History for ready reference, Volume 7

by J. N. Larned

suitable for women and children, and whether we can hope from
generation to generation that a healthy and virile race can
continue to live and breed in that climate. The territory is
over half a million square miles in extent, and the white
population is well under 2,000 people. …
"There is plenty of land all through Australia for men who
are willing to go there and will be steady and sober and work
hard. I have been North, South, East, and West. I can claim
for myself the credit that I have travelled fairly hard, and I
have seen in every State of Australia plenty of land available
for close settlement. If the great landowners are disinclined
to sell their holdings—and I quite acknowledge that a great
deal of the best land in Australia is in comparatively few
hands—at all events the State Governments have very large
reserves of land; and by the application of irrigation and
other methods of scientific farming they could compete on even
terms at least with these squatters, and they could turn these
waste lands into fertile country fit for settlers. I am very
glad to think that both in New South Wales and Victoria very
large irrigation works are in progress and will be completed
in a very short time, adding enormously to the acreage of land
fit for cultivation; and I say deliberately and advisedly, I
care not for reports of Commissions or individuals, that there
is land and to spare for generations for men who are ready to
undertake the cultivation."
A correspondent of the London Times, writing from
Sydney in January, 1909, on the subject of the vast quantity
of fertile land in Australia that is locked up by private
owners in vast sheep runs, to the exclusion of settlement, had
this to say: "You may take it as an axiom that immigration to
Australia will do no good till the fertile lands are thrown
open. And a very large proportion of the closed land is
controlled from London, either by ex-Australians who live
there and draw their income from Australian property, or by
big British companies. … It is necessary to warn seriously
shareholders and directors of the big companies that they must
put pressure on their officials out here, or prepare to have
more drastic pressure forced on themselves. At present, those
officials are often responsible for Australian dislike of the
absentee company."
{307}
In another letter to the same paper it was said: "Somehow or
other the locked-up lands must be opened for agricultural
uses. No one now doubts that, and only a few owners, usually
either absentees or corporations, pretend to doubt it. The
Labour recipe is a Federal land tax on estates over £5,000 in
value, of such a kind that fair use of the land will produce
profit on which the tax will be a mere fleabite, while it will
be a serious charge on fertile land that is used only for
sheep runs. The proposed tax is to be Federal simply because
there is no hope of passing the requisite Bill through several
of the State Upper Houses; otherwise it is more properly a
State concern. Now what we have to remember is that this is
not only Labour’s remedy. I believe it would be quite possible
to carry such a proposal in the present Federal Parliament, so
definitely has public opinion swung round against the big
owners who keep their land idle. If it is not carried next
session, it will be because Mr. Deakin gave his word two years
ago that he would not introduce the subject in this
Parliament; but Mr. Deakin’s attitude is this—that he wishes
the States would do it, that he does not consider this
Parliament has any mandate to legislate for it, but that he
personally has always favoured such a tax, and, if the
States take no steps in that direction, he will support, or
even propose, the measure when it has been submitted to the
country at a general election. It is useless, therefore, for
any one to decry the tax as merely a Labour idea, a
‘Socialistic’ nostrum. The support given it in Australia is
far wider than that. And, apart from the many who advocate it
as the best remedy for the present land-hunger, there is an
increasing body of electors who are being forced into
supporting it because no other remedies seem practicable."
The attitude of the Australian Labor Party on the inseparable
immigration and land questions was stated very clearly and
succinctly in a letter to the London Times, dated at
Newcastle, New South Wales, June 30, 1909, by a member of the
Party, Frank Pittock, who signs himself "a Magistrate of the
Territory." He writes: "We cannot at present obtain land for
our own genuine land-seekers, skilled in the peculiar
requirements of pastoral and agricultural work on the
Australian soil. We certainly are unable to give our own
unemployed a chance on the land. Any importations of labour
from over the seas merely serve to render more distressful the
unfortunate position of the colonial out-of-works. On the
other hand, we do now, and always have, welcomed new arrivals
who may be able, in the near future, to effectively augment
our productive wealth. The party fully recognizes the need of
population—of the right sort. We have vast empty spaces all
over the continent, now grazing grounds for sheep, yet
eminently suitable for intense settlement. The Australian
Labour party seeks the support, at the forthcoming general
election, of all who believe, as does your own Australian
Correspondent, that the satisfying of the earth-hunger of our
people is the great outstanding need of the day. Can we but be
authorized to force the huge monopolists to surrender portions
of their holdings we shall have, not only land for our own
landless, but land and to spare for those who seek it from the
British Isles. … We dare not, as a conscientious and
humanitarian party, invite our kith and kin from other parts
to come here now. We should be traitors to the Empire,
betrayers of the race, if we endorsed in any way the attitude
of those who seek, apparently, to flood this fair land with
any population at all, regardless of the evil consequences to
the immigrants themselves, and alike regardless of the grave
injustice thereby done to native-born landless and, in many
cases, at present, work-seeking Australians."
A Press despatch from Sydney, October 30, made the following
announcement: "Under the closer settlement amendment Bill,
which is now before the Legislative Council of New South
Wales, the Government will be empowered by proclamation to
earmark estates in the vicinity of towns which might impede
settlement. When such estates are of the value of £10,000 and
upwards the Government may agree with the owners to subdivide
them on terms and areas to be agreed upon, so as to ensure
bona fide settlement. If the owners fulfil the
agreement, the proclamation will be cancelled; if the owners
refuse to subdivide within five years, the Government reserves
the power to resume at the value on the date of proclamation."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Brazil: 1908-1909.
Increasing Influx.
"During the year [1908] 112,234 persons came into the country,
of which 17,539 were visitors and 94,695 immigrants. This
shows a notable increase of 26,908 immigrants, or about forty
per cent. over the number registered in 1907. Of these 74,999
came at their own expense and 11,109 at the cost of the Union.
The increase continues this year, as will be seen from the
record of the Port of Rio de Janeiro alone, which received
13,580 immigrants during the first quarter of this year, as
compared with 8,607 in 1908 and 5,943 in 1907. In spite of the
small grant allotted to this service, it has been conducted
with the greatest efficiency. The Department for the Peopling
of the Soil has effected the location of immigrants in 26
colonies, situated respectively in the States of Espirito
Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Geraes, São Paulo, Parana, Santa
Catharina, and Rio-Grande-do-Sul, eleven of which are directly
under the supervision of the Union. All the nucleus colonies
founded last year enjoy unrestricted prosperity, and it has
been even necessary to acquire neighbouring lands in order to
satisfy the constant demand for more land on the part of the
families settled."
President’s Message to Congress,
May 3, 1909.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Canada: A. D. 1896-1909.
The "American Invasion" of the Northwest.
Immigration of the last decade.
See (in this Volume )
CANADA: A. D. 1896-1909.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: England: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Aliens Act.
Restrictions on the admission of Aliens.
A new policy.
Until 1905, England offered practically an open door to the
aliens who sought either a permanent home or a temporary
residence on her island soil. Little scrutiny was given to
them and almost no restriction on their coming in. But some
years before that date a growing criticism of such
unconditioned hospitality was begun.
{308}
In 1888 it induced the appointment of a Select Committee of
the House of Commons "to inquire into the laws existing in the
United States and elsewhere on the subject of the immigration
of destitute aliens, and the extent and effect of such
immigration into the United Kingdom, and to report whether it
is desirable to impose any, and if so, what, restrictions on
such immigration." The Commission reported in 1889 that it
thought "the alien population was not numerous enough to
create alarm," and that it was "not prepared to recommend
legislation at present," but saw "the possibility of such
legislation becoming necessary in the future." Several
proposals of restrictive measures were urged without success
in the course of the next dozen years, and, in 1902, a Royal
Commission was appointed, "to inquire into—
(1) the character and extent of the evils which are attributed
to the unrestricted immigration of aliens, especially in the
Metropolis;
(2) the measures which have been adopted for the restriction
and control of alien immigration in foreign countries and in
British colonies."
The Commission produced an elaborate report in 1903
(Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 1741). Reviewing the hospitality of
the past, it found that the migrant aliens of former
generations had made the English people "their debtors"; but
they were of a different stamp from the immigrants of the
present movement, which "may be said to have begun about 1880,
and is drawn mainly from the Jewish inhabitants of Eastern
Europe." The causes of this recent exodus have been partly
economic and partly due to oppressive measures; and the result
of the Commission’s investigation of it was the expressed
opinion that "in respect of certain classes of immigrants,
especially those arriving from Eastern Europe, it is necessary
in the interests of the State generally, and of certain
localities in particular, that the entrance of such immigrants
into this country and their right of residence here should be
placed under conditions and regulations coming within that
right of interference which every country possesses to control
the entrance of foreigners into it. Such regulations should,
in our opinion," the report went on to say, "be made in order
to prevent so far as possible this country being burdened with
the presence of ‘undesirable aliens’ and to provide for their
repatriation in certain cases.
"But we think that the greatest evils produced by the presence
of the alien immigrants here are the overcrowding caused by
them in certain districts of London, and the consequent
displacement of the native population. There seems little
likelihood of being able to remedy these great evils by the
enforcement of any law applicable to the native and alien
population alike. We therefore think that special regulations
should be made for the purpose of preventing aliens at their
own will choosing their residence within districts already so
overcrowded that any addition to dwellers within it must
produce most injurious results. On this point the Commission
recommended specifically that if it be found that the
immigration of aliens into any area has substantially
contributed to any overcrowding, and that it is expedient that
no further newly-arrived aliens should become residents in
such area, the same may be declared prohibited area.
"We are also of opinion that efforts should be made to rid
this country of the presence of alien criminals (and other
objectionable characters)."
An Act embodying substantially the recommendations of the
Commission passed Parliament in 1905. Both the Act and the
administration of it have been criticised since, as lacking
stringency. Its working was reviewed at considerable length in
The Times of February 9, 1909 which made the following
statements, among others, on the subject:
"The Act, as now administered, does not subject all alien
immigrants, or even all steerage immigrants, to inspection. To
begin with, the regulation of alien immigration is confined,
practically, to the traffic between the United Kingdom and
ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea."
In fact, according to The Times, "the vast majority of
aliens are not affected by the Act. A foreigner may enter this
country unchallenged—If he comes from an ‘extra-European’
port (with some exceptions); if he is a cabin passenger; if he
is an exempted second-class passenger; if he is a
transmigrant; if he is a passenger in a ship containing fewer
than 21 ‘alien steerage passengers.’
"Then also, though nominally a subject for inspection, he is
not called upon to satisfy the full requirements of the Act,
if he is proceeding to a destination outside the United
Kingdom; if he holds a return ticket; if he is a seaman; if he
is fleeing from religious or political persecution."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Germany: A. D. 1904-1908.
Remarkable decrease of Emigration.
"German emigration has dwindled so steadily and rapidly that
at present it would seem to have reached the low-water mark in
its downward trend. A glance at the official statistics of
emigration will indicate the remarkable extent of this
retrogression. In 1852, Germans, to the number of 145,918, and
in 1854, to the number of 215,009, went to the United States
alone. In 1872, just after the unification of the Empire, the
grand total of German emigration amounted to 128,152; in 1873,
to 110,438; in 1881, to 220,902; in 1882, to 203,585 persons.
During the years succeeding 1882 up to 1892, the figures, in
the average, still surpassed 100,000, but since then they have
shown a notable falling off. Thus only 22,309 in 1900; 22,073
in 1901; 32,098 in 1902; 36,310 in 1903; 27,984 in 1904—were
recorded as having gone from Germany to lands beyond the sea.
"This retrogressive tendency appears the more surprising when
it is remembered that Germany’s population, mainly as a result
of the excess of births over deaths, but partly through its
inland migration, has, since the foundation of the Empire,
increased at an average annual rate of over half a million,
during recent years at the still higher rate of 800,000 per
annum. The cause for this seeming anomaly lies in the
extraordinary economical development of Germany during the
last decade, in the consequent steady improvement of the
social status of its laboring classes, brought about by a
progressive rise in wages, and in the elimination, thereby, of
one of the strongest incentives to emigration in former days."
Baron Speck von Sternburg,
The Phantom Peril of German Emigration and
South American Settlements
(North American Review, May, 1906).
{309}
Of the emigrants from Germany in 1908, the United States
Consul-General reported that they numbered only 19,880, being
11,816 less than in 1907.
"From 1897 to 1907 the yearly mean average was 27,526, or 0.47
per cent. of the population. Altogether since 1871 the German
Empire has lost only 2,750,000 people by emigration, or as
many people as can be made good in four years by the excess of
births over deaths."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Italy: A. D. 1908.
Great falling off in the Movement of Emigration.
As reported in a Press despatch from Rome, in June, 1909, the
statistics of 1908 showed a marked falling off in Italian
emigration. "In 1907 the total number of emigrants was
704,675; in 1908 it was only 486,674. The most notable
reduction is in the number of emigrants to the United States,
which has fallen from 298,124 in 1907 to 131,501 in 1908. This
chiefly affects Southern Italy, the Abruzzi, Campania,
Calabria, Basilicata, and Sicily; the northern emigration,
which for the most part is directed towards European
countries, is also diminished, but in a less proportion.
Unfortunately, this change is not due to more favourable
labour conditions in Italy, but to a smaller demand for labour
in North America. The number of emigrants to Argentina has
slightly increased from 78,493 to 80,699; but the great market
for Italian labour, the United States, is, to judge from the
figures of this year as well as last year, surely and
irretrievably growing smaller."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Peru: A. D. 1906.
Decree for the Encouragement of Immigration.
The following decree was promulgated by President Pardo the
10th of August, 1906:
"First.
The State will provide third-class passages for the natives of
Europe and America who may wish to introduce industrial or
private enterprises, provided that they fulfill the following
conditions:
(a) That they are from 16 to 50 years of age, if they
are males, and from 10 to 40 if they are females, fulfilling
the conditions of morality and health laid down in the rules
now in force.
(b) That they come to engage in agriculture, in mining,
or in other industries, or to devote themselves to these
occupations for account of colonization, immigration, or
irrigation enterprises.
"Second.
The payment of the passages will be made through the consuls
of the Republic in the ports of shipment in view of the orders
cabled by the ministry of fomento, to which office must be
presented in writing the request of the interested parties for
such payment, indicating at the same time the number of
immigrants, the agricultural estate or industrial
establishment to which they are destined, and declaring
themselves obliged to provide lodging, board, and medical
attendance for the immigrants from the port of landing to the
place of destination.
"Third.
The consuls of the Republic, on receipt of the order from the
minister of fomento, shall make the payment of the passages to
the steamer companies direct, with previous personal and
individual evidence that the immigrants fulfill the conditions
set forth in Article 1 of this decree, and for this purpose
they shall give a certificate to each immigrant, which shall
be collected by the maritime authorities of the port of
landing and afterwards forwarded to the ministry of fomento.
"Fourth.
A general register of immigrants shall be opened in the
agricultural section of the ministry of fomento, in accordance
with the models and instructions obtained from that
department."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1868-1908.
Chinese Exclusion Laws vs. Treaties with China.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1868-1900, and 1905-1908.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: A. D. 1905-1909.
National Conference of 1905.
The New Immigration Law.
Excluded Classes.
Congressional Commission to investigate Immigration.
Its Preliminary Report.
Information for Immigrants.
Measures for distributing them.
Backward turn of the tide in 1908.
At a National Conference on the subject of Immigration, held
at New York in December, 1905, under the auspices of the
National Civic Federation, the Commissioner-General of
Immigration, Mr. Frank P. Sargent, presented some facts of the
immigration of the preceding statistical year which claimed
very grave consideration. During the twelve months ending June
30 there had been 1,026,499 arrivals in this country, and of
this number seven hundred and seventy-seven thousand, or 76
per cent., settled in six States—New York, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. New York
received over three hundred and fifteen thousand, while the
West received only forty three thousand; Pennsylvania received
over two hundred and ten thousand, while the South received
only forty-six thousand. Fifty-seven thousand came to New
Jersey, while North Carolina’s share was one hundred and
eighty-three. These figures gave point to Mr. Sargent’s
statement that the immigrants go where their friends are.
Their only sources of information concerning this country are
the agents of the transportation companies and their friends
who have come here before. The resulting lack of knowledge
concerning those parts of the country in which they are most
needed is the chief cause of the congestion in the large
cities and the more densely populated States which is one of
the most serious aspects of the immigration problem.
Nearly twelve thousand immigrants were refused admission
during the year, of whom eight thousand were paupers, two
thousand diseased, and one thousand brought in violation of
the contract labour law. "It is right," said Mr. Sargent,
"that they should be denied admission, wrong that they ever
should have been started from home."
In the new Immigration Law enacted by Congress in February,
1907, provision was made for giving information to immigrants,
after their landing in the country, such as may guide them in
the choice of their place of settlement. It authorized the
Commissioner-General of Immigration to establish a Division of
Information, the duty of which shall be "to promote a
beneficial distribution of aliens admitted into the United
States among the several States and Territories desiring
immigration." To which end "correspondence shall be had with
the proper officials of the States and Territories, and said
division shall gather from all available sources useful
information regarding the resources, products, and physical
characteristics of each State and Territory, and shall publish
such information in different languages and distribute the
publications among all admitted aliens who may ask for such
information at the immigrant stations of the United States and
to such other persons as may desire the same." Agents
appointed by any State or Territory to represent to arriving
immigrants the inducements it can offer to them are to have
perfect freedom and opportunity to do so.
{310}
For checking the immigration of prohibited classes of aliens
at the foreign starting-points of their journey to America,
instead of at the landing places on this side of the ocean,
the new law only lays more rigid restrictions and heavier
penalties on the transportation companies, to make them
exercise a more careful discrimination in their acceptance of
passengers. It adds several classes to the former list of
aliens to be excluded from admission to the United States. The
list now reads: "All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons,
epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane
within five years previous; persons who have had two or more
attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons
likely to become a public charge; professional beggars;
persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or
dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within
any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and
are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or
physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of
a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a
living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having
committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving
moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who admit their
belief in the practice of polygamy, anarchists, or persons who
believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of
the Government of the United States, or of all government, or
of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials:
prostitutes, or women or girls coming into the United States
for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral
purpose; persons who procure or attempt to bring in
prostitutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution
or for any other immoral purpose,"—together with contract
laborers, so called, assisted immigrants, and children under
sixteen years of age unaccompanied by one or both of their
parents.
The new law created a Commission to investigate the subject of
immigration and to report its findings and recommendations to
Congress. The Commission to be composed of three Senators,
three Representatives, and three persons to be appointed by
the President. A preliminary report from this Commission was
presented to Congress on the 1st of March, 1909. This
indicated no more than the progress that had been made in a
most exhaustive investigation, which probably would require
the greater part of another year to carry it to completion. It
was covering every phase of the immigration question,
including Oriental aliens and other excluded classes, peonage,
charity among immigrants, white slave traffic, conditions of
steerage, anthropology, congestion in large cities, alien
criminality, competition of immigrants, school inquiries,
administration of the immigration laws, distribution of
immigrants, and other questions. In its work the Commission
had employed 198 persons, of whom 82 were in Washington, 2 in
New York, 2 in San Francisco, 92 in field work, and 20 in
special lines of inquiry.
