammedan Lent
(Ramazan) was drawing to a close, and the three days of
rejoicing which invariably follow (Bairam) were supposed to be
fixed for the attack on the Christians. These anticipations
were duly realised, and on the 24th May, 1896, at 1 o'clock P.
M., the Turks fired the first shots, blowing out the brains of
several Christians to make that Moslem holiday.
{541}
Forearmed, however, is forewarned, and the Christians defended
themselves to the best of their ability on that day and the
25th and 26th, during which every house in Canea was
barricaded, and neighbours living on opposite sides of the
absurdly narrow streets fired at each other from behind stone
heaps piled up in the windows of their bedrooms. The streets
were deserted, all traffic suspended, and it was not until the

27th that the thirty Christian corpses (including two women
and four children) and the twenty lifeless Turks were removed
for burial.
"These events provoked a new administrative change of scene:
Turkhan Pasha was recalled, and Abdullah Pasha, at the head of
four battalions from Salonica, came to take his place. These
troops laid waste the villages and fields of the provinces of
Apokorona, Cydonia, and Kissamo, burning houses, huts, and
churches on the way. The best soldiers in the world, however,
run terrible risks in the interior of Crete, and Abdullah was
repulsed with the loss of two hundred men at the town of
Vamos. The foreign consuls at Canea, having verified these
facts, strongly blamed his conduct in a joint verbal note, and
the Porte shortly afterwards recalled him, and appointed
Berovitch Pasha [Prince of Samos] in his place. This was the
beginning of the end. The Christians of the island meanwhile
met, and through their delegates formulated certain demands,
which the foreign consuls referred to their ambassadors at
Constantinople, and the famous 'Modifications of the
Convention of Halepa' were framed in consequence. The sultan,
too, yielding to tardy pressure, graciously conceded the
nomination of a Christian governor-general in the person of
Berovitch, the summoning of the National Assembly, and other
demands. … The questions of the tribunals and the gendarmerie
[for the enforcement of peace and order in the island] were to
be arranged by international commissions; but weeks and months
passed away before they were even appointed. … At last the
commissions arrived and began their work in December [1896]."
E. J. Dillon,
Crete and the Cretans
(Fortnightly Review, May, 1897).
TURKEY: A. D. 1896 (January-March
Turkish opposition to English and American measures
for relief to Armenian sufferers.
Work of Miss Clara Barton and the Red Cross Society.
For some time the distribution of supplies from England and
America to the sufferers in Armenia was forbidden by the
Turkish government, for reasons stated by the Turkish minister
at Washington as follows: "The collections are made on the
strength of speeches delivered in public meetings by
irreconcilable enemies of the Turkish race and religion, and
on the basis of false accusations that Turkey repudiates.
Besides, the Sublime Porte is mindful of the true interests of
its subjects, and, distinguishing between the real state of
things and the calumnies and wild exaggerations of interested
or fanatical parties, will under its own legitimate control
alleviate the wants of all Turkish subjects, irrespective of
creed or race." The Red Cross Society, of which the American
branch had prepared to send its President, Miss Clara Barton,
with a small corps of assistants, to the scene of the
suffering, was especially excluded, by the order of the Porte.
Miss Barton and her staff sailed, however, from New York, in
January, and Mr. Terrell, the American minister at
Constantinople, succeeded in obtaining permission for them to
do their humane work as private individuals, not in the name
of the obnoxious society, and without displaying its insignia:
The single-mindedness, the prudence, the patient energy with
which Miss Barton pursued the one object of giving relief to
the suffering, overcame all opposition and all obstructions,
so that, in April, she was able to report:
"The way is all made clear for sending supplies. The suitable
agents all along the route are now known, and have been
arranged with for service, so that heavy supplies can be sent
at any and all times as they are needed. I feel my breath come
lighter as I think of these poor scourged and fever-stricken
towns without even one doctor, when our sixteen strong,
skilled men, with twenty-five camels' burden of supplies,
shall carry some light of hope and help into their night of
hopeless woe. I am happy to be able to say for the comfort of
contributors, that I hold the written word of the Porte,
officially given through the minister of foreign affairs from
the grand vizier, that not the slightest interference with any
distribution within the province will be had. This official
document was addressed and delivered to Sir Philip Currie, the
British ambassador, and by him passed to me. The decision is
general and final, without question or reservation, and
settles all doubt."
In September Miss Barton returned home for rest, and to bear
her testimony to America of the immensity of the need still
existing in the Armenian provinces and calling for help. Her
departure from Constantinople was reported by the newspapers
to have been the occasion of a remarkable demonstration, by
cheers, flags and salutes, from ship and shore, of the
estimate put upon the work she had done.
TURKEY: A. D. 1896 (August).
Attack of Armenian revolutionists on the
Ottoman Bank at Constantinople.
Turkish massacre of Armenians in the city.
In the spring of 1896, the Armenian revolutionists, encouraged
by the outbreak in Crete, made fresh appeals for attention to
the sufferings of their country, with threats of some
desperate action if no heed was given. In August, the
desperate act was undertaken, at Constantinople, by 30 or 40
madly devoted men. This reckless little band of misguided
patriots made a sudden attack on the Ottoman Bank, a British
institution which controls finance in the Turkish empire,
gained possession of the building, made prisoners and hostages
of two of its directors and some 80 of its clerks, and were
fully prepared with dynamite to destroy everything within its
walls, including themselves, if certain reforms which they set
forth were not instantly decreed. Their theory was, that "the
Ambassadors would force the Sultan to grant the reasonable
reforms which they demanded for the Armenians, rather than
permit the destruction of the Bank and its staff. It was a
scheme borrowed from the theatre, absurd in itself, and made
ridiculous by the way in which they failed to carry it out.
They went in bravely, and nothing hindered their destroying
the Bank, but they allowed themselves to be talked out of it
by Mr. Maximoff, the Russian dragoman, and would have been the
laughing stock of the world if its attention had not been
absorbed by the massacre which followed.
{542}
"The real heroism of that day was displayed in another quarter
of the city, by another small party of Russian Armenians, men
and women, who took possession of two stone houses and fought
the Turkish troops to the death, the survivors killing
themselves when they could fight no longer. There was no
serious fighting anywhere else, although dynamite bombs were
thrown from the windows of houses and khans upon the troops in
a number of places, showing that some preparation had been
made for a more extended outbreak. There is nothing to be said
in justification of this attempt of the revolutionists. They had
provocation enough to justify anything in reason, but there
was nothing reasonable in this plan, nothing in it to attract
the sympathy of the Powers or to conciliate public opinion;
and if the statements are true which have been made by
Armenians as to certain unexecuted parts of the plan, it was
diabolical. This only can be said on behalf of these
revolutionary committees. They are the natural outcome of the
treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish Government during
the last twenty years. When oppression passes a certain limit
and men become desperate, such revolutionary organisation
always appears. They are the fruit and not the cause of the
existing state of things in Turkey, and if we can judge by the
experience of other countries, the worse things become here,
the more violent will be the action of these committees,
whether Europe enjoys it or not.
"Revolutionists are the same all the world over, but the
Turkish Government is unique, and it is not the attack on the
Bank which interests us but the action of the Government which
followed it. As we have said, the authorities had full
information of what was to be attempted and did nothing to
prevent it, but they made every preparation for carrying out
their own plan. Bands of ruffians were gathered in Stamboul,
Galata, and Pera, made up of Kurds, Lazes, and the lower class
of Turks, armed with clubs, knives or firearms; and care was
taken that no one should kill or plunder in the quarter to
which he belonged, lest he should be recognised and complaint
made afterwards by the Embassies, with a demand for
punishment. A large number of carts were in readiness to carry
off the dead. The troops and police were in great force to
prevent any resistance, and to assist the mob if necessary. It
was a beautiful day, the streets were crowded, and few had any
idea of what had happened at the Bank, when suddenly, without
any warning, the work of slaughter and plunder began,
everywhere at once. European ladies on the way to the
Bosphorus steamers suddenly found themselves surrounded by
assassins, and saw men beaten to death at their feet. Foreign
merchants saw their own employés cut to pieces at their doors.
The streets in some places literally ran with blood. Every man
who was recognised as an Armenian was killed without mercy. In
general, the soldiers took no part in the slaughter and
behaved well, and this somewhat reassured those in the streets
who were not Armenians; but in a few moments the shops were
closed and a wild panic spread through the city. The one idea
of everyone was to get home; and as the foreigners and better
classes live out of the city in summer they had to go to the
Galata bridge to take the steamers, which ran as usual all
through the three days of massacre. This took them through the
streets where the slaughter was going on, and consequently we
have the testimony of hundreds of eye-witnesses as to what
took place. The work of death and plunder continued unchecked
for two days. On Friday there were isolated outbreaks, and
occasional assassinations occurred up to Tuesday.
"The number killed will never be known. The Ambassadors put it
at 5,000 or 6,000; the official report to the palace at 8,750,
besides those thrown into the sea. Thousands of houses, shops
and offices were plundered, including a number belonging to
Greeks and foreigners. Everything was done in the most
systematic way, and there was not a moment of anarchy, not a
moment when the army and police had not perfect control of the
city during all these days. … The majority of those massacred
belonged to the working class—especially the hamals
(porters)—but a large number of gentlemen, merchants and other
wealthy men, were killed, together with about fifty women and
children. The savage brutality of the Moslem mob was something
beyond all imagination, and in many cases the police joined in
beating men to death and hacking others to death with knives,
in the very face of Europeans. … In may cases European
officials appealed to the officers in command of the troops,
who were looking on at the slaughter of helpless, unarmed men,
to interfere and put a stop to it. The reply was 'We have
orders.' It was an officer who killed the clerk of the British
Post-office on the steps. And some of the most cold-blooded
and horrible murders took place in front of the guard house,
at the Galata end of the bridge, in the presence of officers
of the Sultan's household of the highest rank. They also had
their orders.
"Happily for the honour of the Turkish people, there is
another side to the story. It was the Government and not the
people that conducted this massacre. And although the vile
instruments employed were told that they were acting in the
name of the Prophet, and freely used his name, and are
boasting to-day of what they did for Islam, the Sheik-ul-Islam
forbad the Softas taking any part in the slaughter, and many a
pious Turk did what he could to protect his neighbours. … It
is not the people, not even the mob, who are responsible for
this great crime. It was deliberately committed by the
Government. The Ambassadors of the six Powers have declared
this to be an unquestionable fact in the Joint Note addressed
to the Porte.
"Since the massacre this same Government has been carrying on
a warfare against the Armenians which is hardly less inhuman
than beating out their brains with clubs. There were from
150,000 to 200,000 Armenians in Constantinople. They were
merchants, shopkeepers, confidential clerks, employés in banks
and offices of every kind—the chief business men of the city.
They were the bakers of the city, they had charge of the khans
and bazaars and the wealth of the city; they were the porters,
house-servants, and navvies. … Now the Government has
undertaken to ruin this whole population. They are hunted
about the city and over the hills, like wild beasts. …
Thousands have been sent off at once to the Black Sea ports,
to find their way as best they can without money or food to
their desolated villages in the interior. … Thousands have
fled to foreign countries."
The Constantinople Massacre
(Contemporary Review, October, 1896).
{543}
TURKEY:A. D. 1897 (January-February).
Fresh conflicts in Crete.
Attitude of Christians and Mussulmans towards each other.
Reports of the British Consul-General and others.
Early in January, 1897, while proceedings for the organization
of the new gendarmerie were under way, and while the
discussion of candidates for the National Assembly, to be
elected in March, was rife, fresh hostilities between
Christians and Mussulmans broke out, and there seems to be
good evidence in the following report, by Sir Alfred Biliotti,
the British Consul-General at Canea, that responsibility for
the state of things in Crete should be charged upon one party
hardly more than upon the other. The despatch of the
Consul-General to Lord Salisbury, written January 9, 1897, is
partly as follows:
"In the afternoon of the 3rd instant a great panic occurred in
the town owing to a wounded Christian having been conveyed to
the hospital, where he died of his wounds in the night, and to
a rumour that two Mussulmans had been killed or wounded at the
same time on the road between Canea and Suda Bay. All the
shops were shut up as usual, but there was no general 'sauve
qui peut,' Christians especially having congregated in the
square near the hospital in the hope of finding out further
information. Happening to be in the town, I took a carriage
and drove towards Suda. When at about a mile distant from
Canea I came upon a number of Mussulmans, who told me that
four Christians going to Apokorona had, without any
provocation whatever, discharged their revolvers on three
Mussulmans, two of whom had been severely wounded. I saw one
of them in his cottage hard by the road with a bullet wound in
the abdomen; the other had been conveyed on horseback to the
village of Tsikalaria (southeast of Suda Bay), 2 miles from
where he had been wounded, of which he was a native. The four
Christians fled across the fields, leaving on the road a horse
and an overcoat, and took to the mountains.
"Between half and a quarter of an-hour after this incident
another Christian, a native, like the Turk, of Tsikalaria, was
passing on the road when he was fired upon by Mussulmans in
retaliation for the wounding of their two co-religionists. Not
having been hit, the Christian jumped from his mule and ran
for his life along the Suda road, being pursued by armed
Turks. He was overtaken by three of them about half-a-mile
farther down, and was shot at and mortally wounded at 20 paces
in front of Commander Shortland, of Her Majesty's ship 'Nile,'
who was coming on foot from Suda Bay to Canea. The wounded
Christian was taken charge of by the Albanian corporal
stationed in a Christian monastery close by, and was
subsequently put in a carriage by the Russian Consul, who was
returning from Suda Bay at that moment, and sent to the town
hospital, where he died. While I was making inquiries on the
road a brisk fusillade was heard towards Tsikalaria, and as I
was about to return to Halepa a young Turk was seen at a
distance running towards us with a letter in his hand. It was
a message sent by the Albanian corporal stationed at
Tsikalaria asking for assistance. This messenger had hardly
arrived when a gendarme was seen coming down in great haste.
He said that the fight between Christians and Mussulmans
having become general, and there being only another gendarme
with the corporal, armed assistance was immediately required.
I took both these messengers and conveyed them to the gate of
the town, from whence I drove to Halepa to acquaint the Vali
with what was taking place. It was getting dark when I met on
the road his Excellency accompanied by the Italian Consul
going on foot to Canea, having found no available carriage,
and I drove back with them. The position was rather
perplexing. There was no available gendarmerie, and no
soldiers could be sent out, as they would have been fired upon
by the Christians. …
"Early on the day following, that is, on the 4th instant, the
Governor-General visited the village of Tsikalaria and the
villages westward of it in order to ascertain the truth with
regard to the numerous reports which were in circulation since
the preceding evening. It would seem that on hearing of his
son having been killed on the Canea-Suda road, the father of
the wounded Mussulman opened fire on the Christians. Other
Christians maintain that this wounded Mussulman, after having
shot at the Christian on the road, hastened to Tsikalaria, and
together with his father, began firing on the Christians. In a
very short time all the Christians rushed towards the heights,
and the Mussulmans towards the plain. During this evolution a
Christian was killed, it is said, by the father of the wounded
Mussulman, who had been arrested and is in prison. The same
night the women and children took refuge in the villages on
the mountains, while a contingent of 150 armed Christians came
down from Campos and Keramia in order to assist the male
population of Tsikalaria to defend their property. On the
other hand, armed Mussulmans flocked from all parts of the
plain to defend their co-religionists. The Mussulmans at
Perivolia, where they are of nearly equal numerical force,
tried to surround the Christians in order to keep them as
hostages for the safety of their co-religionists in other
villages where the Christians are more numerous. In so doing
they shot down a Christian, on whom they also inflicted
numerous knife stabs, finally cutting his throat. This was
followed by an emigration to, and armed assistance from, the
mountain villages as at Tsikalaria. "In the village of
Varipetro the Mayor, assisted by the corporal of gendarmerie,
a Mussulman Albanian, was doing his utmost to prevent a
conflict between its Christian and Mussulman inhabitants, when
a Christian from Lakkos, whose brother had been murdered two
years ago by a native Mussulman, stealing behind the corporal,
shot him dead. The Christians of Varipetro, with whom the
corporal was popular, having tried to arrest his murderer, the
Lakkiotes, who had come there in order to defend their
co-religionists, turned their arms against them, and prevented
them from carrying out their intention. In consequence of this
murder all the Christians of Varipetro emigrated to the
mountains, and all the Mussulmans to the town of Canea. Nearly
1,000 Christians from the plains of Cydonia and Kissamo came
to defend the inhabitants of Galata and Darazzo, and for a
time blockaded the Turks in the village of Kirtomado, Aghia, &c.
{544}
But the inhabitants of Galata, who are all Christians, have so
much confidence in the Mussulman Albanian Lieutenant called
Islam, who is stationed in their village, that they begged
their co-religionists to withdraw, which they did. …
"As is always the case, each party claims to have been
attacked by the other party, and the truth is not likely to be
ever discovered. Be this as it may, both Christians and
Mussulmans remain under the unshaken conviction that they are
wronged by the other party; this increases the animosity of
one sect against the other, and each member of the two races
will act on this conviction. This is the inevitable
consequence of the absolute want of confidence between the two
elements, and there is not the least hope that this feeling
will disappear, nor even slightly decrease, so long as they
are left to themselves. In the present instance it may be that
the Mussulmans, or some of them, may have considered
themselves bound to retaliate for recent murders committed on
their co-religionists by Christians. … The Christians are
convinced, and all their proceedings are marked by that
conviction, that all the incidents which trouble the public
peace are devices of the native Mussulmans to prevent the
execution of the promised reforms. I do not deny that the
attitude of the authorities at Constantinople may have such an
effect on the low class of Cretan Mussulmans; but it is far
from being so with the educated class who are as, if not more,
anxious than the Christians that the intended reforms should
be carried out without delay. In fact, they know that they
have nothing to hope from Constantinople, and that the only
protection of the minority to which they belong lies in the
promised reforms. On the other hand, I have observed with the
greatest pleasure that the Christians laid down their arms at
the first recommendation of the Consuls to do so, which proves
a sincere desire on their part to live in peace. When the
Christians were taking up arms in former times they used to
remain for weeks, even for months, on the mountains in spite
of the entreaties of the Consuls. Therefore, the Christians
and the Mussulmans are respectively well disposed, but there
is such an insuperable distrust on both sides, that they can
never come to a mutual understanding. Whether the incidents
which cause disturbances or disorders on the island are the
work of the Turks or of the Christians or of both is quite
immaterial to me. The important fact to be taken into
consideration is that an exchange of a few shots between one
or two Christians and as many Mussulmans is sufficient to
cause several districts, four in the present instance (Canea,
Apokorona, Sphakia, and Kissamo), to take up arms, and also
that there can be no doubt that such scenes will be repeated
on every recurrence of such incidents."
To the same effect, Captain Custance, of the British ship
Barfleur, reported on the 15th to Admiral Hopkins: "The
general situation, as I understand it, is, that the Cretan
Christian leaders, urged on by certain interested people at
Athens, have been preparing for some time to make an attempt
to drive the Turkish authorities out of the island in the
spring, if a favourable opportunity offers. The Mussulmans
would not be sorry to see the last of the Turkish Government
if they could only be sure that their lives and property would
be safe under the new regime, which, owing to the bitter
hatred existing between the Christians and Mussulmans, cannot
be expected. The two parties are face to face, armed to the
teeth, with long-standing feuds and wrongs, and with no force
between them capable of maintaining order."
On the 27th of January the Consul-General reported by telegram
to Lord Salisbury: "An outburst of terror, such as has not yet
occurred in Candia, has been caused by the commencement of a
fresh immigration of Mussulmans into the town, and by the
murder, within a week, of two men of that faith, and a few
minor outrages." The next day he reported: "Telegraphic news
from Candia, dated to-day, reports murder of a Mussulman, and
wounding of two others, and murder of seven Christians; murder
of further Mussulmans is rumoured. The Mussulman Military
Commissioner, and the Austrian Military Attache, now in
Candia, report that they met about 1,000 armed Mussulmans
moving inland, and numbers of Mussulman families moving
towards the town." Again, on the 2d of February: "Murder of
four Mussulmans last night, following on wounding of Christian
by Mussulman on the 31st January near Canea. Panic ensued in
Canea and Suda Bay this morning. Shops all closed. Shots fired
in town and Halepa, which resulted in death of two Mussulmans.
Four mixed villages, one large Christian village, and several
farms in environs are in flames." On the 4th, Colonel
Chermside, of the gendarmerie commission, sent the following
statement to Lord Salisbury: "The most that we have been able
to attempt to-night is to get a cordon to separate Christian
and Moslem quarters. Patrolling was tried, but the fire from
the Christians was too heavy to maintain it. Several Turkish
soldiers have been killed and wounded."
Great Britain,
Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command:
Turkey, Number 10, 1897, pages 15-45).
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (February-March).
Greek interference in Crete.
Greek forces in the island.
Demands for annexation of Crete to Greece.
Action of the Powers in the "Concert of Europe."
Pacific blockade of Crete.