The preliminary report of the Commission indicates that the
present provisions of law for the exclusion of undesirable
persons are stronger in theory than they are effective in
practice, and that thousands of very undesirable immigrants
enter the country every year. The Commission expresses a
confident expectation of finding means of prevention that will
be effective. It is conducting an inquiry of great importance
into the subject of alien criminality. The higher criminal
courts of New York city are keeping records, at its request,
in detail, of each person convicted of crime, and it is
intended that a study of foreign-born criminals, and criminals
of the second generation, will be made in that city. The
investigation, however, is not confined to the larger cities.
The Division of Information in the Department of Commerce and
Labor which the new Immigration Law provided for was organized
with Mr. Terence V. Powderly, former Commissioner-General of
Immigration, as its Chief. In July, 1909, there was an
announcement of its undertaking to bring about coöperation
with the Governors of States and Territories, in organized
measures to accomplish a better distribution through the
country of the foreigners that come to it.
Dr. L. Pierce Clark has lately called attention to the fact
that the increase of immigration into the United States has
reached the point of making the influx of aliens the principal
source of population, and that "its character has changed so
fundamentally that it has assumed an entirely new relation to
American social problems. Up to 1900 the average annual
immigration had not exceeded one-half of one per cent of the
population of the United States, and the races which had made
the first settlement in the country were still contributing
more than 75 per cent. of the whole number of arrivals. By
1901 the new immigration had fairly started, the English,
Irish, German, and Scandinavian had been supplanted by
Hebrews, Slavs, and Italians, and the impetus had been
received which, four years later, was to carry immigration
past the million-a-year mark. More than one-fifth of all the
immigrants who have come to this country have arrived since
1900, and, with the changed source of immigration, a
remarkable transformation in the composition of our
foreign-born population is in progress."
The industrial depression of 1907, however, produced evidence
that much of this later immigration has not been for permanent
settlement; that the facilitation and cheapening of travel
have brought about extensive movements of people, from
southern and southeastern Europe, especially, who come to
America only to earn and save a little fund which suffices for
a comfortable remainder of life in their own land. The check
to such earning which occurred in 1907 turned the tide of
migration instantly back from America to Europe. According to
statistics prepared by Mr. Watchorn, the late
Commissioner-General of Immigration, the excess of departures
over arrivals at the port of New York, in the half year from
January 1 to July 1, 1908, was 129,511. In the whole fiscal
year that ended June 30, 1908, the departures from New York
were 631,458; the arrivals 689,474; showing the gain of
population to the country that year from incomers through the
port of New York to have been only 58,016, even if all became
permanent inhabitants.
See, also (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS, AND CANADA.
----------IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: End--------
{311}
IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE, The.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
INCOME TAX:
Proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
INDEMNITY FOR THE BOXER RISING:
Remittance of part of it by the United States.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.
INDEPENDENCE LEAGUE.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905, and
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.
INDEPENDENCE PARTY, or KOSSUTH PARTY.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903, and 1904.
INDEPENDENT FILIPINO CHURCH.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.
INDEPENDENT LABOR PARTY, BRITISH.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903, and 1905-1906; also,
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
INDEPENDENTS.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INDEPENDISTAS.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
----------INDIA: Start--------
INDIA: A. D. 1902-1903.
Ravages of the Bubonic Plague.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: BUBONIC PLAGUE.
INDIA: A. D. 1902-1904.
Forced opening of Tibet to trade.
The mission and expedition of Colonel Younghusband.
See (in this Volume)
TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904.
INDIA: A. D. 1903.
The question of Indian Labor in South Africa.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903.
INDIA: A. D. 1903 (January).
Great Durbar at Delhi.
A great Durbar or reception was held at Delhi, on the
first of January, 1903, by the Viceroy and by the Duke and
Duchess of Connaught, specially deputed to represent their
majesties the Emperor and Empress of India. About 100 ruling
chiefs were in attendance, and the visitors drawn by the
spectacle were estimated to number 173,000.
INDIA: A. D. 1903-1908.
Hostility in the Transvaal to British Indian Immigration.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903-1908.
INDIA: A. D. 1904-1909.
Coöperative Industrial Movement.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: INDIA.
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (April).
Terrific earthquake in the Punjab and United Provinces.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: INDIA: A. D. 1905.
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (August).
Resignation of Lord Curzon.
Announcement of the resignation of the Viceroyalty by Lord
Curzon was made August 21. The immediate cause of his action
was understood to be the refusal of the Home Government to
approve his nomination of an officer, General Barrow, whom he
wished to have placed on the Viceroy’s Council. But friction
between Lord Curzon and the Commander-in-Chief in India, Lord
Kitchener, over questions of military administration and the
authority belonging to their respective offices had been
troublesome for some time past, and the Viceroy had seemed to
regard the attitude of the government at home as more
favorable to Lord Kitchener than to himself.
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (August).
Agreement concerning India between Great Britain and Japan.
See (in this Volume)
Japan: A. D. 1905 (August).
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1908.
The Starving Poverty of the Mass of the People.
"Suppose we divide the past century into quarters, or periods
of twenty-five years each. In the first quarter there were
five famines, with an estimated loss of life of 1,000,000.
During the second quarter of the century were two famines,
with an estimated mortality of 500,000. During the third
quarter there there were six famines, with a recorded loss of
life of 5,000,000. During the last quarter of the century,
what? Eighteen famines, with an estimated mortality reaching
the awful totals of from 15,000,000 to 26,000,000. And this
does not include the many more millions (over 6,000,000 in a
single year) barely kept alive by government doles.
"What is the cause of these famines, and this appalling
increase in their number and destructiveness. The common
answer is, the failure of the rains. But there seems to be no
evidence that the rains fail worse now than they did a hundred
years ago. Moreover, why should failure of rains bring famine?
The rains have never failed over areas so extensive as to
prevent the raising of enough food in the land to supply the
needs of the entire population. Why then have people starved?
… Because they were so indescribably poor. All candid and
thorough investigation into the causes of the famines of India
has shown that the chief and fundamental cause has been and is
the poverty of the people,—a poverty so severe and terrible
that it keeps the majority of the entire population on the
very verge of starvation even in years of greatest plenty. …
"And the people are growing poorer and poorer. The late Mr.
William Digby, of London, long an Indian resident, in his
recent book entitled, Prosperous India, shows from
official estimates and Parliamentary and Indian Blue Books,
that, whereas the average daily income of the people of India
in the year 1850 was estimated as four cents per person (a
pittance on which one wonders that any human being can live),
in 1882 it had fallen to three cents per person and in 1900
actually to less than two cents per person. Is it any wonder
that people reduced to such extremities as this can lay up
nothing? …
{312}
"One cause of India’s impoverishment is heavy taxation.
Taxation in England and Scotland is high, so high that
Englishmen and Scotchmen complain bitterly. But the people of
India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of
England and three times as heavily as those of Scotland.
According to the latest statistics at hand, those of 1905, the
annual average income per person in India is about $6.00,
and the annual tax per person about $2.00. …
"Notice the single item of salt-taxation. Salt is an absolute
necessity to the people, to the very poorest; they must have
it or die. But the tax upon it which for many years they have
been compelled to pay has been much greater than the cost
value of the salt. Under this taxation the quantity of salt
consumed has been reduced actually to one-half the quantity
declared by medical authorities to be absolutely necessary for
health. …
"Another cause of India’s impoverishment is the destruction of
her manufactures, as the result of British rule. … Great
Britain wanted India’s markets. She could not find entrance
for British manufactures so long as India was supplied with
manufactures of her own. So those of India must be sacrificed.
England had all power in her hands, and so she proceeded to
pass tariff and excise laws that ruined the manufactures of
India and secured the market for her own goods.
"A third cause of India’s impoverishment is the enormous and
wholly unnecessary cost of her government. …
"Another burden upon the people of India which they ought not
to be compelled to bear, and which does much to increase their
poverty, is the enormously heavy military expenses of the
government. …
"Perhaps the greatest of all the causes of the impoverishment
of the Indian people is the steady and enormous drain of
wealth from India to England, which has been going on ever
since the East India Company first set foot in the land, three
hundred years ago, and is still going on with steadily
increasing Volume. … Says Mr. R. C. Dutt, author of the
Economic History of India (and there is no higher
authority), ‘A sum reckoned at twenty millions of English
money, or a hundred millions of American money [some other
authorities put it much higher], which it should be borne in
mind is equal to half the net revenues of India, is remitted
annually from this country [India] to England, without a
direct equivalent.’"
J. T. Sunderland,
The New Nationalist Movement in India
(Atlantic Monthly, October, 1908).
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Partition of Bengal.
Resentment and Disaffection of the Bengalese.
The Swadeshi Movement.
Reported improvement of conditions in the new province of
Eastern Bengal and Assam.
The partition of Bengal, in October, 1905, one of the latest
measures of Lord Curzon’s administration of the Government of
India, gave rise to much native agitation and disaffection,
and is still under criticism in England, but not likely to be
undone. In the view of the Anglo-Indian Government the
partition was a necessity, because of the magnitude of the
province, in territory and population, which made the task of
provincial administration too difficult. It was far the
largest of the administrative divisions of British India,
containing nearly a third of the Indian subjects of the
English King. Assam, formerly joined with it, had been
separated from it administratively in 1874, under a Chief
Commissioner. Fifteen of the eastern districts of Bengal,
adjacent to Assam, were now united with the latter to form a
new province, called Eastern Bengal and Assam, and this
disruption of the old province was resented very passionately
by a large part of the Bengalese. They refused to believe the
reasons given for the partition, but gave it an offensive
explanation, which one of the native journals in Calcutta put
briefly as follows: "The objects of the scheme are, briefly,
first, to destroy the collective power of the Bengali people;
secondly, to overthrow the political ascendency of Calcutta;
and, thirdly, to foster in East Bengal the growth of a
Mohammedan power which it is supposed will have the effect of
keeping in check the rapidly growing strength of the educated
Hindu community." In the official British view, on the other
hand, the whole stir of Bengalese feeling was artfully wrought
up for mischievous ends; but it is easier to believe that
something in the nature of a historic sentiment of nationality
was really hurt and angered by the partition. Yet Bengal
cannot be said to have had anything that resembled a distinct
national history for many centuries before it came under the
rule of the British East India Company, in 1765. Nor had its
name been precisely and continuously attached to any
well-defined territory.
Whatever the source of excited feeling may have been, however,
it was ardent and persistent, especially in the educated
class, and it gave a start to what received the name of the
Swadeshi or national movement of hostility to all things
English, directed mainly to the boycotting of English
merchandise, and to the organization of efforts for promoting
home production in all industrial fields. The Swadeshi
movement soon spread beyond Bengal; but its stimulations have
been centered there. The intensity of the feeling in Bengal
was such that on the 16th of October, 1905, when the partition
took effect, the Hindus of Calcutta put on mourning garments,
suspended business and work, and vowed that its anniversaries
should be memorial mourning days. Pupils in native schools
became so offensive in their anti-English demonstrations that
the Lieutenant-Governor of the new province, Sir Bampfylde
Fuller, in February, 1906, unwisely requested the Calcutta
University to disaffiliate two schools in the Pabna district,
taking away the pecuniary aid they received. The request was
disapproved by Lord Curzon’s successor in the Viceroyalty,
Lord Minto, and rather than withdraw it the
Lieutenant-Governor resigned.
In the winter of 1909 the London Times sent a special
correspondent into Eastern Bengal to study the results of the
partition, so far as developed in three years. His
observations and conclusions were communicated in a long,
interesting letter from Dacca, February 15th. He wrote:
"No one can visit the new province, and endeavour to inquire
impartially into its condition before the ‘partition,’ without
realizing that some administrative division of Bengal had
become imperative. Until five years ago, Eastern Bengal was
the ‘Cinderella’ of the provinces of India. Good
administration stopped short on the line of the Ganges. Beyond
that line officers were few, and the interest of the central
authorities in their work and in the welfare of the people in
their charge was comparatively limited. …
{313}
Land revenue administration was persistently neglected in the
temporary settled tracts. Calcutta and its immediate vicinity,
and the more accessible districts of Old Bengal, absorbed the
greater part of the time and attention of the Bengal
Government. Money was poured out upon Calcutta and its
environs, and Eastern Bengal was financially starved. Very
little was spent upon education, and the whole riverain region
was most inadequately policed. Crime was far more rife in the
southern districts of the province than in any other part of
India. The peasantry groaned beneath the exactions of the
representatives of absentee landlords, and they were left
unregarded and unprotected. The whole province suffered
because its rulers were immersed in the preoccupations of
Calcutta. The very railways were constructed, not to serve the
needs of these 30 millions of people, but to meet the
requirements of the city on the Hughli. …
"It is remarkable to note how, in the short space of three
years, the old deplorable conditions of Eastern Bengal have
already undergone a satisfactory process of modification. The
province is no longer content to be dragged at the tail of Old
Bengal. A new and independent provincial spirit is springing
up. Eastern Bengal is beginning to recognize all that a
separate existence means to it. Its Civil servants, from the
Lieutenant-Governor downwards, take a pride in the great work
of regeneration which has been entrusted to them. Their task
is enormous, and the workers are far too few. They are like
men who have been set to create a new colony out of a land of
chaos. They have before them almost as formidable an
undertaking as the making of modern Egypt, but it is an Egypt
of green rice-fields with half-a-dozen Niles. …
"The demand for higher education in Eastern Bengal is perhaps
greater than in any other part of India. The admirable
Government College at Dacca has now been provided with
splendid buildings, begun, however, before the 'partition.'
The whole province is being supplied with a set of colleges
adequate to its needs. The staffs of the colleges are being
augmented and their administration overhauled. The principal
private colleges are also being assisted with liberal grants
and transformed into institutions which will give a sound
education. The exceptionally large number of 'high' English
schools in Eastern Bengal had also been greatly neglected,
both those under the Government and those in private hands.
All are now being improved, and are receiving liberal
assistance. …
"Another important task undertaken by the new Government is
that of conducting an elaborate survey and framing a Record of
Rights in the zemindari tracts which constitute the bulk of
the province. The undertaking was devised before the
‘partition,’ but it has been expedited by the change. It is an
extraordinary thing that in all these permanently settled
areas there has been hitherto no record and no map. The
consequence was that the cultivators were constantly bullied
and harassed by the agents of the absentee zemindars, and were
never able to feel any reasonable security of tenure of the
land they tilled. Land disputes were incessant, and were
constantly accompanied by loss of life. In the Backergunge
district, the most turbulent area in India, there were
frequent riots, of which murders were an almost invariable
feature. Since the framing of the Record of Rights in
Backergunge this class of crime has already decreased by 50
per cent.
"I have yet to meet anybody, English or Indian, who can tell
me in what respect the ‘partition’ has injured a single living
soul; while one has only to visit this province, invigorated
with new life and inspired by new aspirations, to realize the
benefits the severance has conferred upon millions of
neglected people. To alter or to modify it now would be
suicidal folly; it would be worse, for it would be a criminal
blunder. It would not placate the wordy ‘patriots’ of
Calcutta, who have used the ‘partition’ as a rallying cry for
lack of a better grievance; and it would alienate the 18
millions of backward Mahomedans in the province who have
placed their alliance in British honour and British pledges.
The Nawab of Dacca, with whom I had a long conversation on the
subject, declared that any attempt to meddle with the
‘partition’—an attempt he still seemed to fear was
possible—would produce the most deplorable results among his
co-religionists. … Nor is there the slightest need for change
or modification. The ‘partition’ is already thrice justified
in the eyes of all men, save only a few malcontent members of
Parliament who know nothing of present conditions in Bengal.
Even in Calcutta the outcry, which was always less against the
fact of the ‘partition’ than against the motive which the
Bengalis erroneously believed to have prompted it, has long
ago died away. Yet, justifiable and necessary though the
‘partition’ was, it remains to be added that, apart from its
complex administrative problems, Eastern Bengal will never be
a very easy province to control. The high-caste Hindus, the
Brahmins, the Baidyas, and the Kayasths—the Brahmins and the
lesser Brahmins,—rule the roast, and it will be long years
before the teeming millions of Mahometan cultivators emerge
from their depressed condition. The few Mahomedan families who
can claim noble birth are decadent and disappearing. The
Hindus have absorbed their lands, the clever lawyers have
converted themselves into rich landowners. It is from the
ranks of these high-caste Hindus that are drawn the members of
the revolutionary societies to which I alluded in a
telegraphic despatch sent from this city yesterday. These
classes show a persistent and increasing spirit of hostility
to the British Raj which no amount of conciliatory measures
will overcome. It is impossible to move about the province and
to converse with the men who know it best without feeling that
the situation is full of dangerous possibilities. The men of
Eastern Bengal are more courageous, more determined, more
persistent than their compatriots in Old Bengal; and the
better classes of Hindus have qualities which are not easily
discernible in the Calcutta babu. They approach more
nearly to the spirit of the Mahrattas of the Deccan than any
other section of the people on this side of India. It is a
significant fact that most of the prisoners now under trial at
Alipur in connexion with the anarchist conspiracy came from
Eastern Bengal. But even as one writes one realizes how
difficult it is to generalize in this country of startling
paradox.
{314}
Yesterday, in Dacca, 200 Hindu pundits assembled to present a
Sanscrit address to the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Lancelot
Hare. Many of them had come long distances. They were all old
men with great nobility of countenance, some with long beards,
others with the face of the Cæsars. And at the conclusion of
the ceremony each kindly and venerable scholar advanced, and
with great dignity presented the Lieutenant-Governor with a
rose. From the bombs of last week to the roses of yesterday,
what a gulf lies between the two!"
INDIA: A. D. 1907.
Hostility in Western Canada to Hindu Laborers.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: CANADA.
INDIA: A. D. 1907 (December).
Meeting and Resolution of the All-India Moslem League.
Mahomedan loyalty to the British Government.
A new factor in Indian politics.
"On December 30th last a Mahomedan Conference, in session at
Dacca, the capital of the newly-created Province of Eastern
Bengal, departing absolutely from its traditions, openly
discussed the question of the protection of Mahomedan
interests from a political standpoint, and finally carried
unanimously a motion for the formation of an ‘All-India Moslem
League’ to promote among the Mahomedans of India feelings of
loyalty to the British Government, and to remove any
misconceptions that may arise as to the intentions of
Government with regard to any of its measures; to protect and
to advance the political rights and interests of the
Mahomedans of India, and respectfully to represent their needs
and aspirations to Government, and to prevent the rise among
Mahomedans in India of any feelings of hostility towards other
communities, without prejudice to the other objects of the
League. A strong Provisional Committee was formed, with power
to add to its number, and the joint secretaries appointed were
the Nawabs Vicar-ul-mulk and Mohsin-ul-mulk, two of the most
important members of the Mahomedan community in India and men
of great intellectual capacity. The Committee was charged to
frame a constitution within a period of four months, and
further to convene a meeting of Indian Mahomedans at a
suitable time and place to lay the constitution before such
meeting for final approval and adoption. The Rubicon has been
crossed; the Mahomedans of India have forsaken the shades of
retirement for the political arena; henceforth a new factor in
Indian politics has to be reckoned with."
E. E. Lang,
The All-India Moslem League
(Contemporary Review, September, 1907).
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908.
The Outbreak of Anarchism.
Summary Measures of Suppression.
The native disaffection in Bengal which became anarchistic in
its violence in 1907, and which perpetrated a number of
murders before it was suppressed, culminated on the 10th of
February, 1909, in the assassination of a prominent native
lawyer, Ashutosh Biswas, who had taken part in the prosecution
of some of the anarchists. Writing of that crime, from
Calcutta, a special correspondent of the London Times,
who had been pursuing an investigation of the terrorist
conspiracy from its beginning, gave an extended account of
what he had learned, part of which is given in the following:
"All that can be said with certainty is that the gospel of
violence, the creed which advocates the use of any form of
force against the British, is Mahratta in its origin; but so
far it is the Bengalis alone who have put it into practice. It
was conceived in Poona, which city has always continued to
inspire and direct it; it was transferred to Baroda, where it
flourished in secret among a limited circle; and it was
transplanted to Calcutta, where it grew apace, somewhere
between the years 1902 and 1904. Certain classes of Bengalis,
who are all adepts at intrigue, took up the new idea with
enthusiasm; but not all who knocked were admitted to the inner
circle. The real conspirators were still probably few in

number when the ‘partition’ of Bengal gave the politicians
their opportunity. The anarchists were furious at the
partition agitation. They were quite content that less
militant persons should prepare the ground for them, by
preaching to the people of the iniquities of the British Raj;
but they were reluctant to see the popular mind actively
diverted to such minor issues as swadeshi and the
boycott. The extermination of the British was their one and
only aim.
"However, as the Congress politicians had succeeded in
arousing intense excitement about the partition, the anarchist
gang sought to turn the situation to their own advantage. …
Recruits were, however, only gradually admitted into the inner
ring; and there were many people who associated with the
anarchists, and sometimes furnished them with funds, who never
took part in their operations. Propaganda formed a prominent
feature of the anarchists’ work. In this department the worst
types of seditious journals, which have now disappeared,
played a great part. Such newspapers as the Yugantar started ‘messes’ and ‘hostels,’ to which subscribers,
particularly those residing up-country, were invited to come
free of charge. They stayed for a day or two, heard the new
gospel preached, and then made way for others. …
"The existence of this considerable organization was not
really suspected by the police until after the attempt to
wreck Sir Andrew Fraser’s train in December, 1907. Some of the
anarchists were under suspicion, and were being watched as
notoriously disaffected persons, but even the shooting of Mr.
B. C. Allen, District Magistrate of Dacca, in the same month,
did not reveal the conspiracy. The police were, however, on
the right track; and a couple of days after two unfortunate
ladies had been killed by a bomb at Muzaffarpur, on April 30,
1908, they acted. At a house in Calcutta, and in a garden on
the outskirts, large seizures of bombs, explosives, and
revolvers were made and about 30 alleged anarchists were
arrested. Other arrests followed. The famous Manicktollah
garden was the principal scene of anarchist activity. It is so
secluded that one wonders it was ever discovered. Far on the
confines of Calcutta, through a network of mean huts beneath
waving palms, a series of winding paths leads to a couple of
mouldering gate-pillars innocent of any gate. Within, under
shady trees, stands a small building in the last stage of
disrepair. It is mean and dirty and squalid, the true squalor
of anarchism. If it is only in such a spot that any movement
can be hatched for the overthrow of the British Raj, then the
British Raj is safe for a long time.
{315}
"The prisoners were taken to the Alipur Gaol, and their trial
was commenced at the Alipur Police Court. I visited the Court
one day—I think it was the seventieth day of the trial—and
marvelled afresh. They were ranged in rows, about 50 men, all
young, all huddled together and squatting on their haunches.
The only man among them with an intellectual face was Arabindo
Ghose, the alleged leader, who sat in a far corner. He has the
face of a dreamer, as indeed he is, and with his long hair and
short beard might very well pass for a certain type of
artistic Frenchman. Whether he be guilty or not is no affair
of mine, but his record excites pity. He went to England with
brilliant gifts and high hopes, and he had a distinguished
career at school and University. But men who profess to know
say that he had more than the ordinary share of the rough and
tumble of juvenile life amidst alien and often thoughtless
comrades, and that those years were made thoroughly unhappy
for him. When at last, after he had passed for the Civil
Service, he was rejected because he could not pass the
horsemanship test, one can perhaps understand that a man of
his temperament returned to India with black rage and despair
at his heart. But his associates seemed to be mere boys,
haggard, wild looking youths of a peculiarly low physical
type."
The trial of the prisoners described above, at Alipur,
resulted in the condemnation of two to death, six to
transportation for life, one to imprisonment for life, and
five to imprisonment for terms ranging from one to ten years.
The remainder, including the alleged leader, Arabindo Ghose,
were acquitted. With the sanction of Lord Morley, the
Secretary for India, summary measures were taken to silence
the seditious journalism and speech which took a terroristic
tone and instigated crime. Loud protests against these
measures were called out in England, and one hundred and
forty-six Liberal, Labor, and Irish Members of Parliament
addressed a note in May last to the Prime Minister, asking his
attention to "the fact that ever since the 8th December last
nine British subjects in India have been deported from their
homes and detained in prison without having been charged with
any offence or informed even of the grounds of suspicion
entertained against them by the Government of India. Some of
them are admitted to be men of high character. None are
alleged to have been previously convicted of any crime. Under
these circumstances," said the writers, "we may venture to
make an urgent appeal to you that they may be either brought
to trial or set at liberty."
In his reply Mr. Asquith said: "Such an appeal is perfectly
natural, and I am not surprised to find that it is widely and
influentially supported. Deportation without trial as a method
of dealing with political agitation must necessarily be
repugnant to Englishmen, and to no one has the necessity of
resorting to such a measure been more repugnant than to Lord
Morley. When, however, I am appealed to on behalf of the
persons so deported, I must ask you and those who are acting
with you to bear in mind that deportation has been resorted to
for the sole purpose of preserving the country from grave
internal commotion. It is a preventive not a punitive measure,
and the responsibility for fixing the period of detention
must, therefore, rest with those who are charged with the
arduous and anxious duty of maintaining order in India.
"The Secretary of State and the Government of India are, I
submit, the only possible judges of the circumstances which
may warrant the release or the further detention of the
persons deported, and the decision is one which, in my
view—and I hope that you and your co-signatories may find
yourselves in agreement with me—may be left with absolute
confidence in their hands.
"It is particularly necessary at a moment when a great
extension of popular representative elements in Indian
administration has just been sanctioned by Parliament that
none of the various forms of anarchical violence should be
tolerated, and that no lawful instrument for suppressing them
should be discarded."
One of the trials for seditious journalism which caused most
excitement throughout India did not arise from publications in
Bengal, but in Bombay. The accused was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a
Brahmin, professor of law and mathematics, who conducted a
native paper called the Mahratta. The specific charge
against him was that in his newspaper he had urged the people
to demand the restoration of the old Shiwaji religious
festivals and, if it was refused, to throw bombs until it was
granted. The government contended that he had not incited the
people to violence in overt words, but by subtle insinuations
and unmistakable innuendo. At his trial in July, 1908, he
spoke in his own defence, with great ability, for five days.
He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six years.
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908.
Mortality Statistics and Birth Rate.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH.
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
The recent Movements of Discontent.
Their Character, Causes, and Meaning.
Hindu and Moslem feeling.
English attitude.
The Past of British Government and its Fruits.
Neglect of Education and Political Training.
Slight Organization of Local Self-Government.
The Governed not taken into the confidence of the Government.
Is Democracy forbidden to Asiatic peoples?
The political disaffection in India which has been expressing
itself violently within the last few years, not only in
seditious speech and print, but in the manner of the Russian
terrorists, with bombs and other instruments of anarchy and
assassination, was not started by the Bengal Partition and the
resentments which that measure gave rise to, but those gave a
fresh and strong impulse to feelings that had been in
fermentation for some time. Behind that immediate impulse was,
undoubtedly, a much stronger one, which came from the
startling revelation of the Russo-Japanese War, that one
Asiatic people, at least, could outfight one, at least, of the
proud and domineering Powers of Europe, and outdo them all in
a practical handling of the boasted "Science of the West."
Torpid energies and sleeping ambitions were pricked in India
by the amazing triumph of the Japanese, as they were elsewhere
throughout the East; and it is since 1905 that the demand of
the Hindus for a political life of their own has taken a tone
which commands the ear of all open-minded and generous
Englishmen, like John Morley, and draws from them the response
they are now trying to make.
{316}
So far as it is a demand for an Independent Indian Empire,
with the whole fabric of British rule swept away, it comes
manifestly from nothing that has weight or force in India
itself. Probably no Hindu who could make intelligent use of
political freedom ever dreams of the present possibility of a
nationalized India, in which the 200,000,000 of his own race
and creed and the 60,000,000 of Mohammedans (saying nothing of
the added millions of other lineages and other faiths) would
be peaceful fellow citizens, administering the institutions of
self-government in harmony together. The Moslems, at least,
are under no illusion as to what would happen if the
incongruous elements of the enormous population of India were
left politically to themselves, under the conditions that now
exist. In 1908, when that idea seemed to be growing in Hindu
thought, they organized an "All-India Moslem League,"
avowedly, as declared by the Nawab of Dacca, "to save
themselves from being submerged by an enormous and noisy
majority of the other race." "The safety of the Mohammedans,"
said the president of the conference, "lay in loyalty to the
government; they must be prepared to fight for the government
if necessary." Thus British rule in its present form has the
Moslem dread of Hindu ascendency to give it a substantial
support, even though the Hindus outnumber the Moslems by more
than three to one. In thinking power, the Hindu is perhaps the
higher type of man; but the blood of the Afghan and Mongol
conquerors of Hindustan must have transmitted more of
political as well as military energy to the Moslems of the
present day. The Hindu mind is too mystically metaphysical for
the politics of a world that is dominated by its least
metaphysical minds.
But the higher intelligence of the Hindus appears to agree
with that of the Moslems in understanding that India is in no
present condition for taking its political fortunes into its
own hands. The really intelligent classes have been making it
plain, however, that they do want a more effective
participation in the management of their own affairs than has
been allowed to them hitherto, and it is the claim of that
class which Lord Morley and his colleagues in the British
Government are acknowledging and aiming to satisfy. It seems
to have been generally and fairly represented in the great
conventions assembled annually for many years past, under the
name of the "Indian National Congress," an unofficial
Congress, possessing no authority, but exercising an influence
that has increased. Its character was described a few years
ago in one of the American reviews by a writer who said that
he had watched it from its birth:
"The Indian National Congress," he wrote, "is avowedly
national in its name and scope. The Provincial Congresses
which meet in every province for the discussion of provincial
matters, unite together in a National Congress, which is
annually held at a chosen centre, for the furtherance and
discussion of national interests. A Congress consists of from
five hundred to one thousand of the political leaders of all
parts of India, comprising representatives of noble families,
landowners, members of local Boards and municipalities,
honorary magistrates, fellows of universities, and
professional men, such as engineers, bankers, merchants,
shopkeepers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, priests and
college professors. The delegates are able to act in concert
and to declare in no uncertain accents the common public
opinion of the multitude of whom they are the mouthpiece. They
are as representative in regard to religion as to rank and
profession; Hindus, Parsis, Mohammedans and Christians have in
turn presided.
"The deliberations are marked by acumen and moderation. The
principal items of their propaganda constitute a practical
programme displaying insight and sagacity, and covering most
of the political and economic problems of the Indian Empire. I
take it upon myself to say, as a watchful eye-witness from its
birth, that the Indian National Congress has discharged its
duties with exemplary judgment and moderation."
Sir Henry Cotton,
The New Spirit in India
(North American Review, November, 1906).
The meeting of this Indian Congress in 1908 was held at Madras
on the 27th of December, not long after Lord Morley had
explained his plan for the enlargement of the Legislative
Councils in India and for the election of a certain number of
their members by popular vote. In the address of the President
of the Congress, Dr. Rash Bihari Ghose, the proposed reforms
were discussed at length, and welcomed with warmth, as going
near, apparently, to satisfying the claims of the majority of
those represented in the Congress. "We are now," said the
speaker, "on the threshold of a new era. An important chapter
has been opened in the history of the relations between Great
Britain and India—a chapter of constitutional reform which
promises to unite the two countries together in closer bonds
than ever. A fair share in the Government of our own country
has now been given to us. The problem of reconciling order
with progress, efficient administration with the satisfaction
of aspirations encouraged by our rulers themselves, which
timid people thought was insoluble, has at last been solved.
The people of India will now be associated with the Government
in the daily and hourly administration of their affairs. A
great step forward has thus been taken in the grant of
representative government for which the Congress had been
crying for years. … We do not know what the future destiny of
India may be. We can see only as through a glass darkly. But
of this I am assured, that on our genuine co-operation with
the British Government depend our future progress and the
development of a fuller social and political life. Of this
also I am assured, that the future of the country is now in a
large measure in our own hands."
At about the same time the All-India Moslem League held its
meeting at Amritsar, and gave an equally hearty welcome to the
principle of the proposed reforms, but appealed against the
mode of election contemplated, which might be to the
disadvantage of the Moslem minority. In the address of the
President, Mr. Ali Imam, he said: "It is impossible for
thoughtful men to approach the subject without regard to the
pathetic side of the present situation.
{317}
It is the liberalism of the great British nation that has
taught Indians, through the medium of English education, to
admire democratic institutions, to hold the rights of the
people sacred above all rights and to claim for their voice
first place in the government of the country. The mind of
close upon three generations of the educated classes in the
land has been fed on the ideas of John Stuart Mill, Milton,
Burke, Sheridan and Shelley, has been filled with the great
lessons obtainable from chapters of the constitutional history
of England and has been influenced by inexpressible
considerations arising out of the American War of
Independence, the relation of Great Britain with her Colonies,
and last, though not least, the grant of Autonomy to the Boers
after their subjugation at an enormous sacrifice of men and
money. The bitterest critic of the educated Indian will not
hold him to blame for his present state of mind. It is the
English who have carefully prepared the ground and sown the
seed that has germinated into what some of them are now
disposed to consider to be noxious weed. It will be a dwarfed
imagination however that will condemn the educational policy
of the large-hearted and liberal-minded Englishmen who laid
its foundation in this country. Those who inaugurated it aimed
at raising the people to the level where co-operation and good
understanding between the rulers and the ruled are possible.
Under the circumstances, the desire of the educated Indian to
take a prominent part in the administration of his country is
neither unnatural nor unexpected. …
"The best sense of the country recognizes the fact that the
progress of India rests on the maintenance of order and
internal peace, and that order and internal peace in view of
the conditions obtaining in our country at present and for a
very long time to come, immeasurably long time to come, spell
British occupation. British occupation not in the thin and
diluted form in which Canada, Australia and South Africa stand
in relation to England, but British occupation in the sense in
which our country has enjoyed internal peace during the last
50 years. Believe me that as long as we have not learnt to
overcome sectarian aggressiveness, to rise above prejudices
based on diversity of races, religions and languages, and to
alter the alarming conditions of violent intellectual
disparity among the peoples of India, so long British
occupation is the principal element in the progress of the
country. The need of India is to recognize that true
patriotism lies in taking measure of the conditions existing
in fact, and devoting one’s self to amelioration. … The creed
of the All-India Muslim League is cooperation with the Rulers,
coöperation with our non-Muslim countrymen and solidarity
amongst ourselves. This is our idea of United India."
These expressions from prominent leaders of the two principal
races of India are quite in accord with the judgment of
liberal-minded Englishmen, as to the present duty of their
government to the people of this great Asiatic Dependency.
They are quite in accord with the judgment that has dictated
the measure undertaken by the present British Government. They
recognize that the relation which England bears to India,
however unjustifiable in its origin it may be, is one that
cannot be suddenly changed without great danger and certain
harm. As Goldwin Smith has said:
"To attempt to strike the balance between the advantages and
disadvantages of British rule in India would be to enter into
a boundless controversy. Foreign rule in itself must always be
an evil. India was rescued by Great Britain from murderous and
devastating anarchy. Though at the time she was plundered by
official corruption of a good deal of the wealth which, being
poor though gorgeous, she could ill afford to lose, she has
since enjoyed general peace and order; both, we may be sure,
to a far greater extent than she otherwise would have done.
The deadly enmity between her races and religions has been
controlled and assuaged. …
"It does not appear that there is any considerable migration
from the provinces directly under British dominion to those
which are under native rule. The people, no doubt, are
generally fixed to their habitations by poverty and difficulty
of movement; still, if they greatly preferred the native rule,
a certain amount of migration to it there would probably be.
That the masses of India in general are miserably poor cannot
be denied. The question is, whether under the Mogul Emperors
they were better off. … The population has vastly increased,
and its increase may in some measure account for dearth. With
regard to fiscal and commercial questions, it may safely be
said that, at all events in late years, there has been no
disposition on England’s part to do anything but justice to
India.
"India’s complaints, speaking generally, seem to be of things
inseparable from foreign rule, the withdrawal of which would
be the only remedy. But suppose British rule withdrawn from
India, what would follow? Is there anything ready to take its
place? would not the result be anarchy, such as prevailed when
England came upon the scene, or a struggle for ascendency
between the Mahometan and the Hindoo, with another battle of
Paniput? Suppose the Mahometan, stronger in spirit though
weaker in numbers, to prevail, would his ascendency be more
beneficial and less galling to the Hindoo than is that of the
English Sahib?"
Goldwin Smith,
British Empire in India
(North American Review, September 7, 1906).
Of the ultimate possibilities of a nationalized unification of
the mighty masses of population in the vast peninsula, there
can, perhaps, be as much or more said hopefully as against the
hope. A writer who believes that there may be an independent
India has put an outline of the argument, pro and con, in
these few following words:
"India, we are almost tired of hearing, is as large as Europe,
putting aside Russia and Scandinavia, with as great a
population, as many diverse and heterogeneous nationalities,
differing from each other in language, in custom, in religion,
and in everything that makes for individuality; and we might
as well speak of the Indian nation as the European nation. …
To this contention Young India opposes the most emphatic
contradiction. India is a nation, a people, a country: its
interests and aspirations are one and unique. Railways,
telegraphs, post-office, the Press, education, knowledge of
English, have welded into one harmonious whole all the
manifold centrifugal forces of its vast area.