Early in February, the difficulties of the attempt which the
leading European powers, acting in what was known as "the
Concert of Europe," were making to settle affairs in Crete by
reforming its Turkish government, were complicated by
interference from Greece. The Greeks, in ardent sympathy with
their Cretan kinsmen, were eager to take up the cause of the
Christian inhabitants of the island, and their government was
driven into independent action to that end, hoping that
Christian sentiment in Europe would constrain the Powers to
give it a free hand. A Greek squadron was sent to Crete, to
bring away fugitives—women and children especially—and to
prevent the landing of Turkish reinforcements. This was
quickly followed by an expedition of 2,000 men, Colonel Vassos
in command. An instant stimulation of the insurrection
occurred, and declarations demanding the annexation of Crete
to the kingdom of Greece began to appear; while the Greek
government represented in a note to the Powers that no
possible solution of the Cretan problem could be found without
concession to that demand. The Greek troops, considerably
increased in number, were landed on the island, joining the
insurgent Cretans, and beginning operations against the Turks.
{545}
On the 13th of February the admirals commanding the foreign
naval forces at Canea joined in sending a warning to the Greek
commodore, requiring him to "desist from all hostile acts and
to conform with international law." On the 15th a mixed force
of British, French, Russian, Italian and Austrian marines was
landed for the protection of the town. On the same day, from
Colombari, Colonel Vassos, the Greek commander, issued a
proclamation, saying: "In the name of His Majesty, George I.,
King of the Greeks, I occupy the Island of Crete, and proclaim
this to its inhabitants without distinction of sex or
nationality. I promise in the name of His Majesty that I will
protect the honour, life and property, and will respect the
religious convictions, of its inhabitants, bringing them peace
and equality rights." On the 17th, the Turkish forces at Canea
were attacked by the Greeks and insurgents, and the attack was
renewed on the 21st; whereupon, after warnings from the
foreign admirals in the harbor, the Russian, German, Austrian
and British ships opened fire on the attacking troops. In the
meantime, considerable bodies of Mohammedans were being
besieged by superior forces at other points in the island,
with great danger of massacre if overcome.
On the 2d of March, the representatives of Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy and Russia, at
Constantinople, arrived at an agreement of action, and jointly
addressed notes to the governments of Turkey and Greece. To the
Porte they wrote: "The Great Powers, animated by the desire to
assure the maintenance of peace and to see the integrity of
the Ottoman Empire respected, have sought for the means of
ending the disorders that have led to their armed intervention
in Crete, as well as of putting an end to the presence of the
Greek forces in the island. They have recognized that in
consequence of the delay in applying them, the reforms
contemplated in the Arrangement of August 25, 1896, no longer
correspond to the requirements of the present situation, and
they have agreed upon the following points:
1. Crete can in no case be annexed to Greece in the present
circumstances.
2. The island will be endowed by the Powers with an autonomous
administration ('régime').
In notifying these decisions to the Sublime Porte by order of
their Governments, the Representatives of the Great Powers at
Constantinople think it their duty to communicate the
resolution which has been taken by their Governments to
address to Greece a summons to withdraw her troops and naval
forces from Crete."
To the Greek government the same announcement was made, that
"Crete can in no case, in the present circumstances, be
annexed to Greece," and the communication was more explicit in
the further statements, as follows:
"In view of the delays caused by Turkey in the application of
the reforms agreed upon in concert with the Powers, and which
now make it impossible to adapt those reforms to a changed
condition of affairs, the Powers are resolved, while
maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, to endow
Crete with an absolutely effective autonomous administration
(régime), intended to secure to it a separate government,
under the high suzerainty of the Sultan. The Cabinets are
convinced that these views can only be realized by the
withdrawal of the Greek ships and troops now in the waters and
on the territory of the island which is occupied by the
Powers. We accordingly confidently expect this decision from
the wisdom of His Majesty's Government, which cannot wish to
persist in a course opposed to the decision of the Powers, who
are determined to carry out an early pacification, which is as
necessary for Crete as it is for the maintenance of general
peace. I will not, however, conceal from your Excellency that
I am instructed to warn you that, in case of a refusal of the
Royal Government, the Great Powers have arrived at the
irrevocable decision not to shrink from any measure of
compulsion if, on the expiration of six days, the recall of
the Greek ships and troops from Crete has not been effected."
The Turkish government replied on the 6th: "The Sublime Porte
has had the honour to receive the note which the Ambassadors
of the Great Powers were good enough to address to it on the
2nd of March relative to Crete. The Imperial Government takes
note with satisfaction of the assurances which the Great
Powers are good enough to give it as to their desire to
respect the integrity of the Empire and of the decision which
they have taken to obtain the withdrawal of the Greek ships of
war and troops from Crete. Relying upon their friendly
sentiments, and upon their firm resolve not to impair the
Sultan's rights of sovereignty, the Sublime Porte, which is
itself desirous of assuring the maintenance of peace, accepts
the principle of an autonomy to be accorded to Crete, while
reserving to itself liberty to discuss with the Ambassadors
the form and the details of the administration ('régime') with
which the island is to be endowed."
Two days later, the Greek government replied at greater
length, imploring the Great Powers "not to insist upon the
system of autonomy decided on, but to give back to Crete what
it already possessed at the time of the liberation of the
other provinces which form the Hellenic kingdom, and to
restore it to Greece, to which it already belonged in the time
of the Presidency of Capodistria," and appealing against the
demand for the withdrawal of the Greek military forces from
the island. "Since, in our opinion," wrote M. Skouses, the
Greek minister, "the new autonomous administration ('régime')
condition could not fulfil the noble object of the Powers, it
is clear what would be the condition of the unfortunate island
from now until the establishment of that administration, if
the Great Powers decided to persist in their resolve.
"In this connection, and in the name of humanity, as also in
the interest of the pacification of the island—a pacification
which is the sole object of the solicitude of the Great
Powers—we do not hesitate to appeal to them in regard to the
other measure, relative to the withdrawal of our military
forces. … The presence in the island of the Greek army is …
demanded by the dictates of humanity, and is necessary in the
interest of the definitive restoration of order. It is, above
all, our duty not to leave the Cretan people at the mercy of
Mussulman fanaticism, and of the Turkish army, which has
always intentionally, and by connivance, been a party to the
acts of aggression of the populace against the Christians.
{546}
"Above all, if our troops in the island, who are worthy of the
full confidence of the Great Powers, were intrusted with the
mandate of pacifying the country, their wishes and intentions
would at once be completely satisfied. It would then be
possible, after order had been restored, to obtain a free
expression of the wishes of the Cretan people, with a view to
decide their lot. Not only are the horrors which during
several decades have occurred periodically in Crete, not
committed without profoundly agitating the Hellenic people,
but they also interrupt the social activity, and seriously
disturb the economy and finances of the State. Even if it were
possible for us to forget for a moment that we are
co-religionists of the Cretan people, that we are of the same
race, and allied by blood, we cannot conceal from the Great
Powers that the Hellenic State is unable to resist such shocks
any longer. We therefore appeal to the generous sentiments
which animate the Great Powers, and beg them to allow the
Cretan people to declare how it desires to be governed."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Turkey, Numbers 4 and 5, 1897).
The position taken by the Greek government in this reply was
firmly maintained. Its troops were not withdrawn from Crete,
and the Powers of "the Concert," thus practically defied, had
difficulty in agreeing upon the next steps they would take.
France, England, and Italy would not consent to strong
measures of coercion proposed by Russia, Germany and Austria,
and the decision reached finally was to establish what is
known as a "pacific blockade" of the Cretan coast, to begin on
the 21st of March. This was announced on the 18th by the
admirals commanding on that coast, who gave notice: "The
blockade will be general for all vessels flying the Greek
flag. Vessels of the Six Powers or of neutral Powers will be
allowed to enter the ports in the occupation of the Powers and
land their merchandise there, but only if it is not intended
for the Greek troops or for the interior of the island. The
ships of the international fleets may visit these vessels."
The Greek government was notified to recall its men-of-war
still in Cretan waters, with the warning that "they will be
retained there by force if they have not left by 8 A. M. on
the 21st March."
On the day previous to this announcement of blockade the same
admirals had published a proclamation as follows:
"The undersigned, Commanders-in-chief of the naval forces of
Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, and
Russia, in Cretan waters, acting under instructions from their
respective Governments, solemnly proclaim and announce to the
people of the island that the Great Powers have arrived at the
irrevocable decision to secure the complete autonomy of Crete,
under the suzerainty of the Sultan. It is well understood that
the Cretans are to be free from all control on the part of the
Sublime Porte as regards their internal affairs. The principal
aim of the Powers being to provide a remedy for the evils
which have afflicted the country, and to prevent their
recurrence, they are drawing up in concert a scheme of
measures intended to regulate the working of the autonomous
régime, to restore peace, to assure to everyone, without
distinction of race or religion, liberty and security of
property, and to facilitate, by the resumption of agricultural
work and trade, the progressive development of the resources
of the country. Such is the aim of the Powers. They wish this
to be understood by all. A new era is commencing for Crete;
let all lay down their arms. The Powers desire peace and
order. They will, if it be required, have the necessary
authority to make their decisions respected. They count on the
co-operation of all the inhabitants of the island, Christian
and Mussulman, to assist them in accomplishing a work which
promises to secure concord and prosperity to the Cretans."
To the promise of an autonomous government for Crete the
insurgent Christians appear to have given no heed; but a great
number of the Mohammedan inhabitants of the island united in
sending telegrams to the British minister at Constantinople,
which were all of the tenor of the following: "Your Excellency
knows that the Christians of Crete, forming the numerical
majority of the population, but incapable of properly
administering the former privileges they enjoyed, have now
again been emboldened to massacre, destroy, and ruin, in the
same way that in the past they have always made ill-use of
their liberties in the country by the treacherous destruction
and ruin of their Moslem fellow-countrymen. Therefore, if the
people are left irresponsible for the government of the
country, which is the very breath of human life, it will
facilitate the completion of their bloodthirsty designs, and
hasten the ruin of the Mussulmans. We are quite sure that this
state of things will not recommend itself to the sympathy of
the Great Powers, the propagators of civilization.
"We therefore beg, in the name of the Mussulman population,
that the internal affairs of the Christian inhabitants of
Crete who have not yet reached even the first step on the path
of civilization, and are led away by the seditious designs of
Greece, may not be removed from the direction of the Sublime
Porte; if this be impossible, we beg that the internal affairs
of the island may be placed under the continual control of the
Great Powers in conjunction with the Porte; and we finally beg
that the necessary measures may be taken for the protection of
the life, honour, and property, as well as the rights of the
20,000 Mussulman inhabitants now living in Turkey, whose
interest in property is greater in value than that of the
Christians, and who are occupied with commerce and other
pursuits, besides those who live In the island, who, if
necessary, are prepared to undergo a census, and who exceed
100,000."