{318}
Young India will quote Switzerland as an example of a country
with several languages and two conflicting religions, and yet
undoubtedly constituting a nation. If the only tongue in which
the Madrassi and the Bengali can communicate is English, so
let it be. It is sufficient that a medium of communication
exists. And it does exist. The educated Indian speaks and
writes in English as easily as in his own mother-tongue. It is
in English that the most vehement tirades against British
rule, whether printed, spoken, or dealt with in private
correspondence, are hurled across the land. Politically
speaking, Lahore is a suburb of Calcutta. The fact cannot be
gainsaid and must be reckoned with. India, as a whole, as a
political unit, has found a voice. There is a national India,
as there is not a national Europe."
E. C. Cox,
Banger in India
(Nineteenth Century, December, 1908).
This view recognizes, as was recognized in the address of the
President of the All-India Moslem League, quoted above, that
English rule and English influence have done much towards
preparing both the country and the people for the
self-government to which the latter are now beginning to
aspire. It must be said, however, that most of this
preparation has been casually consequent on policies that had
no such deliberate intent. Until quite late years there is
little sign to be seen in British Indian policy of a thought
of developing opportunity and capability in the people to
become more than valuable customers and docile wards. While
India was in the hands of a commercial company it was managed,
naturally, like an imperial estate, with strictly economic
objects in view. Even then there was wisely economic
consideration given to the general welfare of the people; but
it was welfare as seen from the estate-owners' standpoint. The
proprietary government did many things for its subjects and
servants; bettered their conditions in many ways; added
greatly to the equipment of their lives; but it did very
little, if anything, toward putting them in the way of
bettering things for themselves. It contemplated nothing for
India but the perpetuity of its management as an imperial
estate, entailed in the possession of a proprietary race.
The taking of this imperial estate from company management
into national management has not seemed hitherto to alter the
business nature of its administration very much. Its many
millions of inhabitants have been better governed and better
cared for, without doubt; but the idea of benevolence to them
has never been much enlarged beyond the idea of an honestly
good overseeing care. Institutions have been provided or
encouraged for the educating of a class among them which could
be of useful assistance in the caretaking of the mass; but
common education for the mass, to qualify them better for the
care of themselves, received scant attention till 25 years
ago. In the very explanation that is often given of the
present discontent in India there is an impeachment of the
past treatment of the country by its able and powerful
masters. It is said that the educated Hindus find no
satisfying career for themselves outside of the service of the
government, and that an increasingly large class in excess of
the openings which that service can afford has been educated
in recent years; that, consequently, the swelling crowd of
disappointed place-seekers, whose intelligence and ambition
have been whetted in the higher schools and colleges of the
Indian Empire, are the disturbers of public content. After a
century and a half of supreme British influence and power in
India, there ought to have been more and better openings of
opportunity for educated young Hindus than through the doors
of public office. There would have been if the development of
country and people had been conducted with more reference to
their benefit, and with less close attention to the interests
of British trade.
Since 1882-1883 there has been more endeavor to establish and
assist native primary schools; but the percentage of
population that they reach is small. The statistics given in
an official "Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material
Progress and Condition of India during the year 1905-1906"
make the following showing:
Provinces. Number of Number of
Institutions Pupils
Bengal 43,996 1,232,278
United Provinces 15,708 576,336
Punjab 3,762 211,464
Burma 20,996 385,214
Central Provinces 3,090 209,680
Eastern Bengal and Assam 21,790 722,371
Coorg 116 4,666
North West Frontier Province 1,087 28,496
Madras Presidency 28,258 918,880
Bombay and Sind Presidency 13,865 736,209
Total 152,668 5,025,594
Except in the Punjab and in Eastern Bengal and Assam these
figures include both public and private institutions of
education, of all grades, from primary schools to colleges.
All institutions in which the course of instruction conforms
to standards prescribed by the Department of Education or by
the University, and which either undergo inspection by the
Department or present pupils at public examinations, are
classed as "public," but may be under either public or private
management. While the schools and colleges seem numerous, it
will be seen that they average but 33 pupils each, and give
teaching to a slender fraction of the children of the
294,000,000 of people under British rule. In the report from
which we quote the proportion of pupils to the estimated
population of school-going age is given as 28.4 per cent. of
boys and 2.9 per cent. of girls in Bengal; 8.06 per cent. of
boys and 0.96 per cent. of girls in the United Provinces; 21.8
per cent. of boys and 1.8 of girls in the Central Provinces;
28.2 per cent, of boys and 2.9 per cent. of girls in Eastern
Bengal and Assam; 29 per cent. of boys and 5.4 per cent. of
girls in Madras; 31.8 per cent. of boys and 6 per cent of
girls in Bombay. The total expenditure on education, from all
sources, including fees, was £735,043 in Bengal (increased to
£830,415 in 1907-1908); £441,421 in the United Provinces
(increased to £491,723 in 1907-1908); £331,038 in the Punjab;
£218,445 in Burma; £145,389 in the Central Provinces; £318,788
in Eastern Bengal and Assam; £624,602 in the Madras Presidency
(increased to £712,740 in 1907-1908); £685,444 in the Presidency
of Bombay (increased to £756,168 in 1907-1908). Total in 1905-1906,
£3,500,170. Education in British India cannot be made wide or
deep on expenditure of this scale.
{319}
Education in the literary meaning, then, was tardily
undertaken and is very limited yet in its extent. Quite as
tardy, and quite as scant in the measure until John Morley got
the handling of it, has been the political training that
England,—greatest of political teachers as she has been for
the world at large,—has allowed her Indian subjects to
receive. It must not be understood that nothing of
self-government has been conceded hitherto to these people.
The exact measure of their participation in the management of
their own public affairs, and the period within which they
have exercised it, are described in the official "Statement
exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of
India" from which the above exhibit of educational
institutions is taken. The following is quoted partly from the
"Statement" of 1905-1906 and partly from the later one of 1907-1908:
"Local self-government, municipal and rural, in its present
form, is essentially a product of British rule. Beginning in
the Presidency towns, the principle made little progress until
1870, when it was expressly recognised by Lord Mayo’s
Government that ‘local interest, supervision, and care are
necessary to success in the management of funds devoted to
education, sanitation, medical charity, and local public
works.’ The result was a gradual advance in local
self-government, leading up to the action taken by Lord
Ripon’s Government in 1883-1884, and to various provincial Acts
passed about that time, which form the basis of the provincial
systems at present in force. Municipal committees now exist in
most places having any pretension to importance, and have
charge of municipal business generally, including the care and
superintendence of streets, roads, fairs and markets, open
spaces, water supply, drainage, education, hospitals, and the
like. Local and district boards have charge of local roads,
sanitary works, education, hospitals, and dispensaries in
rural districts. A large proportion of their income is
provided by provincial rates. Bodies of port trustees have
charge of harbour works, port approaches, and pilotage. There
is also a smaller number of non-elective local bodies
discharging similar duties in towns other than constituted
municipalities, and in cantonments.
"The municipal bodies exist, raise funds, and exercise powers
under enactments which provide separately for the special
requirements of each province and of the three presidency
capitals, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. In the municipalities
as a whole about half of the members are elected by the
townsfolk under legal rules; in every town some, and in a few
minor towns all, of the members are appointed by the
Government. In almost every municipal body one or more
Government officials sit as members. The number of Indian and
non-official members, however, in every province, largely
exceeds the number of Europeans and officials. The municipal
bodies are subject to Government control in so far that no new
tax can be imposed, no loan can be raised, no work costing
more than a prescribed sum can be undertaken, and no serious
departure from the sanctioned budget for the year can be made,
without the previous sanction of the Government; and no rules
or bye-laws can be enforced without similar sanction and full
publication.
"There were 746 municipalities at the end of 1907-1908,
containing within their limits over 16 million people or 7 per
cent. of the total population. Generally speaking, the income
of municipalities is small. In 1907-1908 their aggregate income
amounted to £3,910,000, excluding loans, sales of securities,
and other extraordinary receipts. About 40 per cent. of the
total is provided by Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Rangoon. …
"The interest in municipal elections, and in municipal affairs
generally, is not usually keen, save in a few cities and large
towns; but, as education and knowledge advance, interest in
the management of local affairs gradually increases. In most
provinces municipal work is fairly well done, and municipal
responsibilities are, on the whole, faithfully discharged,
though occasional shortcomings and failures occur. The
tendency of local bodies, especially in the smaller towns, is
to be slow in imposing additional taxes, in adopting sanitary
reforms, and in incurring new expenditure. Many members of
municipal bodies are diligent in their attendance, whether at
meetings for business or on benches for the decision of petty
criminal cases."
The elected members of these municipal committees number less
than five thousand. This, therefore, is the extent of the
class in the whole of British India, which now receives an
elementary political training. Nothing more is needed for
proving that India cannot possibly be prepared for independent
self-government.
In a memorable speech made by Lord Macaulay in 1833 he
predicted a time when England’s Indian subjects might demand
English institutions, and exclaimed: "Whenever the day comes
it will be the proudest in English history." The day has come,
and it does not bring pride to England; because her wards in
India have not been made ready for what they ask. It will need
time to repair the long neglect; but there is no grander fact
in recent history than the beginning of the labor of repair.
It is to be a work of education, not for the people of India
alone, but for Englishmen as well. They are to learn, and have
begun to learn, the mistake of egotism and self-sufficiency in
their government of these people. Some months ago there was
published in The Times of India, at Bombay, a number of
articles on the causes of the existing discontent, some by
English writers, some by Hindus, some by Mohammedans, all
seriously and frankly studying the situation, and most
suggestive in their thought. The cause emphasized most by one
of the English writers is that which always has worked and
always will work when one self-complacent and self-confident
people undertakes to be an overruling providence for another
people, by making laws for it and managing its affairs. The
more consciousness there is on the ruling side of just
intention and superior knowledge, the less likely it is to
satisfy the ruled; because the satisfying of its own judgment
of what is good for the latter is assumed to be enough.
During the last half century, at least, the British Government
has endeavored, without a doubt, to do good to its Indian
subjects, and it has done them great good; but everything has
been done in its own way, from its own points of view and upon
its own judgment of things needful and good and right. And
this is why its Indian subjects not only feel wronged, but are
wronged.
{320}
As the writer in The Times of India reminds his
countrymen, "right is a relative term," and not, he says, "as
we Islanders would have it, an absolute one. A thing that is
right for us, with our past training and traditions, may not
only seem, but really be, a grave wrong to those whose
environment differs from our own." He cites instances of grave
mistakes in well-intended legislation that would have been
avoided, if the makers of the laws had counseled sufficiently
with natives of experience in the matters concerned. One
example is in a land alienation act, for the Punjab, which was
framed with purely philanthropic motives, being intended to
free the native peasantry—the ryots—from thraldom to money
lenders, but which, by making the recovery of debts difficult,
has trebled the rate of interest to the ryot, who borrows just
as much, and mortgages himself instead of mortgaging his land.
Alluding to this and to another act of excellent intention but
irritating effect, the writer says: "When these worthy aims of
government were debated in the Bombay and Punjab legislatures,
who was there, among the officials, in touch with Indian
feeling and sentiment? Who among the senators ever suggested
the possibility that the evil of mortgage and borrowing was
not intrinsically an evil in India, but that legislation—our
own past legislation—had made it so? Was there no officer of
government who could advise the authorities that every Hindoo,
almost, is at heart a money lender; that it is second nature
to him; that indebtedness in itself is neither reproach nor
handicap in his eyes; and that if you take from him his
freedom of barter you do take his life?"
"We have failed," says this writer, "to avail ourselves of the
material we ourselves have trained." That, undoubtedly, is the
cardinal mistake that the English in India have made. Until
now, they have not taken the best of India into their
confidence and their counsels.
Another of the writers referred to above gave another
characterization of the British rule as the natives more
generally feel it, in which a deeper working of more subtle
irritations can be seen. He wrote:
"Personal rule, the will of the king, God’s anointed and
therefore invested with quasi-divine sanction, is the only
rule to which the East has been used, which it can like and
respect. The people can understand, even while they suffer
under, the most extravagant individual caprices; and when the
tyranny becomes too intolerable, they always had in the last
resort an excellent chance of being able to overthrow it. But
they cannot and probably never will understand, still less
appreciate, the cold, implacable, inhuman impersonality of the
English government. They might as well be governed by a
dynamo, without human bowels or passions. It cannot be humanly
approached; it has no human side; its very impeccability is
exasperating; and the exactitude with which it metes out its
machine-made justice, according to inflexible rules and
formulae into which no human equation enters, chills and
repels the Eastern mind, and its strength is commensurate with
its remorselessness."
"They might as well be governed by a dynamo!" That, in this
connection, is a powerfully expressive phrase. The dynamo and
everything of a dynamic nature—every mechanical motor-working
of forces, whether material or political, are naturally
congenial to the man of the Western world—understandable by
him, serviceable to him—and they are not so to the man of the
East. Somewhere in the process of their evolution the one got
an aptitude for projecting work outwardly from the worker—
action at some remove from the actor—shuttle throwing, for
example, carried out from the weaver to the arms and fingers
of a machine, and government from the personally governing
will to an organic political system—while the other did not.
In this, more than in anything else, perhaps, the radical
difference of nature between the Occidental and the Oriental
peoples is summed up. The one is endowed with a self-enhancing
power to act through exterior agencies, of mechanism in his
physical labors, of representative institutions in his
government, of systems and organisms in all his doings, which
the other lacks.
This might have seemed a generation ago to set an
insurmountable barrier against the passing of democracy and
democratic institutions into Asia; but we have little right
to-day to imagine that anything can stop their march.
INDIA: A. D. 1908.
American Mission Schools.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: INDIA.
INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
Passage of the Indian Councils Bill by the British Parliament.
Popular Representation in the Legislative Councils introduced.
Lord Morley’s explanations of the Measure.
Appointment of a native member of the
Viceroy’s Executive Council.
The great project of reform in the Government of India which
Lord Morley, as Secretary for India in the British
Administration, brought before Parliament in December, 1908,
embodied fundamentally in what was known during the discussion
of it as the Indian Councils Bill, had its origin more than
two years before that time, not in the councils of the British
Ministry, but in those of the Government of India. The facts
of its inception and preliminary consideration were indicated
in a British Blue Book of 1908 (Cd. 4426), which contained
proposals on the subject from the Government of India, dated
October 1, 1908, and the reply of Lord Morley to them,
November 27. More recently the early history of the reform
project was told briefly by the Viceroy of India, the Earl of
Minto, in a speech in Council, on the 28th of March, 1909. He
said:
"The material from which the Councils Bill has been
manufactured was supplied from the Secretariat at Simla, and
emanated entirely from the bureaucracy of the Government of
India. It was in August, 1906, that I drew attention in
Council in a confidential minute to the change which was so
rapidly affecting the political atmosphere, bringing with it
questions we could not afford to ignore, which we must attempt
to answer, pointing out that it was all-important that the
initiative should emanate from us, that the Government of
India should not be put in the position of appearance of
having its hands forced by agitation in this country or by
pressure from home, and that we should be the first to
recognize the surrounding conditions and place before his
Majesty’s Government the opinion which personal experience and
close touch with the everyday life of India entitle us to
hold.
{321}
I consequently appointed the Arundel Committee. That minute
was the first seed of our reforms sown more than a year before
the first anarchist outrage sent a thrill of shocked surprise
throughout India—the attempt to wreck Sir Andrew Fraser’s
train in December, 1907. The policy of the Government of India
in respect to reforms has emanated from mature consideration
of political and social conditions, while the administrative
changes they advocated, far from being concessions wrung from
them, have been over and over again endangered by the
commission of outrages which could not but encourage doubts as
to the opportuneness of the introduction of political changes,
but which I steadfastly refused to allow to injure the
political welfare of the loyal masses in India."
The Indian Councils Bill was printed on the 20th of February,
1909, and its second reading in the House of Lords was moved
by Lord Morley in an explanatory speech on the 23d. A
prefatory memorandum accompanying the text of the Bill was as
follows:
"The object of this Bill is to amend and extend the Indian
Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, in such a way as to provide:
"(i.)For an enlargement of the Legislative Council of the
Governor-General and of the existing Provincial Legislative
Councils;
"(ii.) For the election of a certain proportion of their
members by popular vote; and
"(iii.) For greater freedom to discuss matters of general
public interest and to ask questions at their meetings, and
more especially for the discussion of the annual financial
statements.
"The Executive Councils of the Governments of Madras and
Bombay are enlarged, and powers are taken to create Executive
Councils in the other Provinces of India, where they now do
not exist. Provision is also made for the appointment of
Vice-Presidents of the various Councils.
"The details of the necessary arrangements, which must vary
widely in the different Provinces, are left to be settled by
means of regulations to be framed by the Government of India
and approved by the Secretary of State."
In his speech on moving the second reading of the Bill, Lord
Morley said: "I invite the House to take to-day the first
definite and operative step in carrying out the policy which I
had the honour of stating to your lordships just before
Christmas, and which has occupied the active consideration
both of the Home Government and of the Government of India for
very nearly, if not even more than, three years. The statement
was awaited in India with an expectancy that with time became
almost impatience, and it was received in India—and that,
after all, is the point to which I looked with the most
anxiety—with intense interest and attention and various
degrees of approval, from warm enthusiasm to cool assent and
acquiescence. So far as I know … there has been no sign in any
quarter, save possibly in the irreconcilable camp, of
organized hostile opinion among either Indians or
Anglo-Indians. …
"There are, I take it, three classes of people that we have to
consider in dealing with a scheme of this kind. There are the
extremists, who nurse fantastic dreams that some day they will
drive us out of India. In this group there are academic
extremists and physical force extremists, and I have seen it
stated on a certain authority—it cannot be more than guessed—
that they do not number, whether academic or physical force
extremists, more than one-tenth, I think, or even 3 per cent.,
of what are called the educated class in India. The second
group nourish no hopes of this sort, but hope for autonomy or
self-government of the colonial species and pattern. And then
the third section of this classification ask for no more than
to be admitted to co-operation in our administration, and to
find a free and effective voice in expressing the interests
and needs of their land. I believe the effect of the reforms
has been, is being, and will be to draw the second class, who
hope for colonial autonomy, into the third class, who will be
content with being admitted to a fair and full co-operation."
As to the objections raised by the Mahomedans of India, to the
plans of the measure for their representation in the Councils,
Lord Morley announced the readiness of the Government to yield
to them. "We," he said, "suggested to the Government of India
a certain plan. We did not prescribe it, we did not order it,
but we suggested and recommended this plan for their
consideration—no more than that. It was the plan of a mixed or
composite electoral college, in which Mahomedans and Hindus
should pool their votes, so to say. The wording of the
recommendation in my dispatch was, as I soon discovered,
ambiguous—a grievous defect, of which I make bold to hope I am
not very often in public business guilty. But, to the best of
my belief, under any construction the plan of Hindus and
Mahomedans voting together in a mixed and composite electorate
would have secured to the Mahomedan electors, wherever they
were so minded, the chance of returning their own
representative in their due proportion. The political idea at
the bottom of that recommendation which has found so little
favour was that such composite action would bring the two
great communities more closely together, and this idea of
promoting harmony was held by men of very high Indian
authority and experience who were among my advisers at the
India Office. But the Mahomedans protested that the Hindus
would elect a pro-Hindu upon it, just as I suppose in a mixed
college of say 75 Catholics and 25 Protestants voting together
the Protestants might suspect that the Catholics voting for
the Protestant would choose what is called a Romanizing
Protestant and as little of a Protestant as possible. … At any
rate, the Government of India doubted whether our plan would
work, and we have abandoned it. I do not think it was a bad
plan, but it is no use, if you are making an earnest attempt
in good faith at a general pacification, out of parental
fondness for a clause interrupting that good process by
sitting too tight.
"The Mahomedans demand three things. I had the pleasure of
receiving a deputation from them and I know very well what is
in their minds. They demand the election of their own
representatives to these councils in all the stages, just as
in Cyprus, where, I think, the Mahomedans vote by themselves.
They have nine votes and the non-Mahomedans have three, or the
other way about.
{322}
So in Bohemia, where the Germans vote alone and have their own
register. Therefore we are not without a precedent and a
parallel for the idea of a separate register. Secondly, they
want a number of seats in excess of their numerical strength.
Those two demands we are quite ready and intend to meet in
full. There is a third demand that, if there is a Hindu on the
Viceroy’s Executive Council—a subject on which I will venture
to say a little to your lordships before I sit down—there
should be two Indian members on the Viceroy’s Council and that
one should be a Mahomedan. Well, as I told them and as I now
tell your lordships, I see no chance whatever of meeting their
views in that way to any extent at all."
Turning to a much criticised feature of the projected
remodelling of Indian Government—namely, the announced
intention of the Government to name an Indian member of the
Viceroy’s Executive Council—the Secretary reminded the House
that this was not touched by the pending bill, for the reason
that the appointment of that Council lies already within the
province of the Crown. In meeting the objections raised to
this part of the reform project, he amused the House greatly
by remarking: "Lord MacDonnell said the other day: ‘I believe
you cannot find any individual native gentleman who has
enjoyed the general confidence who would be able to give
advice and assistance to the Governor-General in Council.’ It
has been my lot to be twice Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I
do not believe I can truly say I ever met in Ireland a single
individual native gentleman who ‘enjoyed general confidence.’
And yet I received at Dublin Castle most excellent and
competent advice. Therefore I will accept that statement from
the noble lord. The question is whether there is no one of the
300 millions of the population of India who is competent to be
the officially-constituted adviser of the Governor-General in
Council in the administration of Indian affairs. You make an
Indian a Judge of the High Court, and Indians have even been
acting-Chief Justices. As to capacity, who can deny that they
have distinguished themselves as administrators of native
States, where far more demand is made on their resources,
intellectual and moral? It is said that the presence of an
Indian member would cause restraint in the language of
discussion. For a year and a half I have had two Indians at
the Council of India, and I have never found the slightest
restraint whatever."
Debate on the Bill in the House of Lords was resumed on the
4th of March, and it was amended by striking out a clause
which gave power to constitute provincial executive councils
in other provinces than Madras and Bombay, where they were
already existing. It then passed through Committee, and on the
11th of March it was read a third time and passed by the Upper
House.
A fortnight later, Lord Morley brought into exercise the
authority possessed by the Crown, to appoint on its own
judgment a native member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.
His choice fell on a distinguished Hindu lawyer, Mr. Satyendra
Prasanna Sinha, of whom the London Times, on announcing
the appointment, said: "Mr. Sinha now fills the office of
Advocate-General of Bengal, to which he was not long ago
promoted, and he will succeed Sir Henry Richards as Legal
Member of Council. Of his fitness to discharge the
departmental duties of his new position we make no question.
Lord Morley has doubtless satisfied himself that the
qualifications of his nominee in this respect will not
discredit the experiment on which he has ventured. But,
however high those qualifications, and however well they may
stand the test of experience, gifts and attainments of another
order are needed for the post to which Lord Morley has named
him. A member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council is much more
than a departmental chief. … For him there are no State
secrets and no confidential documents. He has a right to know
and to debate the imperii arcana. The most delicate
mysteries of diplomacy, the most carefully guarded of military
precautions, are trusted to his faith and to his discretion.
Breadth of political knowledge and of judgment, insight into
men and things, a sure sense and grasp of realities, coolness,
courage, and rapid decision in emergencies, absolute
impartiality between native races, creeds, and classes, and an
instinctive devotion to England, to her traditions and to her
ideals, are amongst the qualities which have been deemed the
best recommendations for so immense a trust. Mr. Sinha may
possess them all, but they are rare amongst the men of any
race, and some of them are notoriously uncommon amongst
Orientals."
This expresses the English opinion that objects to the
admission of Indians to the Executive Councils of Indian
Government, even while assenting to their representation in
the Legislative Councils of the dependency. It is to be hoped
that Mr. Sinha will help to weaken that opinion. Reports from
India on the appointment were to the effect that it had given
great general satisfaction.
On the return of the Councils Bill to the Commons the clause
which the Lords had stricken out was restored, but in a
modified form. Authority to extend the creation of provincial
executive councils was given, but with the reservation to the
House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons of a veto
upon the establishment of such councils in any new provinces,
except Bengal. As thus amended the clause was accepted by the
Upper House and became law, May 25, 1909.

The following are the essential provisions of the Act:
"I.
(1) The additional members of the councils for the purpose of
making laws and regulations (hereinafter referred to as
Legislative Councils) of the Governor-General and of the
Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, and the members of
the Legislative Councils already constituted, or which may
hereafter be constituted, of the several Lieutenant-Governors
of Provinces, instead of being all nominated by the
Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor in manner
provided by the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, shall
include members so nominated and also members elected in
accordance with regulations made under this Act, and
references in those Acts to the members so nominated and their
nomination shall be construed as including references to the
members so elected and their election.
{323}
"(2) The number of additional members or members so nominated
and elected, the number of such members required to constitute
a quorum, the term of office of such members and the manner of
filling up casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence
from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of
office, or resignation duly accepted, or otherwise, shall, in
the case of each such council, be such as may be prescribed by
regulations made under this Act:
"Provided that the aggregate number of members so nominated
and elected shall not, in the case of any Legislative Council
mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this
Act, exceed the number specified in the second column of that
schedule.
" 2.
(1) The number of ordinary members of the councils of the
Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay shall be such number
not exceeding four as the Secretary of State in Council may
from time to time direct, of whom two at least shall be
persons who at the time of their appointment have been in the
service of the Crown in India for at least twelve years.
"(2) If at any meeting of either of such councils there is an
equality of votes on any question, the Governor or other
person presiding shall have two votes or the casting vote.
"3.
(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council,
with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, by
proclamation, to create a council in the Bengal Division of
the Presidency of Fort William for the purpose of assisting
the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the
province, and by such proclamation—
"(a) to make provision for determining what shall be
the number (not exceeding four) and qualifications of the
members of the council; and
"(b) to make provision for the appointment of
temporary or acting members of the council during the
absence of any member from illness or otherwise, and for
the procedure to be adopted in case of a difference of
opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his council, and
in the case of equality of votes, and in the case of a
Lieutenant-Governor being obliged to absent himself from
his council from indisposition or any other cause.
"(2) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council,
with the like approval, by a like proclamation to create a
council in any other province under a Lieutenant-Governor for
the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the
executive government of the province: Provided that before any
such proclamation is made a draft thereof shall be laid before
each House of Parliament for not less than sixty days during
the session of Parliament, and, if before the expiration of
that time an address is presented to His Majesty by either
House of Parliament against the draft or any part thereof, no
further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice
to the making of any new draft.
"(3) Where any such proclamation has been made with respect to
any province the Lieutenant-Governor may, with the consent of
the Governor-General in Council, from time to time make rules
and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in
his council, and any order made or act done in accordance with
the rules and orders so made shall be deemed to be an act or
order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
"(4) Every member of any such council shall be appointed by
the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty, and
shall, as such, be a member of the Legislative Council of the
Lieutenant-Governor, in addition to the members nominated by
the Lieutenant-Governor and elected under the provisions of
this Act.
"4. The Governor-General, and the Governors of Fort Saint
George and Bombay, and the Lieutenant-Governor of every
province respectively shall appoint a member of their
respective councils to be Vice-President thereof, and, for the
purpose of temporarily holding and executing the office of
Governor-General or Governor of Fort Saint George or Bombay
and of presiding at meetings of Council in the absence of the
Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor, the
Vice-President so appointed shall be deemed to be the senior
member of Council and the member highest in rank, and the
Indian Councils Act, 1861, and sections sixty-two and
sixty-three of the Government of India Act, 1833, shall have
effect accordingly.
"5.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Councils Act, 1861,
the Governor-General in Council, the Governors in Council of
Fort Saint George and Bombay respectively, and the
Lieutenant-Governor or Lieutenant-Governor in Council of every
province, shall make rules authorising at any meeting of their
respective legislative councils the discussion of the annual
financial statement of the Governor-General in Council or of
their respective local governments, as the case may be, and of
any matter of general public interest, and the asking of
questions, under such conditions and restrictions as may be
prescribed in the rules applicable to the several councils.
"(2) Such rules as aforesaid may provide for the appointment
of a member of any such council to preside at any such
discussion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor, or
Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be, and of any
Vice-President.
"(3) Rules under this section, where made by a Governor in
Council, or by a Lieutenant-Governor, or a Lieutenant-Governor
in Council, shall be subject to the sanction of the
Governor-General in Council, and where made by the
Governor-General in Council shall be subject to the sanction of
the Secretary of State in Council, and shall not be subject to
alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council of the
Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor.
"6. The Governor-General in Council shall, subject to the
approval of the Secretary of State in Council, make
regulations as to the conditions under which and manner in
which persons resident in India may be nominated or elected as
members of the Legislative Councils of the Governor-General,
Governors, and Lieutenant-Governors, and as to the
qualifications for being, and for being nominated or elected,
a member of any such council, and as to any other matter for
which regulations are authorised to be made under this Act,
and also as to the manner in which those regulations are to be
carried into effect. Regulations under this section shall not
be subject to alteration or amendment by the Legislative
Council of the Governor-General.
{324}
"7. All proclamations, regulations and rules made under this
Act, other than rules made by a Lieutenant-Governor for the
more convenient transaction of business in his council, shall
be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be
after they are made."
FIRST SCHEDULE.
MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF NOMINATED AND ELECTED
MEMBERS OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.
Maximum
Legislative Council. Number.
Legislative Council of the Governor-General 60
Legislative Council of the Governor of Fort
Saint George 50
Legislative Council of the Governor of Bombay 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor
of the Bengal division of the Presidency of
Fort William 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor
of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor
of the Province of Eastern Bengal and Assam 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor
of the Province of the Punjab 30
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor
of the Province of Burma 30
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor
of any Province which may hereafter be constituted 30
As will be seen, the Act only conveys in outline to the
Government of India the authority needed for introducing the
intended reforms, leaving all constructive details to be
filled out by the latter in regulations and rules. Six months
were occupied in that task by the Indian Government, and the
resulting prescriptions were published on November 15th, in a
document filling 450 pages of print. The following is a
summary of them, communicated to The Times by its
Calcutta correspondent:
"They comprise, first, a short notice bringing the new
Councils Act into force; secondly, the rules and regulations
for guiding the constitution of the enlarged Imperial and
Provincial Councils, with election rules; thirdly, rules for
the discussion of the annual financial statement and general
resolutions and for the asking of questions; and, fourthly, a
Government resolution explaining the reasons for the changes
made and their main details.
"The resolution shows that the Imperial Council will consist
of 68 members, while the number of members in each of the
Provincial Councils will be as follows:—Bengal, 51; Madras and
Bombay, each 48; the United Provinces, 49; Eastern Bengal and
Assam, 43; the Punjab, 27; and Burma, 18.
"The Viceroy’s Council has an official majority of three,
while all the Provincial Councils have non-official
majorities, ranging from 14 in Bengal to three in Burma. In
the Viceroy’s Council the Mahomedans will have in the first
Council six members elected by purely Mahomedan electorates,
and will also presumably get seats in Sind and the Punjab, as
the resolution says that a representative of the Bombay
landholders on the Imperial Council will be elected at the
first, third, and subsequent alternate elections by the Sind
landholders, the great majority of whom are Mahomedan, and at
the other elections by the Sirdars of Gujarat and the Deccan,
the majority of whom are Hindus.
"Again, the Punjab landholders consist equally of Mahomedans
and non-Mahomedans, and presumably a Mahomedan will be
alternately chosen. Accordingly, it has been decided that at
the second, fourth, and alternate elections, when these two
seats shall not be held by Mahomedans, there shall be two
special electorates consisting of Mahomedan landholders who
are entitled to vote for the member representing them in the
Imperial Council, and the landowners of the United Provinces
and of Eastern Bengal and Assam respectively. The Bombay
Mahomedan member of the Imperial Council will be elected by
the non-official Mahomedan members of the Provincial Council.
"The tea and jute industries get five members on the
Provincial Councils of the Bengals and Madras.
"All members are required to take the oath of allegiance to
the Crown before sitting on any of the Councils, and no person
is eligible for election if the Imperial or a Provincial
Government is of opinion that his election would be contrary
to public interest. This provision takes the place of the old
power to reject members selected by the electorate.
"The examination of the annual financial proposals is divided
into three parts. The first allows a chance for discussing any
alteration in taxation and any new loan or grant to a local
Government. Under the second any head of revenue or
expenditure will be explained by the member in charge of the
Department concerned and any resolution may be moved, and at
the third stage the Finance Minister presents his budget and
explains why any resolutions will not be accepted, a general
discussion following.
"The resolution concludes as follows:
"The new Provincial Councils will assemble early in January
and the Imperial Council in the course of that month. …
"‘The maximum strength of the Councils was 126; it is
now 370. There are now 135 elected members against 39, while
an elected member will sit as of right, needing no official
confirmation. The functions of the Councils are greatly
enlarged. Members can demand further information in reply to
formal answers and discussion will be allowed on all matters
of public interest. They will also in future be enabled to
take a real and active part in shaping financial proposals.
They will have liberal opportunity to criticize and to
initiate and suggest definite resolutions.'"
As operative at the center of discontent, in Bengal, an
unfortunate defect in the regulations was soon discovered,
which made trouble at once. It was reported to The
Times as follows:
"The regulations for the election of the new Councils have
produced a political situation here which will be scarcely
intelligible to those who are not acquainted with the
peculiarities of the Bengali character. The educated classes
in Calcutta were in despair when they discovered that the
rules virtually excluded their leaders, and the more extreme
men seized the opportunity of advocating a boycott of the
reforms. Sir Edward Baker, however, promptly recognized that
the regulations required modification. The rule which
restricted the candidates for the representation of district
boards and municipalities to present members of these bodies
was at once altered so as to include those who had at any time
served for three years on a local authority. The effect of
this concession was to render eligible many previously
excluded.
{325}
Further, when it was pointed out that Mr. Surendranath
Banerjee was shut out by the rule disqualifying dismissed
Government servants, Sir Edward Baker spontaneously intimated
to the Bengali leader that he was exempted from the operation
of this regulation. But, in spite of these conciliatory steps,
pressure is being put on Mr. Banerjee to refuse to stand,
apparently on the ground that, as many of the well-known
Moderates are still ineligible, it is incumbent on Mr.
Banerjee to refuse his services to his country rather than
weaken the force of a united protest."—These persuasions had
success. Mr. Banerjee refused to be a candidate.
The following report from Dacca, December 29, indicates the
result: "The Council elections for Eastern Bengal are not yet
complete. They show, however, a marked preponderance of
Mahomedan representation, due to the deliberate abstention of
the Hindu electorate. This abstention has been worked from
Calcutta in accordance with the manifesto issued by the
Bengali leaders. It is very noticeable among the Zemindar
voters, who are mainly Hindu. The idea is that the Government
will nominate Hindu representatives and will thus defeat the
object of the Reform Scheme."
INDIA: A. D. 1909 (July).
Assassination in London of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by
an Indian Anarchist.
The virulence of the hostility in India to British rule, as
developed in schools of anarchism and terrorism, was shown
startlingly to England on the 1st of July, 1909, when
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir William Curzon-Wyllie and Dr.
Cawas-Lalcaca, a Parsee, were shot dead by an Indian student,
at the close of a reception held in the Imperial Institute at
London. Sir Curzon-Wyllie, formerly of the Indian Staff Corps,
had been serving since 1901 as political aide-de-camp to the
Secretary of State for India, at London. The reception at
which he was assassinated was one of the evenings "At Home" of
the National Indian Association, held mainly for the purpose
of giving the many young Indians residing temporarily in
England an opportunity for social intercourse with friendly
English people. The assassin, a student named Dhinagri, came
as a guest. His brother, a doctor in Calcutta, hearing that he
had been coming under anarchist influences, had asked Sir
Curzon-Wyllie some time before to talk with him, and that
gentleman had done so, with no effect apparently, but to rouse
his resentment. The motive of the crime, however, appears to
have been wholly in the desire to make a display of
"patriotism" and to achieve distinction as a martyr to the
cause of liberty for India. The victim might easily have been
some other. Sir Curzon-Wyllie was leaving the place when he
paused to speak to Dhinagri, and received two deadly bullets
at close range, in the face. Dr. Lalcaca, who stood near,
rushed forward to intervene, and the pistol was turned on him.
Others seized the assassin before he could do more.
When tried and convicted, on the 23d of July, and asked if he
had anything to say, Dhinagri replied angrily: "I have told
you over and over again that I do not acknowledge the
authority of the Court. You can do whatever you like. I do not
mind at all. You can pass sentence of death on me. I do not
care, but remember that one day we shall be all powerful, and
then we can do what we like. That is all I want to say." On
being sentenced to death, the prisoner, making an Oriental
salute to the Judge, said,—"Thank you, my Lord. I don’t care.
I am proud to have the honour of laying down my life for the
cause of my country."
The family of Dhinagri, in India, employed counsel to attend
his trial, who announced to the court that they viewed his
crime with the greatest abhorrence.
----------INDIA: End--------
INDIAN (EAST) IMMIGRATION:
The resistance to it in South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere.
(See in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS.
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, The.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
INDIAN TERRITORY.
United with Oklahoma to form the State of Oklahoma.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES. A. D. 1906 (JUNE).
INDIANS, The American:
End of the Tribal Autonomy of the Five Civilized Tribes.
The last of the proceedings for ending the autonomy of the
Five Civilized Tribes making them citizens of the United
States, and dividing their tribal lands among them
individually, was finished in the summer of 1902, by the
Cherokee Council, which ratified agreements already accepted
by the other four tribes.
See, Volume VI.,
INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.
According to Mr. William Dudley Foulke, who investigated the
circumstances, the Creek nation has suffered grievous frauds
in the final settlement of their land affairs, by the
operation of the Curtis Act, in the matter of the sale of town
sites. Mr. Foulke’s account of the case is given in an article
entitled "Despoiling a Nation," published in January 2, 1908.
INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR.
INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS (capitalistic).
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL.
INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS (of the employed).
See (in this Volume)
LABOR.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (UNITED STATES), of 1898-1902:
On the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, of 1898, applied to Railroads.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1890-1902.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (UNITED STATES), of 1898-1902:
On Hours of Labor.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902.