The situation of the Moslem population of the island was
represented a little later by Colonel Chermside, in a despatch
to Lord Salisbury, as follows:
"Over 49,000 Moslems are assembled in Candia and within cordon
area, comprising 25 square miles, viz., about two-thirds of
Moslem population of Crete. Of these, 29,000 are refugees from
central and eastern districts of island. Doles of flour are
issued to 39,000 persons; issue up to date 18 lb. per head; no
other food issued. The mass of the people have no buying power
and no work, but since arrival of British troops, armed
individuals are rare in streets; distress is supported with
great fortitude, in spite of insufficient food and ravages of
small-pox. Population hopes for future foreign protection
against Christian compatriots. "
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Turkey, Number 10, 1897, pages 153-178.
{547}
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (March-September).
War with Greece.
Success of the Turkish arms.
Peace sought by the Greek Government.
Notwithstanding the opposition of the Great Powers, the Greeks
were rashly bent upon war with the Turks, and, when balked in
Crete, began hostile demonstrations along the Turkish frontier
in their own peninsula. The events that followed have been
thus described by an eye-witness, who wrote immediately
afterwards: "When I arrived in Athens," says this writer,
"early last March [1897], although the Cretan insurrection was
being openly supported by Greek arms, war had not been
declared against Turkey. It was what I think was once
described in Parliament as 'a condition of war,' but not war.
… King George and his advisers rashly decided to attempt to
hasten matters in their own fashion. Agitation was begun
without and within the Turkish frontier, and the Ethuike
Hetairia manufactured alarms and disturbances in Macedonia and
Epirus. Attempts were made in other directions, but though
money and emissaries were sent, nothing came of it. Meanwhile
the mobilisation of the Greek army was begun, and later on
reserves were called out. Knowing a good deal about the
relative condition of preparedness for war of both Turkey and
Greece, I spoke without reserve on the subject to the King
and, later on, to the Princes. I told them nearly every
military intelligence department in Europe knew that Turkey
had been getting her troops ready for a year past to deal with
insurrection or invasion along the Macedonian frontier. Within
the Salonica military district she had nearly 100,000 men under
arms, all well trained and passably equipped. Besides infantry
she had nearly 10,000 cavalry, and within a month could place
a further force of 70,000 infantry in the field. Against these
the Greeks could not bring more than 60,000 regulars. There no
doubt might be mustered twice that number of men, but they
would be untrained irregulars and volunteers who would take a
month at least before they could be of much use, and Turkey
would have her bands of irregulars out also to offset their
value. It was notorious besides that the Greek army was
indifferently organised, that it had no transport, no
commissariat department, no medical department, and was
without anything like a sufficiency of trained officers. …
"Prepared or not, the Greeks clamoured for war, never doubting
latterly but that they would win. They protested that the
Hellenes were aroused and would fight and die, if need be, to
the last man. Greece would not waive an iota of her demands.
We were told that the Greeks scattered throughout the Turkish
Empire would spring to arms and paralyze the enemy's hands.
There were to be fearful outbreaks in Macedonia, Epirus, and
Albania, and tumults and burnings in all the chief cities
under Turkish rule where Greeks dwelt—Smyrna, Constantinople,
Salonica, and so on. I was informed that insurrectionary bands
were being got ready to invade Macedonia and Epirus, and I was
introduced to several of the leaders of these new expeditions.
… I saw many of these Greek filibusters at Kalabaka and other
places. By order from Athens the local commandants supplied
them with stores, transport, and trenching tools, and sent
guides to direct them, so that they should slip across into
Macedonia at the most suitable points for conducting their
operations. …
"The Greeks had a fairly long innings carrying on the war
within Turkish territory, whilst disingenuously disclaiming
responsibility for the acts of their own levies. Finally, in
April, the Sultan declared war and set his forces in motion.
Prior to that date the Greeks had moved up the whole of their
available strength close to the Thessalian frontier. The army
numbered nearer fifty than sixty thousand, of all ranks. …
Before war was declared the Crown Prince Constantine arrived
in Larissa, and took over the command of the Greek army in
Thessaly. … He had no military experience; and, as events
disclosed, was neither of a martial disposition nor of a firm
temperament. He showed subsequently that he felt keenly his
false position, and he tried to excuse the awful failures made
in the conduct of the campaign of panic and flight. …
"Independence Day having passed without a general invasion of
Macedonia by the Greeks, it is likely that the Turks had
thought the danger over, when suddenly firing began in a night
along the frontier from Nezeros to Ravenni. For a day or two the
Greeks carried all before them, capturing many block-houses
and taking a number of prisoners. They succeeded in
penetrating Turkish territory in some places for two or three
miles. … The Turks were in immediate danger of being
outflanked in one part of the field of operations, and
separated from their main force at Elassona. It was midday,
the 19th of April, when at a critical moment for the safety of
a portion of Edhem's forces an order arrived from the Crown
Prince to cease firing and retire the whole Greek army back
upon their own side of the frontier. … After an interval of
three hours, during which there was little or no firing, a
message arrived from headquarters that a blunder had been made
and the army was to readvance and engage the enemy. It was a
lost opportunity, for the Turks followed up the Greeks and
reoccupied the lines from which they had been driven. … The
cost of the blunder was a serious one to the Greeks, for in a
futile attempt, on the following day, to retake Gresovala,
General Mavromichali lost 2,000 men. …
"On the 21st of April, without any of the pictorial display or
reputed hand-to-hand fighting, some 40,000 Turks, not less,
accompanied by three cavalry regiments and half a score of
batteries, quietly streamed down the zigzag paved way in the
steep Melouna pass into Thessaly. They occupied the village of
Legaria and positions among the lowest foot hills at the
outlet of the pass. The Greeks were not able to embarrass them
as they deployed, although an attempt was made to find the
range with artillery. … For two days there was a fierce
artillery duel, interspersed occasionally with sharp rifle
fire as the infantry became engaged on the right and left of
the line. … All had ended in favour of the Greeks when the sun
set on the 22nd April, and the battle of Mati was over. … It
was the same night that the Crown Prince ordered the army to
retreat upon Larissa, twenty-five miles distant by road. About
8 P. M. the men were roused from their first sleep and
commanded to fall in. They did so very orderly and quietly,
thinking it was intended to deliver a surprise attack upon the
Turks.
{548}
The whole army was on the march, and had got five or six miles
from the battle-field, or close to Turnavos, when the
unaccountable mad panic seized them. Some say it originated
one way, some another. … The army broke into pieces and became
a furious rabble, which fled by road and fields south as hard
as most could run. Arms and ammunition and baggage were cast
aside wholesale. The Greek officers, as a rule, behaved worse
than the men, for they led the fleeing mob, and many of them
never stopped until they reached Pharsala or Vola. … The
whilom Greek army was a mob convinced that the Turkish cavalry
was upon their heels, though it never was near them. It gave
them the strength of despair, and so they covered afoot fifty
to sixty miles within twenty-four hours. The inhabitants of
Larissa and all the surrounding country, terrified at the
sudden calamity, were left by the military and civic
authorities, without hint or warning, to shift for themselves.
… The women and children of Larissa had to carry what they
wished to save upon their own backs. Thousands of these
helpless creatures, together with sick and wounded soldiers,
were left around the railway station, whilst officers rode off
upon the early or later special trains, to fly, as some of
them did, as far as Athens. The troops had gone hours before I
left Larissa, and even then there were no signs of the enemy
to be seen."
Bennet Burleigh,
The Greek War, as I saw it
(Fortnightly Review, July, 1897).
"Not until several hours after the departure of the last
Greek, did a few Turkish cavalrymen cautiously enter the town
[Larissa], some distance ahead of the Turkish army. … It was
the design of the Greeks to save Volo, a wealthy town, and the
haven of refuge of many of the peasants. Accordingly, a line
was formed from two miles beyond Pharsala to the pass which
was the doorway to Volo. About three miles from this pass was
the village of Velestino; and on the hills back of it were the
headquarters of Colonel Smollenske, commander of this, the
right wing of the Greek army. The Greek fleet, with decks
cleared for action, was in the Bay of Volo; having gone there
after the defeat of Mati, hoping that, in case the army
failed, its heavy guns would protect the town. After four
days, the Turks, having digested their victory with cigarettes
and coffee, were ready to renew fighting. Meanwhile, the Greeks
had put themselves in a sort of order. Evidently, the first
intention of the Turks was to force their way through
Smollenske's line and on to Volo. Accordingly, they attempted
to storm Smollenske's rifle-pits; but they were driven back
for the first time, and with the greatest loss that any such
movement had yet encountered in the campaign. … The Turks,
after a slight resistance, withdrew from the villages in front
of Velestino, which they had taken, and were soon moving over
to the left. Their plan of cutting the Greek line in two was
executed with energy. On the morning of May 7, Edhem Pasha
sent his fearless infantry, under heavy fire, up the hollows
between the mountain-ridges which ran at right angles to the
Turkish line across the plain. They intrepidly scaled the
ridges, and forced the Greeks from the position. Smollenske's
force was flanked and separated from the Crown Prince's force:
and he retreated in an orderly manner to Almyro. The Crown
Prince's force had been flanked on its left; at the same time
it was being flanked on its right by the force that had
flanked Smollenske. The Crown Prince, therefore, withdrew to
the heights of Domoko.
"So apparent was now the hopelessness of the Greek cause that
even the new ministry, which had been buoyed up into almost an
aggressive spirit by the 'victory' of Velestino, begged for
the intervention of the Powers. It was granted in the form of
a demand on the Sultan for an armistice. As there are six
Powers, each having a formal foreign office, this took some
time. The Sultan, as usual, was more deliberate than the six
tormentors, whom he in return tormented. Being truly Greek,
the Greek Cabinet seemed to believe that articles of peace
would be signed the moment the necessity of peace appealed to
the ministerial mind. … Two days after Pharsala, the Turkish
army appeared on the plain some ten miles from Domoko. There
it rested quietly for more than a week, leisurely celebrating
the important feast of Bairam. This confirmed the belief of
the Greek generals that the war was at an end. The morning of
May 17 found the Crown Prince's force more than ever convinced
of an armistice, and quite unprepared for an attack. At nine
o'clock the whole Turkish army began to advance upon the
astounded Greeks—most astounded of them all were the Crown
Prince and General Macris—in such a manner as to leave no
doubt as to its intention.
"The battle of Domoko which followed was the most sanguinary
of the campaign. … For three hours, that is, until
sundown,—the attack having begun at four o'clock,—the Greeks
steadily returned the hot fire of the Turks, who soon ceased
to advance, and doggedly hung on to the ground that they had
gained. … During this attack in front the Turks were making a
more important movement, strategically, on the right. … With
amazing intrepidity, during the hot action on the centre, the
Turks had fought their way over the mountains at the Greeks'
far right. Some reserves were sent around at sunset—but too
late. The Turkish left wing was already even with the town of
Domoko. Military experts maintain that the Crown Prince, by
readjusting his forces over night, could have given the
phlegmatic enemy a surprise in the morning, and held him in
check for several days. The retreat over the pass to Lamia
began at ten o'clock in the evening; and the next morning the
battalions covering the retreat were under heavy fire. The
Greeks' next stand was to be at Thermopylæ. Should the Turks
advance spiritedly, Smollenske's army would be cut off from
that of the Crown Prince, and forced to surrender. But the
Sultan, being somewhat appeased by more blood-letting, now
bowed before a letter from him whom the Greeks called 'a vile
enemy,'—the Czar,—who, for this act, saw his influence at
Constantinople supplanted by that of Germany, though the fear
of Russia was undiminished. At last the armistice came,—none
too soon for the demoralized army of Greece. The war had
lasted just thirty-one days."
F. Palmer,
How the Greeks were defeated
(Forum, November, 1897).
{549}
The preliminary treaty of peace, signed September 18, required
Greece to pay to Turkey a war indemnity of nearly eighteen
millions of dollars, arrangements for securing the payment of
which were to be controlled by an international commission
composed of one representative of each of the mediating
Powers. The same Powers were likewise to settle with Turkey a
rectification of the Greek frontier. Greece, in fact, was
helplessly in their hands.
TURKEY: A. D. 1897-1899.
Prolonged anarchy in Crete.
The inharmonious "Concert of Europe."
Final departure of Turkish troops and
officials from the island.
Organization of government under Prince George of Greece.
"The autonomous regime promised to this unfortunate island—the
Cuba of Europe—is still [at the end of 1897] apparently far
from realization. In the meantime a most distressing
condition; amounting to practical anarchy, prevails everywhere
except at some ports where the international gendarmerie
maintain a fair semblance of order. So completely have the
houses and property of the Mahometan population been destroyed
by the insurgents that the coming of winter has brought no
prospect to the former but one of desolation and famine.
Considerable pillaging of Christian houses by Mahometan
refugees was also reported from Candia, Kydonia, and other
points. In Candia the Turkish gendarmerie—recruited from the
worst class of Bashi-Bazouks—have proved worse than useless
for keeping order; they connive with the marauders and share
in the pillage. The British occupation is said to be only
nominal. …
"A strange satire upon the concert of Europe and the pretenses
of Western civilization was the circular letter addressed by
the Sultan to the powers, about mid-October, urging upon them
'in firm language' the necessity of promptness in restoring
tranquillity to the disordered island, and warning them of the
dangers of procrastination in this matter. … To accomplish the
pacification of Crete, the Sultan, in the letter referred to,
suggested that the entire population, Christian and Mahometan,

should be disarmed; that the disarmament should be carried out
by Ottoman troops; that the international troops should
co-operate in the work if the powers so desired; that the
entire force should be commanded by a European general in the
Turkish service; that an Ottoman garrison should be
permanently maintained; that the governor should be a
Christian and an Ottoman subject; and that a corps of
gendarmerie should be formed. … Toward the end of October it
was announced that the powers had finally chosen for the post
of governor-general of Crete Colonel Charles Schaeffer, a
native of the grand duchy of Luxemburg, and a man of extended
experience in the Turkish and Egyptian services, … related to
several of the principal houses of the aristocracy at St.
Petersburg, as well as to some of the most influential
personages in the entourage of the Sultan. … The Porte,
however, protested, with the support of Germany, against the
appointment of Colonel Schaeffer, who appears to have been
suspected of English sympathies. Russia, too, it was said,
objected, insisting that the appointee must be of the Orthodox
Greek faith. Thus, on the question of selecting a
governor-general for Crete, the concert of the powers broke
down as it did at other points during the long crisis. At the
end of November the name of Prince Francis Joseph of
Battenberg was prominently mentioned as a prospective
candidate of favor. The Cretan assembly proposed, unless a
suitable governor were speedily chosen by the powers, to offer
the post to a candidate of its own selection."
Current History, 1897,
pages 865-866.
Months went on, while the Powers still discussed the Cretan
situation and no agreement was reached. In January, 1898, the
Turkish government appointed Edhem Pasha governor of Candia;
but, in the face of the admirals of the blockading squadrons,
who exercised an undefined authority, he seems to have had
practically little power. Presently, a new attempt was made to
select a Christian Governor-general. France and Russia
proposed Prince George of Greece, but Austria and Turkey
opposed. In April, Austria and Germany withdrew from the
blockade and from the "Concert," leaving Great Britain,
Russia, France and Italy to deal with Cretan affairs alone.
The admirals of these Powers, acting under instructions, then
divided the Cretan coast among themselves, each directing the
administration of such government as could be conducted in his
own part. The British admiral had Candia, the capital town,
and there trouble arose which brought the whole Cretan
business to a crisis. He attempted to take possession of the
customs house (September 6), and landed for that purpose a
small force of 60 men. They were attacked by a Turkish mob,
with which they fought desperately for four hours, losing 12
killed and some 40 wounded, before they could make their
retreat to the shore and regain their ship. At the same time a
general massacre of Christians in the town was begun and some
800 perished before it was stopped. Edhem Pasha, with about
4,000 Turkish troops at his command, was said to have waited
long for the mob to do its work before he interfered.
This outbreak brought the four Powers to a decisive agreement.
They joined in imperatively demanding the withdrawal of
Turkish troops and officials from the island, and enforced the
demand. Guarantees for the safety of the Mohammedan population in
life and property were given; it was conceded that the
Sultan's suzerainty over Crete should be maintained, and he
was allowed to hold one military post in the island for a sign
of the fact. On those terms the Turkish evacuation of Crete
was carried out in November, and Prince George of Greece was
appointed, not Governor-general, but High Commissioner of the
four Powers, to organize an autonomous government in the
island and administer it for a period of three years. The
appointment was accepted, and Prince George was received with
rejoicing in Crete on the 21st of December. The blockade had
been raised on the 5th, and on the 26th the admirals departed.
During the following two years (1899-1900) there seems to have
been a generally good condition of order restored and
preserved. A constitution was framed by a national assembly,
which conferred the executive authority on Prince George, as
High Commissioner, with responsible councillors, and created a
Chamber of Deputies, elected for the most part by the people,
but containing ten members appointed by the High Commissioner.
Equal rights for all religious beliefs was made a principle of
the constitution.
TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
{550}
TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (October).
Concessions to the Armenians.
In October an irade was published by the Sultan which withdrew
restrictions on the movements of Armenians in the provinces,
except in the case of suspects; granted pardon or commutation
of sentence to a number of Armenian prisoners; ordered payment
of sums due to Armenian government officials who had been
killed or expelled at the time of the massacres; directed
assistance to be given in the repairing and rebuilding of
churches, schools, and monasteries which had been injured or
destroyed, and also gave direction for the building of an
orphanage near Constantinople.
TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (November).
Railway to the Persian Gulf.
A German Bank Syndicate obtained from the Sultan, in November,
1899, a concession for the extension of the Anatolian Railway
from Konieh in Asia Minor, to Basra, or Bassorah, on the
Persian Gulf. The line, which will pass through Bagdad, and
along the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, is to be
completed within eight years from the date of the grant. "The
concession is regarded as a startling proof of German
influence in Constantinople, and a defeat both for Russian and
British diplomacy. It is certainly a defeat for the former,
and will greatly increase suspicion at St. Petersburg as to
the ultimate ends of Germany in Turkey; but we suspect that
Indian statesmen will perceive considerable compensations in
the arrangement. Not to mention that all railways which
approach India develop Indian trade, the railway may secure us
a strong ally in Asia. It is not of much use for Russia to be
running a line from the Caspian to Bushire if when she gets
there she finds Britain and Germany allied in the Persian
Gulf, and able by a railway through Gedrosia to Sind to throw
themselves right across her path."
Spectator (London),
December 2, 1899.
"The opposition of the French company owning the
Smyrna-Kassaba road, which extends east as far as Afion
Karahissar, was removed by granting this company 40 per cent
of the shares in the extension, and the local objection was
obviated by a provision in the concession giving the Turkish
Government the right to purchase the line at any time. Few
railroad lines can be of greater prospective importance than
this 2,000 miles of railroad uniting the Persian Gulf with
Europe, forming a rapid transit to and from the East, opening
up large tracts of agricultural country, and paving the way
for German commercial supremacy in Asia Minor and Mesopotamia.
It is not difficult to see how Germany, with preferential
rates for goods on German lines, will be able to control the
chief markets of Asia Minor and invade the East. … Germans
purchased the Constantinople-Ismid Railroad from an English
company and extended it to Angora. They also checkmated the
French and English by extending their line from Eski-Sher to
Konieh, thus preventing extension of both the Smyrna-Afion
Karahissar and the Smyrna-Aidin-Dinair roads. The two great
distributing points—Constantinople and Smyrna—are thus
controlled by Germans, and German goods may enter the interior
of Asia Minor and the great valley of the Tigris and Euphrates
on German-controlled roads at a decided advantage. Germans
have obtained the right to build docks and warehouses at Haida
Pasha, the terminus of the Anatolian railroads; and with
through rates for German goods on German lines, German freight
cars may be sent across the Bosphorus and travel to Mesopotamia
and the confines of India and Persia without change."
United States Consular Reports,
April, 1900, page 497.
Professor Hilprecht has remarked, in the "Sunday School Times"
that "a new era for Babylonian archeology will begin when the
railroad from Koniah to Baghdad and Bassorah has been
constructed. It will then take about a week from London to the
ruins of Babylon, where, doubtless, a railway station (Hillah)
will be established. At present the traveler needs at the best
six weeks to cover this route. This railroad," says the
Professor, "has now become a certainty."
TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1901.
Impending outbreak in Macedonia.
The state of things in Macedonia, where the people have long
been on the brink of revolt against Turkish rule, excited to
it from Bulgaria and encouraged from Greece, but warned
otherwise by Russia and Austria, is thus described by the
"Economist," in an article quoted in "Littell's Living Age,"
March, 1899: "It is improbable, for reasons stated below, that
Macedonia will rise in insurrection this year [1899], but,
nevertheless, there is great danger in that quarter, which is
evidently disturbing both Vienna and St. Petersburg, and
exciting apprehensions in Constantinople. The Austrian and
Russian Foreign Offices are both issuing intimations that if a
revolt occurs Turkey will be allowed to put it down by Turkish
methods, and the Sultan is raising more troops, sending
Asiatic levies to Macedonia, and despatching some of his
ablest officers to control the hill districts. Severe warnings
have also been sent both to Belgrade and Sofia, and the Greeks
are warned that if their active party moves the Government of
Athens will not again be saved by Europe from the worst
consequences. All these symptoms imply that there is grave
fear, among those who watch Macedonia, that the patience of
her sorely oppressed people has given way, and that they have
resolved to risk everything rather than remain longer under
the rule of Pashas from whom no man's life and no woman's
honor is safe for twelve hours together. It is known,
moreover, that the course of events in Crete and the
appearance of the Tsar's Rescript have greatly stirred the
population. The former is held by them to show that if a
Christian population in Turkey will risk massacre, Europe will
not allow them to be exterminated, while the latter has made
submission more difficult by putting an end to hope for the
next five years. …
"Turkish subjects must be driven to despair before they will
rise against the Turks, and if they can even hope to be left
alone, the Macedonians will wait, rather than encounter so
dreadful a risk. They have, it is true, the example of the
Cretans to encourage them, but their country is not an island,
and they have the fate both of the Armenians and the
Thessalians to warn them that on the mainland the Turks cannot
be resisted by half-drilled forces.