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION.
INHERITANCE TAX:
Defeated Proposal in Germany.
See (in this Volume)
Germany: A. D. 1908-1909;
also, DEATH DUTIES.
INITIATIVE.
See (in this Volume)
REFERENDUM.
INJUNCTIONS, in Labor Disputes.
See (in this Volume)
LAW AND ITS COURTS: UNITED STATES.
INLAND WATERWAYS COMMISSION.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
INMEDIATISTAS.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, The.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
INSURANCE, AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: UNEMPLOYMENT; GERMANY.
{326}
INSURANCE, Industrial.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION.
INSURANCE, Life:
The Legislative Investigation of Companies doing business in
the State of New York, in 1905.
Startling Disclosures of Vicious Management in the greater
organizations, and of Perfunctory State Superintendence.
Report and Recommendations of the Committee.
Remedial Legislation.
A conflict in the Board of Directors of the Equitable Life
Assurance Society of New York, which came to public knowledge
in February, 1905, afforded the beginning of exciting
revelations, as to practices and conditions in the management
of the stupendous organizations of life insurance that are
centered in New York City.
The Equitable Society was founded in 1859 by Henry B. Hyde as
a stock company, with a capital of $100,000, in 1000 shares,
and neither its legal constitution nor its capital had been
changed; but its assets at the end of the year 1904, according
to its statement, had grown to the enormous total of
$412,438,380, and it held a surplus over liabilities of
$80,394,861. This prodigious fund had come under the control
of the holders of the small capital stock of the
company—$100,000; and practically it was controlled by one
stockholder, James Hazen Hyde, son of the deceased founder,
who had inherited a majority of the shares. By the Charter of
the Society, its stockholders were entitled to semi-annual
dividends at a rate not exceeding 3½ per cent., and its
business was to be conducted on the mutual plan: that is,
earnings and receipts above dividends, losses and expenses
were to be accumulated and policy holders were to be credited
with equitable shares of the net surplus, after sufficient
deduction to cover outstanding risks and other obligations.
Nevertheless, the opportunities for personal enrichment,
afforded by the controlling of the great floods of money
poured into its coffers had been found to be immense.
James Hazen Hyde, inheritor of the majority of stock, was Vice
President of the company. Under the terms of his father’s will
he had not yet come into personal possession of his
inheritance, but would do so in a short time. The President of
the company, James Alexander, appears to have become anxious
as to the use the young man would make of the power of that
possession when it came to him, and he entered on a movement
toward changing the organization of the Equitable Society, to
make it a mutual institution in reality, by securing to the
policy holders a voice in the election of directors, leaving
their board no longer a body to be chosen by a single man.
This movement became necessarily public, and the situation in
the company was exposed to public knowledge in a sudden and
startling way. Flood-gates of discussion were opened and
questions started which ran from the Equitable to other
mammoths of life insurance organization that had grown up.
Facts came to light which showed the magnitude of financial
power they had drawn into small circles of men and families,
and the extravagance of compensation appropriated to
themselves by some of these self-appointed and
self-perpetuated administrators of life insurance funds. Such
disclosures became the sensation, not merely of a day, but of
months.
At the outset of the undertaking of President Alexander to
reform the constitution of the Equitable, Vice-President Hyde
was able easily to defeat his movement and make good his own
mastery of the board of directors; but as the public became a
party to the controversy, more and more, it bore down Mr.
Hyde. In April the directors were constrained to appoint a
committee to investigate and report on "the present management
of the society." The committee, composed of H. C. Frick, E. H.
Harriman, Brayton Ives, Cornelius N. Bliss, and M. E. Ingalls,
made a report on the 2d of June which was a deadly indictment
of the society, on many counts,—for "excessive salaries,
excessive commissions, excessive expenses, superfluous
offices," and a "general looseness in the administration of
its affairs." Mr. Hyde and his board made a show of disputing
the findings of the committee and rejecting its
recommendations, but the atmospheric pressure from outside
proved irresistible, and they gave way to it. Mr. Hyde sold
his 502 shares of stock to Thomas F. Ryan for $2,500,000 cash,
Mr. Ryan making it a condition of the purchase that the
Honorable Paul Morton, formerly prominent in railway
administration and lately Secretary of the Navy in President
Roosevelt’s cabinet, should be chairman of the Equitable board
of directors and should have a free hand in reorganizing its
management. Mr. Ryan then, on the 15th of June, placed the
shares in a voting trust, composed of ex-President Grover
Cleveland, Justice Morgan J. O’Brien, and George Westinghouse.
The deed of transfer to these trustees empowered them to carry
out a plan of mutualization, to the end that the society’s
policy holders should elect a majority of the directors in its
board.
The Equitable Life Assurance Society was now in a fair way to
be placed on a footing that would justify its name; but the
events which accomplished this had created an imperative
demand for thorough proceedings of law, to reform and regulate
the whole system under which the profoundly serious
obligations and responsibilities of life insurance are
fulfilled. The first step to that end was taken by the
Legislature of the State of New York on the 20th of July,
1905, when it appointed a joint committee of the Senate and
Assembly and directed the committee "to investigate and
examine into the business and affairs of life insurance
companies doing business in the State of New York, with
reference to the investments of said companies, the relation
of the officers thereof to such investments, the relation of
such companies to subsidiary corporations, the government and
control of said companies, the contractual relations of said
companies to their policy holders, the cost of life insurance,
the expenses of said companies, and any other phase of the
life insurance business deemed by the committee to be proper,
for the purpose of drafting and reporting to the next session
of the Legislature such a revision of the laws regulating and
relating to life insurance in this State as said committee may
deem proper."
{327}
This most notable investigating committee was composed of
Senators William W. Armstrong, William J. Tully, D. J.
Riordan, and Assemblymen James T. Rogers, W. W. Wemple, Ezra
P. Prentice, John McKcown. It was organized on the 1st of
August, with Senator Armstrong as its chairman, and opened
public hearings on the 5th of September following, having
engaged for its counsel Messrs. Charles E. Hughes and James
McKeen. Mr. Hughes was little known to the public at large
when he accepted the duty of conducting this investigation. It
revealed him to the State and the Nation, and was the
fortunate introduction to public life of a man of rare
nobility in character and of remarkable powers.
Eighteen insurance companies doing business in New York were
subjected to investigation; but interest in the proceeding was
centered with intensity on the probing of the affairs of a few
of the greater institutions, such as the Equitable, the Mutual
Life, the New York Life, the Prudential, and the Metropolitan.
The disclosures were rich in sensation; a few only can be
noted here. As to salaries, for example: in the Equitable, the
late Henry B. Hyde and his successor, Mr. Alexander, as
presidents, had received $75,000 per annum in the early years
and $100,000 in the later years of their terms. James H. Hyde,
graduated from college in 1898 and made vice-president the
next year, on his father’s death, received in the first year
$25,000, in the next two years $30,000, in his fourth year
$75,000, and thereafter $100,000. Second vice-presidents were
paid as high as $50,000 per annum; third vice-presidents as
high as $40,000; fourth vice-presidents as high as $30,000.
Salaries of secretaries and comptrollers had run up to $25,000
and $30,000. Thirteen executive officers in the society whose
salaries aggregated $297,600 in 1900, were drawing $448,500 in
1905.
Executive officers in the Mutual Life surpassed even this
experience of bounty. The president’s salary had been $30,000
from 1877 to 1885, $50,000 from 1886 to 1892, then raised to
$75,000 in 1893, to $90,000 in 1895, to $100,000 in 1896, and
to $150,000 in 1901. Richard A. McCurdy had been president for
twenty years and vice-president for the preceding twenty. The
vice-president’s salary had grown from $20,000 in 1877 to
$50,000 in 1902; the treasurer’s had been $40,000 since 1896.
In the New York Life the salary of the president, John A.
McCall, had stopped its increment at $100,000, which it
reached in 1901. The second vice-president’s salary went to
$75,000 the same year. The total salaries of executive
officers were raised from $149,000 in 1893 to $322,000 in
1905.
Agency commissions were sometimes richer sources of income
than the fixed salaries of these generous companies. In the
Mutual Life Company, the president’s son, Robert H. McCurdy,
had an interest in the general agency of the company for New
York City from which he drew $530,788 between 1889 and 1904;
besides which, as superintendent of the foreign department of
the company, he was paid commissions on its foreign business
which yielded him $1,268,390 between 1886 and 1905; some part
of which commissions, however (to an amount not ascertained),
were shared by him with his partner in the New York City
agency. The total net profits of that metropolitan agency,—in
which the president’s son-in-law was likewise a partner,—were
found by the investigating committee to have been $2,389,123
in the twelve years 1893-1904.
These, however, were not the worst, in their moral
implications, of the disclosures that resulted from the search
light brought to bear on the administration of certain life
insurance companies by the Legislative Committee and Mr.
Hughes. A startling share of the prodigal expenditures of some
boards, from the excessive profits of their business, went
secretly, with no accounting, to undiscoverable purposes,
which were purposes, of course, that would not bear
questioning. The following, from the report of the
investigating Committee on the Mutual Life Company, is
indicative of the glimpses given of foul uses to which the
funds of that company were applied. "For a considerable
period," says the report, "it has been the practice for the
Committee on Expenditures to authorize the payment to its
chairman of $25,000 every few months, or from $75,000 to
$100,000 a year, upon the request of one of the executive
officers. The persons to whom the moneys were to be paid by
the company, or the services, if any, for which the payment
was to be made, were not known to the committee, and the only
voucher was the receipt of the chairman of the committee who
received and paid over the money in cash. There was no reason
for this practice save to conceal the purposes for which the
moneys were used, and it obviously facilitated improper
payments.
"There were also a large number of payments charged to legal
expenses which were made upon the recommendation of one Andrew
C. Fields, who for many years was the head of the ‘Supply
Department.’ He was in actual charge of and gave a large part
of his time to matters of legislation. For many years the
company maintained under his care a house at Albany, and
through him and his agents a close watch was kept upon the
proceedings of the Legislature. The rent of this house, the
supplies there consumed, and the wages of the cook and other
servants, were charged to ‘legal expenses.’ Fields left for
parts unknown soon after the Committee began its hearings and
it has not been able to procure his testimony. It appears,
however, that he acted also for the Equitable, and from their
records have been produced a series of memoranda of
instructions sent Fields by Thomas D. Jordan, its comptroller,
whose whereabouts the Committee has been unable to ascertain,
although it has made diligent effort to do so."
The Committee quotes extensively from these memoranda of "T.
D. J.," who instructs his Albany lobbyist what bills the
latter is to "kill," and what he is to support. There are
depths of corruption suggested by this story of the hospitable
Andrew Fields, the vigilant Thomas D. Jordan, their "legal
expenses" for hospitable house-keeping at Albany, and the
sudden vanishment of both when Mr. Hughes began to do his
questioning; but the depths are left unfathomed, because the
Committee found no sounding line.
"The testimony taken by the committee," says their report,
"makes it abundantly clear that the large insurance companies
systematically attempted to control legislation in this and
other States which could affect their interests, directly or
indirectly, and that in this effort Fields, who concerned
himself mainly with this State, played a most important role.
{328}
The three companies [Mutual, New York Life, and Equitable]
divided the country, outside of New York and a few other
States, so as to avoid a waste of effort, each looking after
legislation in its chosen district and bearing its appropriate
part of the total expense." The so-called "legal expenses" of
the Mutual in seven years, 1898-1904, exceeded two millions of
dollars. "In 1904 they amounted to $364,254.95, while those of
the New York Life and Equitable for the same year were
$172,698.42 and $204,019.25 respectively."
The New York Life employed one Andrew Hamilton to give
attention to matters of legislation throughout the country,
and the company was found to have paid him no less than
$1,167,697 for "legal expenses," between 1895 and 1905, no
vouchers being filed beyond Hamilton’s receipt. And these
"legal expenses were in addition to all the ordinary outlays
in connection with suits or legal proceedings or the work of
the legal department of the company."
In the accounts of the Equitable, "among the disbursements
charged to legal expenses appear annual retainers of $20,000
paid Chauncey M. Depew [United States Senator from New York]
and $5000 (for one year—1900—$7500) to David B. Hill. Mr.
Depew testifies … that his services consisted of advising the
late Mr. Hyde in regard to matters of investment, settlement
of controversies and troublesome questions of various sorts. …
During this time Mr. Depew was a director and member of the
Executive Committee. The testimony as to the services is very
general, and it does not appear," says the committee, "that
outside of those which the society was fairly entitled to
receive from him as a director, the services were such as to
warrant the payments made. … The Equitable contributed to the
Republican National Committee $50,000 in 1904; undoubtedly
contributions were made in prior national campaigns, but their
amount has not been stated. For many years the society has
made an annual contribution of $10,000 to the Republican State
Committee through Senator Platt." Senator Platt was a
collector, also, of similar contributions from the Mutual
Life, and that company gave $40,000 to the Republican National
Committee in 1904, as well as smaller sums in previous years.
Of the management in these great companies of the enormous
surplus of profit, which even their inordinate
self-appropriations left in their keeping, no clear account
could be given here. It is set forth in the Committee’s report
by examples of investments, in stocks, bonds, and real
property, so conducted, through subsidiary organizations,
etc., as to yield a personal profit to the skilful financiers
within the life insurance circle. The details which make the
matter plain cannot be abridged and require more space than
can be afforded in this place.
From the investigation of the life insurance companies the
Committee and its counsel passed to the State Department which
was instituted to scrutinize and supervise these
organizations, for the detection and prevention of such abuses
in their management as had now come to light. Their findings
in this direction were stated partly as follows:
"It would seem that the Superintendent [of Insurance] has had
ample power, and has been charged with the correlative duty,
to inquire into and to ascertain the transactions of insurance
companies, to the end that abuses may be exposed and correct
administration assured. The scheme by which the superintendent
may require detailed written statements duly verified, as to
any matter of corporate business and may supplement these
statements by an examination of the company’s books and of the
officers and agents under oath, would appear well calculated
to prevent the secret growth of improper practices. Not only
through the visitorial powers of the superintendent were a
wholesale publicity and the consequent enforcement of the law
to be assured, but the superintendent was also charged with
the duty of recommending to the Legislature annually such
amendments to the law as in his judgment were needed to
correct evils found to be without the purview of existing
statutes.
"But the supervision by the department has not proved a
sufficient protection against extravagance and
maladministration. Annual statements from the corporations
have been received, filed and published, but in many
particulars without sufficient detail to exhibit the real
efficiency of honesty of the management. Nor has there been
suitable effort upon the facts actually reported to detect and
expose evasions of departmental requirements and the resort to
artifice and double dealing in order to avoid a true
disclosure of the companies’ affairs. For the most part a
critical examination of the reports so made seems to have been
neglected, and the verification of the annual statements has
been left to examinations conducted at irregular intervals. No
rule seems to have been adopted with reference to the
frequency of examinations. Thus the Security Mutual Insurance
Company has been examined four times since its reincorporation
in 1898, at its request and apparently with no other object
than to enable it to use the department’s certificate in
support of its annual statement, while the Provident Savings
Life Assurance Society has been examined only once in the past
ten years (1897) and it would seem that this was the only
examination in its history. The Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company has also been examined only once during ten years,
that is, in 1900. The advisability of frequent examinations is
sufficiently illustrated by the case of the Washington Life
Insurance Company, where it appeared on the examination in
1904 that during the interval of four years since the prior
examination it had, in at least two annual statements,
deceived the department by glaringly false returns of its
existing liabilities, and that instead of having an alleged
surplus of considerable amount its capital was seriously
impaired. In connection with this company it may be noted that
a more careful scrutiny of the reports to the department of
lapsed and restored policies would have led at an earlier date
to the investigation which appears finally to have been
induced by outside criticism."
As to remedial legislation, the main recommendations of the
Committee were in substance these:
(1) Investments in stocks of banks and trust companies, in the
common stock of any corporation, in syndicate participations,
and in speculative bonds, to be forbidden.
(2) No political contributions or lobby expenditures to be
permitted.
(3) Full publicity regarding salaries and expenses.
(4) New business of the "big three" companies restricted to
$150,000,000 a year each, and the business of other companies
limited.
{329}
(5) Agents’ commissions to be based on the amount of the
policy and not on the amount of the premium.
(6) Only four kinds of standard policies to be permitted—term,
straight life, limited payment and endowment.
(7) Investment policies to be discouraged and deferred
dividends forbidden.
(8) All dividends on participating policies to be apportioned
annually.
(9) No company to be permitted to sell both participating and
non-participating policies.
(10) The present trustees of mutual companies to be removed.
New ones to be elected under a system whereby the
policy-holders really elect.
The Committee presented the elaborate report of its
investigation to the Legislature on the 22d of February, 1906,
and its recommendations were embodied for the most part in an
enactment, the drafting of which, to a large extent, was the
careful work of Mr. Hughes, the master mind of the whole
proceeding of investigation.
The statements made above are drawn entirely from the
Committee’s Report, as published in Volume 10 of the printed
testimony and report.
Assembly Document Number 41,
State of New York, 1906.
"INTELLECTUALS."
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
INTELLIGENZIA, The.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
INTEMPERANCE.
See (in this Volume )
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
INTERFEROMETER, Professor Michelson’s.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE.
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST, AND ARBITRATION, INTERNATIONAL.
INTERNATIONAL BARBARISM.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS:
Resolution of the Third International Conference of
American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN REPUBLICS, Second and Third.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ARTS AND SCIENCES.
See (in this Volume)
ST. LOUIS. A. D. 1904.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ALCOHOLISM.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: INTERNATIONAL.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES, of Science.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION.
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN.
See (in this Volume)
WOMEN.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Central American.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1907.
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION, United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume)
FOOD FISHES.
INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CONGRESS.
See (in this Volume)
GEOGRAPHIC CONGRESS.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY:
Profit-sharing with Employees.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE.
See (in this Volume)
AGRICULTURE.
INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES, Educational.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
INTERNATIONAL LAW:
Convention providing for a Commission of Jurists to draft a
Code for Regulation of Relations between American Nations.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS: THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY, Formation of the.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL (INTERNATIONAL).
INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONGRESSES.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.
INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, The Institute of.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF PEACE.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
INTERNATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ALLIANCE.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
INTERNATIONALISM, SUPERSEDING NATIONALISM.
See (in this Volume)
WORLD MOVEMENTS: FICHTE’S PROPHECY.
INTEROCEANIC CANAL.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL.
INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION, The.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, and Commission.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES; also,
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
On the passage, in 1906, of the Hepburn Act, amendatory of the
Interstate Commerce Law, the Commission was reconstructed by
fresh appointments, in making which the President retained
Messrs. Knapp, of New York, Prouty, of Vermont, Clements, of
Georgia, and Cockrell, of Missouri. His new appointees were
Franklin K. Lane, of California, Edgar Erastus Clark, of Iowa,
and James S. Harlan, of Illinois.