"It seems almost a truism to say that Europe is foolish to
allow such a source of danger as Macedonia presents to
continue without a cure; but there is something to be said on
the other side. The Powers sincerely desire peace, and the
Macedonian magazine cannot be flooded without a war, if it be
only a war between Russia and the Sultan.
{551}
Nobody knows to what such a war would lead, or in what
condition Eastern Europe might emerge from it. Moreover,
however much the Macedonians may excite the sympathies of
philanthropists, they have done a good deal to alienate those
of politicians. They decline to be either Austrian or Russian.
They asked for years to be aided by Greece, and when Greece
declared war on Turkey they refused to rise behind Edhem
Pasha, whom they could have cut away from his supports. They
now ask aid from Bulgaria, but they are most unwilling to
submit to Sofia, and so make of Bulgaria a fairly strong
State. They wish, they say, to make of Macedonia a
Principality, but if it were so made the Slavo-Macedonians
would begin fighting the Græco-Macedonians, until both had
been nearly ruined. They must join one party or the other if
they wish to be free, and stick to the one they join, and
fight for it with a coherence which they have never yet
displayed."
On the 7th of January, 1901, a correspondent of the "London
Times" wrote on the same subject from Vienna, as follows:
"The situation in Macedonia, as described in trustworthy
accounts coming from different directions, testifies to the
increasing danger of trouble. Things have gone so far that an
outbreak may occur this year. In diplomatic circles it is
considered impossible that in any case it can be delayed for
longer than a twelvemonth. In Constantinople, Athens, and all
the capitals of the Balkan States the eventuality of a
Macedonian rising has been expected for several years past,
and in more than one instance preparations have been made
accordingly. To what extent the Macedonia committees have
received official patronage in Bulgaria is now of secondary
interest. The mischief has been done, and the agitation in
Macedonia is at present beyond the control of the Bulgarian
authorities, even if they wished to keep it in check, which is
not certain. All that can be said with confidence is that last
summer Austria and Russia made a vigorous and successful effort
to put an end to the almost open encouragement extended to the
Macedonian committees at Sofia, which was within an ace of
involving the Principality in a war with Rumania. The
Austro-Russian 'entente' [an understanding or agreement
between Russia and Austria, in 1897, to act together in
keeping peace in the Balkan peninsula] has, in fact, done
excellent service wherever diplomatic pressure can be brought
to bear. But, unfortunately, that does not include Macedonia.
If the revolutionary element in that province of the Ottoman
Empire sets at defiance the imposing Turkish forces
concentrated on the spot, it is not likely that it will be
influenced by what is probably regarded as the remote
contingency of the direct armed intervention of Austria and
Russia. All the warnings and scoldings in the world will not
suffice to preserve peace in Macedonia.
"It is difficult to say what foundation there may be for the
statement that the Sultan himself seeks to take advantage of
the disturbed condition of Macedonia for purposes of his own.
It is alleged that he wishes to prevent any change in the
existing regime in Crete by exciting the apprehension in
Athens and elsewhere that an attempt to modify the status quo
in that island would cause a massacre of the Hellenic
population in Macedonia. This view of the case finds
expression in the following extracts from a letter addressed
to the 'Roumanie,' one of the leading organs of
Bukharest:—'The thoroughly bad policy pursued by the Sublime
Porte in Macedonia, which consists in allowing that unhappy
province to remain a prey to Bulgarian agitators so as in case
of need to terrify diplomacy by the spectre of a revolution,
has contributed to open the eyes of the Powers. On the other
hand, the irresistible attraction exercised by the Kingdom of
Greece, not only on the Cretans themselves, but also on all
the rayahs of the Ottoman Empire, is an indisputable fact.'"
See, also (in this volume),
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
TURKEY: A. D. 1900.
The Zionist movement of the Jews to colonize Palestine.
See (in this volume)
JEWS: A. D. 1897-1901.
TURKEY: A. D. 1901.
The Cretan question.
The provisional arrangement of government for Crete,
administered by Prince George, of Greece, as High Commissioner
for the Powers, expires by limitation in December, 1901. What
shall then be done with the island is a question that was
referred, by the several Powers of the Concert, in the early
part of the year, to their ambassadors at Rome, in conference
with the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
administration of Prince George appears to have been quite
remarkably satisfactory to all concerned, and its continuation
was evidently desired, as much by the Cretans as by the
protecting Powers; but the former sought to have it placed on
a basis of permanency, in some form that would be practically
tantamount to the long craved annexation to Greece. Prince
George naturally looks in the same direction, and he is said
to have made it known that he would decline to hold his post
provisionally beyond the term of three years for which he
accepted it in 1898. The ambassadorial conference at Rome
decided, however, that the time has not come for a permanent
settlement of the Cretan question, and that the provisional
arrangement for its government must be renewed. A Press
despatch from Athens, on the 22d of March, 1901, announced the
decision and indicated the circumstances of the situation, as
follows:
"The Cretan Assembly meets at the end of next month, and its
probable attitude towards the question of union with Greece is
already the subject of speculation here. The decision of the
conference of Ambassadors at Rome is embodied in a memorandum
which has been handed to Prince George by the Consuls at
Canea, while a copy of the document has been unofficially
presented to King George 'à titre d'information.' The
Ambassadors express their opinion that any manifestation on
the part of the Cretans in favour of union with Greece would
be inopportune at the present moment, and they propose a
prolongation of the present provisional system of government
without assigning any definite term to the High Commissioner's
mandate.
"Whether Prince George, who is an enthusiastic advocate of
union with Greece, will accept the new arrangement
unconditionally remains to be seen. Meanwhile the islanders
are occupied with preparations for the elections.
{552}
"It appears that at a recent sitting of the Prince's Council
one of the most prominent of Cretan politicians advocated the
institution of an autonomous Principality on the lines already
laid down by the existing Constitution. The proposal provoked
a violent outburst on the part of the Athenian Press, which
denounces its author as a traitor to the cause of Hellenism.
The opinion apparently prevails here that the establishment of
a Principality would finally preclude the union of the island
with Greece."
TURKEY: A. D. 1901.
Order regulating the visit of Jews to Palestine.
See (in this volume)
JEWS: A. D. 1901.
----------TURKEY: End--------
TWAIN, Mark:
Description of scenes in the Austrian Reichsrath.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
U.
UCHALI, Treaty of.
See (in this volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1895-1896.
UGANDA: A. D. 1894.
Creation of the Protectorate.
See (in this volume)
BRITISH EAST AFRICA PROTECTORATE: A. D. 1895-1897.
UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.
Native insurrection and mutiny of Sudanese troops.
A train of serious troubles in the Uganda Protectorate began
in May, 1897, with an insurrection of some of the chiefs,
instigated by the king, Mwanga, who was restive under British
control. The revolt was suppressed after some sharp fighting,
especially at Kiango, on the 24th of July, and King Mwanga
escaped into German territory. In August he was formally
deposed by a council of chiefs, and his infant son, Chua, was
elected king in his place, under a regency of three of the
chiefs. But a more serious trouble followed, from the mutiny
of a part of the Sudanese troops which had been serving in
Uganda. These troops were being sent to join an expedition,
under Major Macdonald, for the exploration of the districts
adjacent to the Italian sphere of influence, and were not
permitted to take their women with them. This seems to have
been their chief grievance. They also complained of being
overworked, underpaid, insufficiently fed, and commanded by
young officers who would not listen to their complaints. They
seized Fort Lubas, on the frontier between Uganda and Usoga,
made prisoners of several of their officers, whom they finally
murdered, and held the fort against repeated attacks until early
in January, 1898, when they made their escape. They were
pursued and attacked (February 24) at Kabagambe, on Lake
Kioja, where they had built a fort. Many were killed, the
remainder much scattered. A considerable party got away to the
eastern side of the Nile and continued to give trouble there
throughout the year.
Meantime, the deposed king, Mwanga, had escaped from the
Germans and effected a new rising among his late subjects; and
another deposed king, Kabarega, of Unyoro, had also
reappeared, to make trouble in that region. After the
suppression of the Sudanese mutiny these risings were
overcome, with the help of some 1,100 troops brought from
India for the emergency. In March, there was news of
Kabarega's death, and the British Acting Commissioner and
Consul General issued the following proclamation:
"Whereas Kabarega, the deposed King of Unyoro, is reported to
have deceased, and whereas the present disordered state of
affairs in that country has proved that, for the maintenance
of good government and good-will, it is expedient to provide
for the succession to the kingdom of a member of the Royal
House, it is hereby publicly proclaimed that Karukala, son of
Kabarega, is now appointed King of Unyoro, under the
protection of Her Britannic Majesty. The Kingdom of Unyoro
comprises the provinces of—Busindi, Shifalu, Magungu, Kibero,
Bugoma, Bugahiaobeire. This appointment is in accordance with
the general conditions by which countries in British African
Protectorates are guided and regulated, and it secures to the
Kingdom of Unyoro all the advantages which accrue from its
being an integral part of such a Protectorate. The local
government of the country will be administered, under the
guidance of Her Majesty's Representative, by a Council of
Regency of either two or three Chiefs, to be appointed by Her
Majesty's Commissioner. This Council of Regency will, subject
to the approval of Her Majesty's Commissioner, select and
appoint the Katikiro and the other Chiefs of the first rank
required in accordance with local custom. These Chiefs, on
their appointment being confirmed, will select and appoint in
full Council the lesser grade Chiefs, until the system of
local administration is complete."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Africa, Number 7, 1898, page 42).
UGANDA RAILWAY, The.
On the 30th of April, 1900, the British Parliament voted
£1,930,000 for the completion of the railway under
construction from Mombasa, on the Indian Ocean, to Lake
Victoria-Nyanza, officially known as the Mombasa-Victoria
Railway. Previous expenditure had been about £3,000,000. On
the 30th of October it was reported that rails were laid down
to the 452d mile from Mombasa, and that advance gangs were
working about 40 miles beyond that point.
UITLANDERS.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1885-1890, and after.
UNGAVA, The district of.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1895.
UNITED CHRISTIAN PARTY.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
UNITED IRISH LEAGUE, The.
See (in this volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1900-1901.
UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL.
See (in this volume)
BRAZIL.
{553}
----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1885.
Cuban questions in controversy with Spain.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.
Legislation to promote the reclamation of arid lands.
The following measure of legislation to promote the
reclamation of arid lands was carried through Congress as an
amendment to the appropriation bill for Sundry Civil
Expenditures, and became law August 18, 1894:
"Section 4.
That to aid the public land States in the reclamation of the
desert lands therein, and the settlement, cultivation, and
sale thereof in small tracts to actual settlers, the Secretary
of the Interior with the approval of the President, be, and
hereby is, authorized and empowered, upon proper application
of the State to contract and agree, from time to time, with
each of the States in which there may be situated desert lands
as defined by the Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the sale
of desert land in certain States and Territories,' approved
March 3d, 1877, and the Act amendatory thereof, approved March
3d, 1891, binding the United States to donate, grant and
patent to the State free of cost for surveyor price such
desert lands, not exceeding one million acres in each State,
as the State may cause to be irrigated, reclaimed, occupied,
and not less than twenty acres of each one hundred and
sixty-acre tract cultivated by actual settlers, within ten
years next after the passage of this Act, as thoroughly as is
required of citizens who may enter under the said desert land
law.
"Before the application of any State is allowed or any
contract or agreement is executed or any segregation of any of
the land from the public domain is ordered by the Secretary of
the Interior, the State shall file a map of the said land
proposed to be irrigated which shall exhibit a plan showing
the mode of the contemplated irrigation and which plan shall
be sufficient to thoroughly irrigate and reclaim said land and
prepare it to raise ordinary agricultural crops and shall also
show the source of the water to be used for irrigation and
reclamation, and the Secretary of the Interior may make
necessary regulations for the reservation of the lands applied
for by the States to date from the date of the filing of the map
and plan of irrigation, but such reservation shall be of no
force whatever if such map and plan of irrigation shall not be
approved. That any State contracting under this section is
hereby authorized to make all necessary contracts to cause the
said lands to be reclaimed, and to induce their settlement and
cultivation in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of this section; but the State shall not be authorized to
lease any of said lands or to use or dispose of the same in
any way whatever, except to secure their reclamation,
cultivation and settlement.
"As fast as any State may furnish satisfactory proof according
to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior, that any of said lands are
irrigated, reclaimed and occupied by actual settlers, patents
shall be issued to the State or its assigns for said land so
reclaimed and settled: Provided, That said States shall not
sell or dispose of more than one hundred and sixty acres of
said land to any one person, and any surplus of money derived
by any State from the sale of said lands in excess of the cost
of their reclamation, shall be held as a trust fund for and be
applied to the reclamation of other desert lands in such
State. That to enable the Secretary of the Interior to examine
any of the lands that may be selected under the provisions of
this section, there is hereby appropriated out of any moneys
in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, one thousand
dollars."
Acts, 53d Congress, 2d Session, chapter 301.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
Re-survey of Mexican boundary.
See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1892-1895.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (January-February).
The monetary situation.
Contract for replenishing the gold reserve in the Treasury.
The alarming situation of the Treasury of the United States at
the beginning of the year 1895 was clearly described by the
President in his special Message to Congress, January 28.
See in volume 5, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895).
By the operation of what had been aptly called "the endless
chain" of the greenback currency issues of the government
(paid out with one hand, to be redeemed with the other in
gold, which the declining value of silver brought more and
more into demand) the gold reserve in the Treasury was fast
being exhausted, and the hour was approaching when, without
some effective relief, the obligations of the nation would
have to be paid in depreciated silver coin, and its credit
lost. The appeal of the President to Congress had no effect.
The Senate was controlled by a majority of men who desired
precisely the result which he wished to avert. The state of
things in that body was described by Senator Sherman, of the
Committee on Finance, in the following words:
"The Committee on Finance is utterly helpless to deal with
this vast question. We are quite divided upon it. We are not
allowed to propose a measure to this Senate which all can
approve of, unless there is attached to it a provision for
free coinage of silver."
The attitude of the House was different, but almost equally
hostile to the President's views. Its Republican majority was
not favorable to the aims of the free silver parties, but held
that the relief needed for the Treasury was to be sought in a
return to higher import duties, as a means of obtaining
increased revenue. Hence, a bill to carry out the
recommendations of the President was rejected in the House, on
the 7th of February, by a vote of 162 against 135.
On the following day, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr.
Carlisle, exercising authority which he possessed to sell
certain four per cent. thirty year bonds, contracted with
August Belmont &; Co., who represented the Rothschilds of
London, and with the house of J. P. Morgan & Co., of New York,
on behalf of J. S. Morgan & Co., London, and themselves, for
supplying 3,500,000 ounces of standard gold coin of the United
States, at the rate of 817.80441 per ounce, in exchange for
such bonds. It was a condition of the contract that one half
of the coin supplied should be brought from Europe: also that
the contracting syndicate should use its influence to protect
the Treasury against withdrawals of gold.
{554}
At the same time, the Secretary of the Treasury reserved the
right to substitute three per cent. gold bonds, if Congress
would authorize such an issue, to be taken by the syndicate at
par, in place of the four per cents to which his existing
authority was restricted. It was shown that the consequent
saving in interest would be $539,000 per annum, amounting to
$16,174,770 in thirty years; but the proposal was rejected in
the House of Representatives by 167 votes against 120. The
contract was accordingly carried out in its original form,
with success so far that the withdrawals of gold from the
Treasury dropped for a considerable period to a low point. It
appeared that when this emergency break was put upon the
working of the "endless chain," the sub-treasury in New York
was believed to be within twenty-four hours of a suspension of
gold payments. But the contract was loudly condemned.
nevertheless, by the opponents of the administration.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (February).
Renewed insurrection in Cuba.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1895.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (April-May).
Decision of the Supreme Court against the constitutionality
of the Income Tax.
Cases testing the constitutionality of the income tax which
Congress had attached to the Tariff Act of 1894, were brought
to a partial decision in the Supreme Court in April, and
finally in May, 1895.
See, in volume 4 of original edition,
or in volume 5 of revised edition,
TARIFF LEGISLATION, UNITED STATES: A. D. 1894.
[Transcriber's note: For this set see, Volume 4,
"TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.">[
The cases in question were "Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and
Trust Company," and "Hyde v. Continental Trust Company." On
the first hearing, the illness and absence of one of the
justices, Mr. Jackson, of Tennessee, left but eight members
in attendance, and they divided equally on several points
which were vital to the decision of the question of
constitutionality in the tax. The appellants accordingly
filed a petition for a re-hearing, submitting, among other
reasons, the following: "The question involved in these cases
was as to the constitutionality of the provisions of the
tariff act of August 15, 1894 (sections 27 to 37), purporting
to impose a tax on incomes. The Court has held that the same
are unconstitutional, so far as they purport to impose a tax
upon the rent or income of real estate and income derived
from municipal bonds. It has, however, announced that it was
equally divided in opinion as to the following questions, and
has expressed no opinion in regard to them: (1) Whether the
void provisions invalidate the whole act. (2) Whether, as to
the income from personal property as such, the act is
unconstitutional as laying direct taxes. (3) Whether any part
of the tax, if not considered as a direct tax, is invalid for
want of uniformity.
"The court has reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and
remanded the case, with directions to enter a decree in favor
of complainant in respect only of the voluntary payment of the
tax on the rents and income of defendant's real estate and
that which it holds in trust, and on the income from the
municipal bonds owned or so held by it. While, therefore, the
two points above stated have been decided, there has been no
decision of the remaining questions regarding the
constitutionality of the act, and no judgment has been
announced authoritatively establishing any principle for
interpretation of the statute in those respects."
The re-hearing asked for was granted by the Court on the 6th
of May, when Justice Jackson was able to take his seat on the
bench, after which, on the 20th of May, by the opinion of five
members of the Court against four, the law was pronounced null,
so far as concerned the imposition of a tax on incomes. The
opinion of the majority was delivered by Chief Justice Fuller,
who said, in part:
"The Constitution divided Federal taxation into two great
classes, the class of direct taxes, and the class of duties,
imposts and excises; and prescribed two rules which qualified
the grant of power as to each class. The power to lay direct
taxes apportioned among the several States in proportion to
their representation in the popular branch of Congress, a
representation based on population as ascertained by the
census, was plenary and absolute; but to lay direct taxes
without apportionment was forbidden. The power to lay duties,
imposts, and excises was subject to the qualification that the
imposition must be uniform throughout the United States.
"Our previous decision was confined to the consideration of
the validity of the tax on the income from real estate and on
the income from municipal bonds. … We are now permitted to
broaden the field of inquiry, and to determine to which of the
two great classes a tax upon a person's entire income, whether
derived from rents, or products, or otherwise, of real estate,
or from bonds, stocks, or other forms of personal property,
belongs; and we are unable to conclude that the enforced
subtraction from the yield of all the owner's real or personal
property, in the manner prescribed, is so different from a tax
upon the property itself, that it is not a direct, but an
indirect tax in the meaning of the Constitution.
"The words of the Constitution are to be taken in their
obvious sense, and to have a reasonable construction. In
Gibbons v. Ogden, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, with his usual
felicity, said: 'As men, whose intentions require no
concealment, generally employ the words which most directly
and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the
enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the
people who adopted it must be understood to have employed
words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they
have said.' 9 Wheat. 1, 188. And in Rhode Island v.
Massachusetts, where the question was whether a controversy
between two States over the boundary between them was within
the grant of judicial power, Mr. Justice Baldwin, speaking for
the Court, observed: 'The solution of this question must
necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the
meaning and intention of the convention which framed and
proposed it for adoption and ratification to the conventions
of the people of and in the several States; together with a
reference to such sources of judicial information as are
resorted to by all courts in construing statutes, and to which
this court has always resorted in construing the
Constitution.' 12 Pet. 657, 721. We know of no reason for
holding otherwise than that the words 'direct taxes,' on the
one hand, and 'duties, imposts and excises,' on the other,
were used in the Constitution in their natural and obvious
sense. Nor in arriving at what those terms embrace do we
perceive any ground for enlarging them beyond or narrowing
them within their natural and obvious import at the time the
Constitution was framed and ratified.