INTOXICANTS, PROBLEMS OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM, AND OPIUM PROBLEM.
INTRANSIGENTES.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INVENTORY OF CHURCH PROPERTY, THE FRENCH.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
{330}
----------IRELAND: Start--------
IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1903.
The Working of the successive Land Laws.
The Act of 1903.
Text of its main provisions.
The French writer, L. Paul-Dubois, whose work, L’Irlande
Contemporaire, published in 1907, has appeared since in an
English translation, seems to have made a very careful and
intelligent study of the working of the successive land-laws
for Ireland, intended to be beneficial to the tenants, which
began with that of Gladstone in 1870.
See in Volumes III and VI
IRELAND.
Mr. Gladstone, himself, in the Act of 1881, endeavored to
remedy the defects of the Act of 1870; but M. Paul-Dubois
finds that, while the later Act "brought and continues to
bring immense good to the country," yet "the system
established by it is, as a matter of fact, no longer bearable
for any one,"—for the reason that "the first great
characteristic of the Gladstonian legislation is duality of
ownership." It is, as he explains, an unhealthy system,
unsound both economically and socially,—this dual ownership,
which turns the landlord and tenant into co-proprietors of the
soil. It paralyses agriculture by preventing the investment of
capital on either side, and by destroying all interest of
either landlord or tenant in the good farming of the land. The
landlord feels himself no longer called upon to do anything
for his property, and has no care left but that of collecting
his rents. The tenant, on the other hand, refrains from making
any improvement or advances that might cause his rent to be
raised at the next quindecennial revision; the land is thus
starved of both labor and capital. We may add, also, that the
new regime gives rise to an infinity of ruinous lawsuits
between the co-owners. … For a quarter of a century there has
been only one class of men whose affairs have prospered,
namely, the solicitors. Their number has increased by 30 per
cent." In his view of the results, M. Paul-Dubois is
sympathetic with both landlords and tenants. But in his
judgment the tenants were not fairly dealt with under the
Gladstonian laws by the Land Commission or by the courts. The
courts, especially, in interpreting the Act of 1881, which
left "fair rent" undefined, established rulings which
practically nullified the intentions of the law, until, as
this writer expresses it, "the Act of 1896 brought the Irish
judges to reason."
Eleven years before that time, however, a little experiment
was begun on the line of a true solution of the Irish land
question, namely, toward the buying of the soil of the island
from its landlords and making its cultivators the owners of
it. This was in the Ashbourne Land Purchase Act of 1885, which
provided a fund of £5,000,000 for advances to be made to
tenant purchasers, with provision for the repayment of the
loan in forty-nine annuities. In 1889 this fund was increased
to £10,000,000. By 1891 the fund had been exhausted, and
"25,367 tenants had been turned into owners of their farms.
Its success even alarmed some of the landlords, who began to
fear that the farmers would combine and force them to sell
their land. However this may be," says the French writer, "in
1891 the Conservative Government passed a new Act which, under
the pretence of regulating the progress of the operation,
complicated it to such an extent that the machine almost
stopped working. In 1896, by another Act, the existing evils
were slightly remedied, but only to an insufficient extent. …
Finally, in 1903, it was found that under the new system
established in 1891 and 1896, only 38,251 tenants had been
turned into proprietors; and at that same date the total
number of peasant owners created from first to last had
reached no higher figure than 73,917. As Land Purchase was
progressing more and more slowly, it was felt that some new
impulse must be given to the machine. This was the aim of the
great Land Act of 1903."
L. Paul-Dubois,
Contemporary Ireland, part 2, chapters 1-2
(Maunsel & Co., Dublin, 1908).
"The Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903 was in every respect
epoch-making. It was preceded by, and founded upon, the report
of a conference held between the representatives of landlord

and tenant in Dublin. The Landlords’ Convention, the official
representative of the landlord party, held aloof and refused
to join in the conference. Typical landlords, such as the Duke
of Abercorn, Lord Barrymore, and Colonel Saunderson, refused
to serve, ridiculing the project as absurd and quixotic. Lord
Dunraven led a saner section of landlords, with the result
that, after a session of five days, the conference agreed to a
report, upon which the government acted. The official
landlords, seeing the reasonableness of the findings and
recognizing their own folly, succumbed at once, and fell in
with the general tendency for settlement. Substantially, the
Act of 1903 accepted the principle of universal sale of the
landlord’s interest to the occupier. It ignored legal
compulsion. But it accepted what was finely called the
principle of compulsion by inducement. It placed the sum of
£100,000,000 ($500,000,000) at the disposal of landlord and
tenant for the purposes of the act. It went further,—for it
enacted that out of a fund called the Land Purchase Aid Fund
each landlord who sold should receive a bonus (Latin for gift)
of 12 per cent. on the purchase money. It appointed a new
tribunal to administer the Act. And to this tribunal were
given powers of re-settling congested districts by the
purchase of grass lands, the enlargement of uneconomic
holdings, and the restoration of certain evicted tenants where
possible."
Thomas W. Russell, M. P.,
The Workings of the Irish Land Law
(American Review of Reviews, November, 1905).
The following are among the important provisions of the Land
Act of 1903:
"1.
(4) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained
in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, an
advance may be sanctioned under the provisions of the Land
Purchase Acts not exceeding the sum of seven thousand pounds
to one purchaser where, in the opinion of the Land Commission,
it is expedient to make any such advance for the purpose of
carrying out the sale of a holding to which the Land Law Acts
apply. …
{331}
"2.
(1) In the case of the sale of an estate advances under the
Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels
thereof by the following persons:
(a) A person being the tenant of a holding on the
estate;
(b) A person being the son of a tenant of a holding
on the estate;
(c) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a
holding not exceeding five pounds in rateable value,
situate in the neighbourhood of the estate; and
(d) A person who within twenty-five years before the
passing of this Act was the tenant of a holding to which
the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the
purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding. Provided
that in the case of the death of a person to whom an
advance under this paragraph might otherwise have been
made, the advance may be made, to a person nominated by the
Land Commission as the personal representative of the
deceased person.
"(2) Advances under this section shall not, together with the
amount (if any) of any previous advance under the Land
Purchase Acts then unrepaid by the purchaser, exceed one
thousand pounds:
"Provided that the limitation in this subsection may, subject
to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be
exceeded where the Land Commission consider that a larger
advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice
to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in
the neighbourhood.
"(3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions
of this section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in
pursuance of this section, in like manner as if the same was a
holding, and the purchaser was the tenant thereof at the time
of his making the purchase, and the expression "holding" in
those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the
purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of
this section. …
"6.
(4) In the case of a congested estate as defined by this
section, if the Land Commission, with the consent of the
owner, certify to the Lord Lieutenant that the purchase and
resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and
circumstances of the tenants thereon, then the Land Commission
may purchase the estate for a price to be agreed upon, and in
such case the condition in this section as to resale without
prospect of loss may be relaxed to such extent as the Lord
Lieutenant may determine.
"(5) The expression "congested estate" means an estate not
less than half of the area of which consists of holdings not
exceeding five pounds in rateable value, or of mountain or bog
land, or not less than a quarter of the area of which is held
in rundale or intermixed plots. …
"8.
The Land Commission may purchase any untenanted land which
they consider necessary for the purchase of facilitating the
resale, or redistribution, of estates purchased, or proposed
to be purchased, by them, and the foregoing provisions of this
Act, with respect to advances for the purchase of parcels of
land comprised in estates, shall apply in the case of the sale
by the Commission of any parcel of such untenanted land.
"9.
(1) There shall not be at any time vested in the Land
Commission lands exceeding in the aggregate, according to the
estimate of the Commission, as approved by the Treasury, the
capital value of five million pounds in respect of which
undertakings to purchase have not been received by the
Commission. …
"12.
(1) The Land Commission may take such steps and execute, or
cause to be executed, such works as may appear expedient for
the benefit or improvement of estates, or untenanted land,
purchased or proposed to be purchased under this Act, or for
the use or enjoyment thereof or generally for the purposes of
this Act. …
"19.
Where an estate is purchased by the Land Commission and
tenants on the estate to the extent of three-fourths in number
and rateable value have agreed to purchase their holdings, the
Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that
the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have
accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts
shall apply accordingly, where the tenant could have obtained
an advance of the entire purchase money, and the Land
Commission have offered in the prescribed manner to make the
advance."
IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.
The Gaelic League.
"At the eve of the great famine, the mass of the people,
outside the large towns, still spoke Irish; to-day partly
owing to emigration, Irish is only spoken by 600,000 persons,
out of four and a half millions, and that concurrently with
English. Twenty thousand persons speak Irish only; these are
mainly of the West. … An glicisation had begun its work, when
the old language had been lost. Therefore, must not the Irish
renaissance begin with the readoption of that language? So
thought a small and elite group of Irish patriots, men of
talent and enthusiasm, imbued with the national gospel
preached by Thomas Davis forty years earlier—a gospel which
Ireland had to some extent forgotten amidst the sufferings of
the Great Famine, Fenianism and the Land Wars. Prominent in
this group was the descendant of an old Protestant family of
Roscommon, a Celtic scholar and folklorist, a poet of merit in
English, a poet in Irish also, so say the connoisseurs, Dr.
Douglas Hyde. He had the genius for propaganda, and when the
country was ripe for it, gave body to his ideas by founding
the Gaelic League, with the aid of his early friends, in 1893.
The Gaelic League—though to limit the Irish renaissance by
placing it under this title would be to limit its actual
scope—may be said to be a faithful representative of the
general ideas underlying the new Irish movement. It has
declared its objects to be, the preservation of Irish as the
national language, the study of ancient Irish literature, and
the cultivation of a modern literature in the Irish language.
But we must be careful not to judge it by its name. The Gaelic
League is not a society of scholars, and leaves to others all
that concerns literature and philology, pure and simple. It is
occupied with propaganda, the application of its doctrine of a
national renaissance on the basis of a national language. It
intends to confer anew upon the country a psychological
education, and, by means of the national language, by the
revival of national art and literature, and the reconstitution
of a national social system, to regenerate its soul from
within and teach Ireland how she may again be a nation. …
Though still growing, it has already in Ireland 964 branches,
local and popular centres of activity, whose work it is to
spread the national idea and the national language by every
means, and to make them active factors in the every-day life
of the family and social circle. Their primary duty is to
organise Irish language classes for the benefit of their
members.
{332}
These classes are practical above all in their scope, and are
conducted sometimes by paid teachers and sometimes by generous
volunteers whose work is almost always good. … Such a teacher
in the country manages, on his rounds, to hold a dozen classes
or so regularly every week. There are special classes for
workmen, for students, for ladies; special classes for
beginners, for veterans, Irish history classes, singing and
even dancing classes, where the old national airs are taught
and the national reel and jig. … In the summer, during holiday
time, the enthusiasts of Irish speech come together in the
western villages for the Sgoil Saoire (Summer school).
There their teachers are the old peasants, from whom they
learn not only the correct accent, the music of the language,
but the spirit and tradition of ancient Irish culture, of
which these peasants, who, from generation to generation, have
gathered up the songs and legends of former times, are the
most faithful guardians. In the summer also the Seilge are organised, that is to say, excursions to places of
historical interest, with national sports and recreations. A
seilg in Galway in 1901 was attended by no less than
2,000 pilgrims. In the winter evenings each branch holds
reunions from time to time, lectures (seanchus),
followed by discussions on Irish subjects, concerts
(sgoruidheacht), with choirs, Irish dances and songs,
and ceilidhe, informal meetings on the lines of ancient
village gatherings, where serious conversation—in
Irish—alternates with music or a ‘recital,’ that is to say, a
story or a piece of news, told, according to popular custom,
by the author or a raconteur. Every year the Gaelic and
National Festival, that of St. Patrick, is celebrated
throughout Ireland, but notably in Dublin. … A start—the first
and greatest difficulty—has been made, and now the League is a
power in Ireland. It sells annually 20,000 Gaelic books and
pamphlets, in which are included editiones principes of
the poets of the eighteenth century, and new Irish
publications, tales, and novels. Its financial resources are
moderate. They represent, however, the spontaneous obol of the
poor; and a large part of the annual subscription to the
Language Fund, during St. Patrick’s week, is made up of pence
and of half-pence. From the start the League has had the good
sense officially to declare that it was both necessary and
desirable that it should stand apart from all political and
religious struggles; such has been its line of conduct, and
now within it are found representatives of every party, from
the strongest Orangemen to the fiercest separatists."
L. Paul-Dubois,
Contemporary Ireland,
part 3, chapter 2
(Maunsel & Co. Dublin, 1908).
Public meetings have been held in Ireland during the past year
(1909) to support the demand of the Gaelic League "that the
Irish language, both oral and written, and Irish history be
made essential subjects for matriculation in the new national
University, and that proper provision be made for the teaching
of Irish in all its colleges."
IRELAND: A. D. 1901 (March).
Census
"4,456,546 Persons (2,197,739 Males and 2,258,807 Females)
were returned in the Enumerators’ Summaries as constituting
the population of Ireland on the night of Sunday, the 31st of
last March—thus showing a decrease since 1891 of 248,204
persons, or 5.3 per cent.—the decrease in the number of males
was equal to 5.2 per cent., and in the number of females to
5.3 per cent.
"There was during the decade a decrease of 41,297 persons, or
3.5 per cent. in the Province of Leinster; 98,568, or 8.4 per
cent. in the Province of Munster; 38,463, or 2.4 per cent. in
the Province of Ulster; and 69,876, or 9.7 percent, in the
Province of Connaught."
In 1841 the population enumerated in Ireland as a whole had
been 8,196,597; in 1851 it had been 6,574,278; in 1861,
5,798,967; in 1871, 5,412,377; in 1881, 5,174,836; in 1891,
4,704,750. Excepting in 1861 the showing is a steady decrease,
and this latest census finds the island almost half
depopulated.
"According to the Summaries furnished by the Enumerators,
3,310,028 persons returned themselves as Roman Catholics, this
number being 237,279 or 6.7 per cent under the number so
returned in 1891; 579,385 were returned under the head of
‘Protestant Episcopalians,’ being a decrease of 20,718, or 3.5
percent., compared with the number tabulated under that head
in 1891; 443,494 were returned as Presbyterians, being a
decrease of 1,480 or 0.3 per cent. compared with 1891; the
number of Methodists returned on the present occasion amounts
to 61,255, being an increase of 5,745 or 10.4 per cent, on the
number returned on the Census Forms in 1891."
In Dublin City, as extended under the Dublin Corporation Act
of 1900, the population enumerated in 1901 was 289,108, being
a gain of 20,521 since 1891. With the Urban Districts of
Rathmines and Rathcar, Pembroke, Blackrock and Kingstown
added, the total population of Dublin and suburbs was
373,179,—an increase in the decade of 27,220.
The following table shows the population of the 14 towns in
which more than 10,000 inhabitants were found: compared with
the enumeration of 1891.
Towns. 1891. 1901.
Belfast 273,079 348,965
Cork 75,345 75,978
Limerick 37,155 38,085
Londonderry 33,200 39,873
Waterford 26,203 26,743
Galway 13,800 13,414
Drogheda 13,708 12,765
Newry 12,961 12,587
Dundalk 12,449 13,067
Lisburn 12,250 11,459
Wexford 11,545 11,154
Lurgan 11,429 11,777
Kilkenny 11,048 10,493
Sligo 10,862 10,862
Total 554,446 637,222
IRELAND: A. D. 1902 (February).
Lord Rosebery and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at issue on
the Home Rule question.
In a speech delivered at Liverpool in February Lord Rosebery
pronounced a most positive funeral oration on what he assumed
to be the death and burial of the Irish Home Rule question in
British politics. A few days later Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, speaking at the annual meeting of the
General Committee of the National Liberal Federation, took
occasion to resurrect the supposedly buried issue and take it
under his protection, as one of the responsibilities of the
Liberal Party.
{333}
Home Rule, he said, was often spoken of as if it were "a
strange, fantastic, almost whimsical and mad-cap policy,
rashly adopted in a random way, to secure the Irish vote. It
is to be easily and lightly dropped at any moment when an
equal amount of support can be obtained from any other
quarter! Not a very noble view of the case! Not, in truth, a
very creditable or even a decent view of the case, but
intelligible enough if there were in the way no principles and
no facts." One such fact he found in the "fixed constitutional
demand of the Irish people"; and Sir Henry concluded that the
"old policy" remains "the sole remedy for the condition of
Ireland, which is the most serious weakness in the whole
British Empire and the most grave blot upon its fame."
By these two sharply opposed utterances the Liberals of the
United Kingdom were called to decide which leading they would
follow—that of Lord Rosebery or that of Sir Henry. Not being
in power, however, nor measurably within reach of it, decision
of the party did not need to be made in haste.
IRELAND: A. D. 1902-1908.
Conditions in the matter of Disorder and Crime.
In the course of a debate in the British Parliament on
conditions in Ireland, which took place on the 24th of
February, 1909, Lord Percy, charging the Liberal Government
with responsibility for an increase of disorder and crime
since it came into power, brought statistics in evidence as
follows: "Take the indictable offences against property and
firing into houses. In 1906 the total number of these offences
was 20; in 1907, 29; in 1908, 80. Outrages on the person by
the use of firearms, agrarian and non-agrarian, were:—In the
first 11 months of 1906, 20 agrarian and 36 non-agrarian; in
1907, 56 agrarian and 53 non-agrarian; in 1908, 128 agrarian
and 65 non-agrarian. In addition to these open outrages there
was the system of boycotting and intimidation. In
cattle-driving—a new offence unheard of before the days of the
Chief Secretary—there were 390 cases in 1907 and 681 in 1908.
The number of persons under police protection on January 31,
1907, was 196; in 1908, 270; and in 1909, 335. The cases of
boycotting had risen from 162 on November 30, 1905, to 874 on
January 31, 1908. An impression prevailed that the cases of
boycotting were ‘minor cases,’ and of no great importance; but
the Lord Chief Justice, at the Clare Spring Assizes on one
occasion, referring to these so-called minor cases, pointed
out that no one dealt with or spoke to the boycotted person,
and that he had to go 20 miles to Limerick for the necessaries
of life. People also had to go to mass and to weddings
protected by police; and he asserted that the Government could
not point to a civilized country in Europe in which the
Government would tolerate a large section of its population
living daily and hourly under the shadow of a terror like
this."