{555}
"And passing from the text, we regard the conclusion reached
as inevitable, when the circumstances which surrounded the
convention and controlled its action and the views of those
who framed and those who adopted the Constitution are
considered. … In the light of the struggle in the convention
as to whether or not the new Nation should be empowered to
levy taxes directly on the individual until after the States
had failed to respond to requisitions—a struggle which did not
terminate until the amendment to that effect, proposed by
Massachusetts and concurred in by South Carolina, New
Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island, had been rejected—it
would seem beyond reasonable question that direct taxation,
taking the place as it did of requisitions, was purposely
restrained to apportionment according to representation, in
order that the former system as to ratio might be retained
while the mode of collection was changed. This is forcibly
illustrated by a letter of Mr. Madison of January 29, 1789,
recently published, written after the ratification of the
Constitution, but before the organization of the government
and the submission of the proposed amendment to Congress,
which, while opposing the amendment as calculated to impair
the power only to be exercised in extraordinary emergencies,
assigns adequate ground for its rejection as substantially
unnecessary, since, he says, 'every State which chooses to
collect its own quota may always prevent a Federal collection,
by keeping a little beforehand in its finances and making its
payment at once into the Federal treasury.'
"The reasons for the clauses of the Constitution in respect of
direct taxation are not far to seek. The States, respectively,
possessed plenary powers of taxation. They could tax the
property of their citizens in such manner and to such extent
as they saw fit; they had unrestricted powers to impose duties
or imposts on imports from abroad, and excises on
manufactures, consumable commodities, or otherwise. They gave
up the great sources of revenue derived from commerce; they
retained the concurrent power of levying excises, and duties
if covering anything other than excises; but in respect of
them the range of taxation was narrowed by the power granted
over interstate commerce, and by the danger of being put at
disadvantage in dealing with excises on manufactures. They
retained the power of direct taxation, and to that they looked
as their chief resource; but even in respect of that, they
granted the concurrent power, and if the tax were placed by
both governments on the same subject, the claim of the United
States had preference. Therefore, they did not grant the power
of direct taxation without regard to their own condition and
resources as States; but they granted the power of apportioned
direct taxation, a power just as efficacious to serve the needs
of the general government, but securing to the States the
opportunity to pay the amount apportioned, and to recoup from
their own citizens in the most feasible way, and in harmony
with their systems of local self-government. If, in the
changes of wealth and population in particular States,
apportionment produced inequality, it was an inequality
stipulated for, just as the equal representation of the
States, however small, in the Senate, was stipulated for. …
"Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional
provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in
plain language. It is said that a tax on the whole income of
property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the
Constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without
apportionment, whether direct or indirect. We do not think so.
Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath and the
restriction blown to the winds in another. Cooley (On
Taxation, page 3) says that the word 'duty' ordinarily 'means
an indirect tax imposed on the importation, exportation or
consumption of goods'; having a broader meaning than "custom,"
which is a duty imposed on imports or exports'; that 'the term
"impost" also signifies any tax, tribute or duty, but it is
seldom applied to any but the indirect taxes. An excise duty
is an inland impost, levied upon articles of manufacture or
sale, and also upon licenses to pursue certain trades or to
deal in certain commodities.' In the Constitution the words
'duties, imposts and excises' are put in antithesis to direct
taxes. Gouverneur Morris recognized this in his remarks in
modifying his celebrated motion, as did Wilson in approving of
the motion as modified. …
"Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:
"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that,
taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on
the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
"Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or
on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
"Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to
thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it
falls on the income of real estate and of personal property,
being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution,
and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not
apportioned according to representation, all those sections,
constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily
invalid."
Four dissenting opinions were prepared, by Justices Harlan,
Brown, Jackson and White. In that of Mr. Justice Harlan, he
said: "What are 'direct taxes' within the meaning of the
Constitution? In the convention of 1787, Rufus King asked what
was the precise meaning of 'direct' taxation, and no one
answered. Madison Papers, 5 Elliott's Debates, 451. The
debates of that famous body do not show that any delegate
attempted to give a clear, succinct definition of what, in his
opinion, was a direct tax. Indeed the report of those debates,
upon the question now before us, is very meagre and
unsatisfactory. An illustration of this is found in the case
of Gouverneur Morris. It is stated that on the 12th of July,
1787, he moved to add to a clause empowering Congress to vary
representation according to the principles of 'wealth and
numbers of inhabitants,' a proviso 'that taxation shall be in
proportion to representation.' And he is reported to have
remarked, on that occasion, that while some objections lay
against his motion, he supposed 'they would be removed by
restraining the rule to direct taxation.' Elliott's Debates,
302.
{556}
But, on the 8th of August, 1787, the work of the Committee on
Detail being before the convention, Mr. Morris is reported to
have remarked, 'let it not be said that direct taxation is to
be proportioned to representation.' 5 Elliott's Debates, 393.
If the question propounded by Rufus King had been answered in
accordance with the interpretation now given, it is not at all
certain that the Constitution, in its present form, would have
been adopted by the convention, nor, if adopted, that it would
have been accepted by the requisite number of States." The
following is from the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brown:
"In view of the fact that the great burden of taxation among
the several States is assessed upon real estate at a
valuation, and that a similar tax was apparently an important
part of the revenue of such States at the time the
Constitution was adopted, it is not unreasonable to suppose
that this is the only undefined direct tax the framers of the
Constitution had in view when they incorporated this clause
into that instrument. The significance of the words 'direct
taxes' was not so well understood then as it is now, and it is
entirely probable that these words were used with reference to
a generally accepted method of raising a revenue by tax upon
real estate. … But, however this may be, I regard it as very
clear that the clause requiring direct taxes to be apportioned
to the population has no application to taxes which are not
capable of apportionment according to population. It cannot be
supposed that the convention could have contemplated a
practical inhibition upon the power of Congress to tax in some
way all taxable property within the jurisdiction of the
Federal government, for the purposes of a national revenue.
And if the proposed tax were such that in its nature it could
not be apportioned according to population, it naturally
follows that it could not have been considered a direct tax,
within the meaning of the clause in question."
Mr. Justice Jackson concluded his dissenting opinion as
follows: "The practical operation of the decision is not only
to disregard the great principles of equality in taxation, but
the further principle that in the imposition of taxes for the
benefit of the government the burdens thereof should be
imposed upon those having the most ability to bear them. This
decision, in effect, works out a directly opposite result, in
relieving the citizens having the greater ability, while the
burdens of taxation are made to fall most heavily and
oppressively upon those having the least ability. It lightens
the burden upon the larger number in some States subject to
the tax, and places it most unequally and disproportionately
on the smaller number in other States. Considered in all its
bearings, this decision is, in my judgment, the most
disastrous blow ever struck at the constitutional power of
Congress. It strikes down an important portion of the most
vital and essential power of the government in practically
excluding any recourse to incomes from real and personal
estate for the purpose of raising needed revenue to meet the
government's wants and necessities under any circumstances.
"I am therefore compelled to enter my dissent to the judgment
of the court."
The opinion delivered by the majority of the Court was
criticised with severity by Mr. Justice White, who said: "The
injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting
it. It takes invested wealth and reads it into the
Constitution as a favored and protected class of property,
which cannot be taxed without apportionment, whilst it leaves
the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the
lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic,
and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a
people must depend, subject to taxation without that
condition. A rule which works out this result, which, it seems
to me, stultifies the Constitution by making it an instrument of
the most grievous wrong, should not be adopted, especially
when, in order to do so, the decisions of this court, the
opinions of the law writers and publicists, tradition,
practice, and the settled policy of the government must be
overthrown.
"To destroy the fixed interpretation of the Constitution, by
which the rule of apportionment according to population, is
confined to direct taxes on real estate so as to make that
rule include indirect taxes on real estate and taxes, whether
direct or indirect, on invested personal property, stocks,
bonds, etc., reads into the Constitution the most flagrantly
unjust, unequal, and wrongful system of taxation known to any
civilized government. This strikes me as too clear for
argument. I can conceive of no greater injustice than would
result from imposing on one million of people in one State,
having only ten millions of invested wealth, the same amount
of tax as that imposed on the like number of people in another
State having fifty times that amount of invested wealth. The
application of the rule of apportionment by population to
invested personal wealth would not only work out this wrong,
but would ultimately prove a self-destructive process, from
the facility with which such property changes its situs. If so
taxed, all property of this character would soon be transferred
to the States where the sum of accumulated wealth was greatest
in proportion to population, and where therefore the burden of
taxation would be lightest, and thus the mighty wrong
resulting from the very nature of the extension of the rule
would be aggravated. It is clear then, I think, that the
admission of the power of taxation in regard to invested
personal property, coupled with the restriction that the tax
must be distributed by population and not by wealth, involves
a substantial denial of the power itself, because the
condition renders its exercise practically impossible. To say
a thing can only be done in a way which must necessarily bring
about the grossest wrong, is to delusively admit the existence
of the power, while substantially denying it. And the grievous
results sure to follow from any attempt to adopt such a system
are so obvious that my mind cannot fail to see that if a tax
on invested personal property were imposed by the rule of
population, and there were no other means of preventing its
enforcement, the red spectre of revolution would shake our
institutions to their foundation. …
"It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that, after more than
one hundred years of our national existence, after the
government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the
dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become
united and powerful, this court should consider itself
compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory
of the Constitution, by which the government is deprived of an
inherent attribute of its being, a necessary power of taxation."
United States Reports,
v. 158, pages 601-715.
{557}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (July-November).
Correspondence with the Government of Great Britain
on the Venezuela boundary question.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (JULY), and (NOVEMBER).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (September).
Executive order for the improvement of the consular service.
In his annual Message to Congress, December 2, 1895, President
Cleveland made the following statement of measures adopted for
the improvement of the consular service of the country:
"In view of the growth of our interests in foreign countries
and the encouraging prospects for a general expansion of our
commerce, the question of an improvement in the consular
service has increased in importance and urgency. Though there
is no doubt that the great body of consular officers are
rendering valuable services to the trade and industries of the
country, the need of some plan of appointment and control
which would tend to secure a higher average of efficiency can
not be denied. The importance of the subject has led the
Executive to consider what steps might properly be taken
without additional legislation to answer the need of a better
system of consular appointments. The matter having been
committed to the consideration of the Secretary of State, in
pursuance of his recommendations, an Executive order was
issued on the 20th of September, 1895, by the terms of which
it is provided that after that date any vacancy in a consular
or commercial agency with an annual salary or compensation
from official fees of not more than $2,500 or less than $1,000
should be filled either by transfer or promotion from some
other position under the Department of State of a character
tending to qualify the incumbent for the position to be
filled, or by the appointment of a person not under the
Department of State, but having previously served thereunder
and shown his capacity and fitness for consular duty, or by
the appointment of a person who, having been selected by the
President and sent to a board for examination, is found, upon
such examination, to be qualified for the position. Posts
which pay less than $1,000 being usually, on account of their
small compensation, filled by selection from residents of the
locality, it was not deemed practicable to put them under the
new system.
"The compensation of $2,500 was adopted as the maximum limit
in the classification for the reason that consular officers