The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, retorted with
the following: "For the purpose of making a comparison between
the condition of Ireland to-day and as it was when the
Government was led by the right honourable gentleman the
leader of the Opposition, when they introduced and made
permanent their Crimes Act, we must consider what was the
state of things in 1886 as compared with what it is now. I
will give the House the figures. Murders in 1886, seven; in
1908, one; manslaughter in 1886, three; now, none; firing at
the person, 16; now, 15; firing into dwellings—and here is a
most formidable addition, I admit—43; now, 66; incendiary
fires and arson, 103; now, 54; killing, cutting, and maiming
cattle—a horrible and brutal crime—73; now, 22—far too many;
riots and affrays, nine; now, 13; threatening letters or
notices, 434; now, 233; intimidation, 92; now, 57; injury to
property, 150; now, 89; other offences, 136; now, 26; showing
in 1886 a total of 1,056, and now a total of 576. On January
1, 1886, there were 175 persons wholly boycotted, and 716
partially boycotted—a total of 891. In those days, I admit,
the police made no distinction between partial and minor
boycotting. In 1887 there were 145 persons wholly boycotted,
and 763 partially boycotted, making a total of 908. On January
1, 1909, there were 15 wholly boycotted, 10 partially
boycotted, and 172 cases of minor boycotting, making in all
197. Persons under constant police protection on December 31,
1887, numbered 252, and those under protection by patrol,
704—a total of 956. On December 31, 1908, there were 74
persons under constant protection, 270 under protection by
patrol, a total of 344 against the total of 956. I leave the
House to draw their own inference from those figures."
An official return to Parliament, from the Royal Irish
Constabulary Office, Dublin Castle, of the number of cases of
boycotting and of persons boycotted throughout Ireland on the
31st day of January, 1908, and on various days in several
preceding years, showed 5 cases of entire boycotting,
affecting 26 persons, and 9 cases of partial boycotting,
affecting 39 people, on the date mentioned in 1908; 4 cases of
entire boycotting, affecting 20, with seven cases of the
partial boycott, affecting 35, on the 31st of July, 1907. On
the 31st of July, 1903, there had been 4 cases of entire and
21 cases of partial boycotting affecting 25 and 131 persons
respectively; while the cases on the 31st of March, 1902, of
entire boycotting had numbered 5, the partial cases 46, and
they were directed in the first instance against 26 people,
and against 275 in the second.
IRELAND: A. D. 1905.
Defective working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
Inadequacy of its financial provisions.
Baffled in the Western Counties by cupidity of landlords.
The first two years of the working of the Irish Land Purchase
Act of 1903 sufficed to show that the splendid promise of that
measure could not be realized satisfactorily without
fundamental changes in its plan. By that time the agreements
effected between landlords and tenants for transfers of land
from the former to the latter called for purchase payments far
in excess of the sums which the Act had provided for supplying
at so early a stage of the operation. The process of transfer
was checked and the feelings that helped it on were chilled by
increasing delays in the completion of transactions when
begun.
But this was not the worst disappointment in the working of
the Act. Another more serious is charged to the cupidity of
landlords in the poorer counties of the west. In the article
by Mr. Thomas W. Russell from which a quotation is given above
he explains it as follows:
{334}
"It was quite impossible to apply the same rule to Connaught
and to other similar areas as to Ulster, Leinster, and
Munster. In the west the holdings are small and hopelessly
uneconomic in their character. Parliament felt, and rightly
so, that to make the occupier of a five-acre bog holding an
owner was to do him no good. Such a feat in statesmanship
merely freed the western landlord from a risky security and
transferred the risk to the state. It was, therefore, enacted
that the large grass holdings which abound in that region,—and
which are held by graziers on a tenure of eleven months, the
object of the term being to avoid the creation of a tenancy,
—should be bought and wherever possible should be distributed
among the small holders, thus rendering a decent living
possible. And in several cases this has been successfully done
by the congested districts board, with the very best results.
… The landlords as a whole professed at the land conference
and in Parliament their entire willingness to sell, provided
they received a price equivalent when securely invested to
their second-term net income. To enable this to be done the
bonus of £12,000,000 was sanctioned by Parliament. The whole
thing was a bargain—a clear case of contract. And what the
western landlords have been guilty of is a simple breach of
faith. They are quite ready to sell the bog holdings, the
barren mountain tracts out of which a decent living cannot be
had, demanding for this wretched land in many cases more than
is being asked in Antrim and Down for the best land in these
counties. But the grass ranches they refuse to part with. And
so the whole plan of the act,—the whole scheme for the
re-settling of the land, and raising the station of the small
holder,—has been brought to naught.
"In this connection another difficulty has arisen. When the
western sections of the act were being passed, Mr.
Wyndham,—who was in grim earnest about these poor
people,—provided for the sale of congested estates to the
estates commissioners or to the congested districts board.
Special inducements were given to sales under these sections.
The cost of sale was borne almost entirely by the state, and
the commissioners were authorized in such cases to spend money
upon the improvement of the holdings. The policy was
excellent. But the landlords have ruined it. They quickly
discovered that if they sold to the estates commissioners the
land would be inspected by an expert valuer, and its price
would depend upon its value. This was not their idea of how
things should be done. They preferred to sell to the tenant
direct, against whom they could use the screw of arrears of
rent, and from whom they could exact a higher price. Hardly a
case of sale to the estates commissioners has taken place
under these well-meant sections. And for the reasons stated. …
The fact is, compulsory powers of purchase in all such cases
ought to have been frankly given. But to mention the word
compulsion to the then chief secretary was to send him into a
fury. He would not hear of it."
T. W. Russell,
Workings of the Irish Land Purchase Act
(American Review of Reviews, November, 1905).
IRELAND: A. D. 1905.
Formation of the Sinn Fein Party.
"While the outside world was looking to the Irish
Parliamentary Party as the guardian of the national conscience
of Ireland, a Young Ireland Party, determined, virile,
thoughtful, idealistic and, strange though it may seem,
practical, was gradually forming, becoming a power, sweeping
away outworn ideas, preaching new and putting them into
practice, and working wonders in the revival of a genuine
national spirit throughout the country. … Naturally, and very
gradually, the various units gravitated toward one another;
and, less than two years ago, under the guidance of a Dublin
boy named Arthur Griffith, they elected a National Council,
and formed themselves into a party known as the ‘Sinn Fein
Party,’ which included probably three-fourths of the national
thinkers in Ireland. Since its inception, the Sinn Fein Party
has been rapidly gaining power, raising itself upon the ruins
of a fast crumbling Parliamentary agitation, and eventually
leaping into greater popular prestige when, recently, the
ludicrous Irish Councils Bill was submitted to the nation as
the fruits of a generation of Parliamentary agitation.
"'Sinn Fein' is Gaelic for 'Ourselves.' The doctrine of
the Sinn Fein Party is that the salvation of a nation is to be
wrought out by the people and upon the soil of that nation,
and it holds that ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ It
asks Ireland to cultivate, what for a long time it neglected,
self-reliance, and aims at regenerating the Irish nation, not
merely politically, but also linguistically, industrially,
educationally, morally and socially. Almost all preceding
national movements made the grave mistake of considering
politics coincident with patriotism; the Sinn Fein policy
provides for all-round upbuilding of the nation, and is
successfully working along many lines on which no political
movement touched before."
Seumas MacManus,
Sinn Fein
(North American Review, August, 1907).
IRELAND: A. D. 1905 (December).
Change of Government.
On the change of government which took place in the United
Kingdom in December, Mr. Balfour resigning the Premiership and
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman forming a Liberal Ministry, the
Earl of Aberdeen was appointed Lord Lieutenant and Mr. James
Bryce Chief Secretary for Ireland.
IRELAND: A. D. 1907.
Effects of the Land Purchase Act as seen by
a revisiting Irishman.
Notwithstanding the defects in the working of the Land
Purchase Act, as described above, Mr. T. P. O’Connor, the
well-known Irish journalist in London, on returning from a
visit to Ireland in the spring of 1907 after a somewhat
protracted absence, wrote enthusiastically to the New York
Tribune of the happy wakening he had found in the country to a
new life. "You are seeing in Ireland," said a lady to him,
"not merely a revolution but a renaissance," and he found her
characterization to be true. He concludes, too, that there was
no exaggeration in her further remark, that "so much is going
on in Ireland now that you dare n’t leave it even for a
month." "Everybody," writes Mr. O’Connor, "seemed to be doing
something and something new for Ireland"; with Catholics and
Protestants working together, as they have never worked
before. And the main cause of this "renaissance" is traceable
to the working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903. Already, says
Mr. O’Connor, under the working of this splendid measure,
nearly half the soil of Ireland has changed hands, and "the
second half will be transferred at a much accelerated speed."
{335}
"For seven centuries there has been a continual, a bloody, a
desperate war in Ireland between two races, and the prize for
which they fought—was the land. … And now, at last, before our
own eyes, in this generation of men to which we belong, this
secular struggle is at an end; the battle has been fought and
has been won; the land belongs again to the ancient Celtic
race from which it was stolen centuries ago. … If you want to
realize further what all this means, do not forget that these
people who are now brought into full liberty are able to
appreciate it the more from the fact that the greater part of
them were born into slavery, and know all that slavery means.
I myself, though no septuagenarian, can remember the time when
the Irish farmers were driven to the polls to vote for their
landlords like so many cattle. I remember the poor, wretched,
cringing slaves which they had to be in those not very far off
days; how they bowed and cried, ‘Yer Honor,’ at every second
word; and how, in fact, they revealed by their outward bearing
the knowledge that when they stood in the presence of the
landlord they were confronted by the master of their life or
death.
"The despair of the impossible situation in the Ireland of 40
or 50 years ago was worse almost than the servitude. There was
no room left for hope in a system which permitted the landlord
to rob the tenant of every addition the latter made to the
wealth of the soil; and there could be no hope or prospect in
a system which kept the tenant liable to eviction from his
holding whenever the landlord wished to do so. And now realize
that on half the soil of Ireland the people never see a
landlord or a landlord’s representative; that every year
brings them nearer to the time when they will be the absolute
owners of their holdings; but they know that their children
will secure full possession and complete ownership if they do
not, and you can understand what a new strong tide of hope and
exultation there must be in the breasts of these people."
IRELAND: A. D. 1907.
The Evicted Tenants Act.
The healing of an Irish Sore of Twenty Years.
"The passing of the Evicted Tenants Act in the recent session,
defective though it may be in one respect, is an admission on
the part of all parties in Parliament that a long pending
Irish controversy must be closed, and that the demand
persistently and pertinaciously made by the great majority of
the Irish members and people for over twenty years for the
reinstatement of a large body of evicted tenants must be
conceded. …
"The wholesale evictions of tenants, whom it is now decided to
reinstate, were primarily due to the agricultural crisis of
1885, when the great fall of price of Irish farm produce
commenced. This averaged not less than 20 to 30 per cent. in
respect of cattle and dairy produce, the main sources of
income to Irish farmers. Tenants for the most part paid their
rents in that year, hoping for better times, but many who
lived from hand to mouth, with little or no margin, fell into
arrears. The position was far worse in the following year,
when it became clear that the fall of prices was a permanent
one. The Land Court recognised this by fixing judicial rents
at 18 to 20 per cent. less than those fixed between 1881 and
1885. An universal demand consequently arose on the part of
all other tenants for a reduction of rent in proportion to the
new range of prices. They claimed this not only in the case of
yearly tenancies, but of holdings where judicial rents had
been adjudicated before 1885, and of holdings under leases.
The majority of Irish land-owners in 1886 recognised the
justice of the claim, and allowed rebatements of rent,
averaging between 20 and 30 per cent. in respect of all
classes of holdings. The claim of the tenants was not for the
forbearance of the land-owners, but was founded on right, on
the traditional claim to a property in their holdings—a claim
to which the Land Act of 1881 had given Parliamentary and
legal sanction. That great agrarian Act had in fact
established Dual Ownerships of land in Ireland. It secured to
the occupiers a property in their holdings by enabling them to
appeal to a Land Court for the settlement of rent, and by
giving them fixity of tenure and the right of bequeathing or
assigning their interests. Beneficent and generous as the Act
was, it had serious defects. …
"As a result of these defects the Land Act of 1881, great as
it was in principle, did not afford a sufficient remedy in the
crisis caused by the great fall of prices in 1885-1886. A
minority of Irish landowners refused to follow the example of
the larger and better class of owners, and to make rebatements
of rent in 1886. They justified their refusal on the ground
that since the Act of 1881 the tenants had no longer a claim
for forbearance in respect of rent. They insisted, therefore,
on full payment, and began to evict on a large scale those in
default. …
"Numerous combinations of tenants were formed to refuse full
payment of rent and to resist evictions to the utmost. With
the object of assisting and strengthening resistance of the
tenants, a new form of combination was devised by Mr. T.
Harrington, M. P., known as the ‘Plan of Campaign.’ The
essential feature of it was the payment by the tenants of an
estate adopting it of 50 per cent. of the rent due into a
common fund, to be administered by a committee of tenants for
the purpose of resisting eviction, and supporting the evicted
families. The fund thus created was beyond the reach of the
landowners and of the individual members of the combination.
It afforded, therefore, great security for the maintenance of
the combination.
"The tenants, before adopting the plan, were advised to offer
arbitration of their rents to their landlords. If evictions
took place the tenants were to stand by one another, and not
to come to agreement with their landlords, except upon terms
that the evicted men were to be reinstated in their holdings.
Those taking farms from which tenants were evicted were to be
rigidly boycotted.
"The plan thus devised was commended to the tenants of
Ireland, where landowners refused reasonable abatements of
rents, by many of the Irish members, such as Mr. Dillon, Mr.
W. O’Brien, and others. … Mr. Parnell held aloof from it, not
so much from disapproval of its method, as from fear that it
might injure the Home Rule cause with English constituencies.
Many of the Catholic Bishops expressed their disapproval. It
was denounced by the Government as a fraudulent and dishonest
attempt to break contracts. They prosecuted Mr. Dillon and
other leaders for conspiracy under the ordinary law. The Irish
judges pronounced the scheme of combination to be a criminal
conspiracy on the ground that it subjected landlords to
unlawful pressure. …
{336}
"By the commencement of the session of 1887 the Royal
Commission appointed by the Government to report on
agricultural prices and the claim for a revision of judicial
rents, presided over by Lord Cowper, an ex-Lord Lieutenant,
reported in favour of all that had been contended for by Mr.
Parnell in his Bill of the previous year. They emphatically
affirmed that a great and permanent fall of prices had taken
place. They advised that judicial rents, fixed before the year
1885, should be revised and reduced, and that leaseholders
should be admitted to the privileges of judicial rents. The
Government, at the instance, as it is believed, of Mr.
Chamberlain and the Liberal Unionists, were compelled to
legislate in accordance with this report. …
"This measure, which so greatly extended the Act of 1881, was
accompanied by a new Coercion Act dispensing with trial by
jury in agrarian cases, and enabling resident magistrates—mere
nominees of the Government—to try and convict in such cases.
…
"The Act of 1887, by providing a legal alternative, put an end
to further combinations of tenants. The Plan of Campaign was
not adopted in any fresh cases. It had been put in force on
111 estates where the owners refused general abatements of
rent. In 94 of these it had the effect of inducing the owners
to come to terms with their tenants for reductions of rent of
a reasonable character and sufficient to avoid further
trouble. In seventeen estates only the owners were obdurate,
and declared war against their tenants. …
"After the passing of the Coercion Act wholesale evictions
were resumed on the Campaign estates, and were supported by
all the forces at the disposal of the Government. … In 1891, a
great step was taken by the late Government in the direction
of a more conciliatory attitude to the evicted tenants. In the
Land Purchase Act of that year a clause was inserted enabling
the Land Commissioners to admit the evicted tenants as
purchasers of holdings, where their former landlords agreed to
their reinstatement. The clause was to have effect for one
year only, and very few transactions took place under it. …
"Nothing more was done till 1903. Meanwhile this Irish sore
remained unhealed. The evicted men continued to live in
temporary dwellings near to their former homes, patiently
expecting reinstatement at some future time. Nor have they
been mistaken in this respect, though many of them had to wait
nine more years, and the remainder still longer.
"In 1903 it became advisable for the Tory Government to bid
for the support of the Irish Nationalists for Mr. Wyndham’s
measure aiming at an universal scheme of land purchase in
Ireland—a scheme offering very great inducements to landlords
to sell to their tenants. It was again provided in this Act
that the evicted tenants might be reinstated, not as tenants,
but as owners by purchase of their former holdings, Provision
was made for the advance of money from an Irish fund for
buying out the Planters, for rebuilding the houses of the
evicted men, for restocking their farms, and for buying
untenanted land on which to replace the evicted men, where it
was not possible to reinstate them in their former farms. … As
a result, however, all the remaining Campaign estates except
two were dealt with under this Act, and nearly all the men
evicted from them were reinstated on the most favourable
terms. …
"The Act of 1903, however generous and successful so far as it
went, failed to deal with the whole case. It is wanting in
backbone—in coercive power as against a residuum of
landowners. Two Campaign estates—the Clanricarde and the Lewis
estates—remained undealt with, and about 2000 tenants evicted
from other, not Campaign, estates were left out in the cold.
It was to supply coercive power for dealing with these
remaining cases that the recent Act was passed."
Eversley,
The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1907).
IRELAND: A. D. 1907 (May).
Proposed Bill for the creation of a Representative Council.
Rejected by the National Party.
Abandoned by the Government.
A Bill proposing half-way progress toward Home Rule for
Ireland was introduced in the British Parliament by the Chief
Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Augustine Birrell, in May, 1907.
Its main feature was the creation of a Representative Council,
not to be legislative in function, but having large
administrative powers. This Council was to consist of 107
members, eighty-two elected by the Irish householders
(including peers and women), and twenty-five nominated by the
crown. Eight of the existing Irish departments, including
agriculture, public works, congested districts, and the
registrar’s office were placed under its control and a new
one, the education department, created. In addition to the
$10,000,000 of annual expenditure controlled by these
departments, the bill provided for an increase of $3,250,000
to be spent on public works and "general improvement." The
provisions of the Bill did not extend to the constabulary, the
courts, the prisons, or the Land Commission. The Lord
Lieutenant was to have general supervisory control.
Apparently the Liberal Ministry had been led to expect that
Mr. John Redmond and other leaders of the Irish National Party
would accept this measure, as an installment of the
self-government they claimed for Ireland. If so, then the
leaders who encouraged that expectation were overborne by
their followers, for the Bill was denounced and rejected, on
motion of Mr. Redmond, at a convention of the National Party,
in Dublin, on the 21st of May, and was therefore withdrawn.
In offering this plan of government the English Liberals had
turned back to what was the original Gladstone project of
Irish home rule, contemplated and discussed, without result,
by the Liberal cabinet in 1885. As Mr. Morley relates in his
Life of Gladstone, there were two main opinions in the cabinet
at that time: "One favored the erection of a system of
representative county government in Ireland. The other view
was, that besides the county boards, there should be in
addition a central board for all Ireland, essentially
municipal and not political; in the main executive and
administrative, but also with a power to make bye-laws, raise
funds, and pledge public credit in such modes as parliament
should provide.
{337}
The central board would take over education, primary, in part
intermediate, and perhaps even higher; poor law and sanitary
administration; and public works. The whole charge of justice,
police, and prisons would remain with the executive."
This defines, practically, a measure of home rule within the
same limits that Mr. Birrell proposed. It appears to have been
suggested to Mr. Gladstone by Mr. Chamberlain and to have been
accepted by the premier, with the understanding that it would
satisfy Mr. Parnell, for the time being, at least. It was not
acceptable, however, to a majority of the Cabinet, and, when
rejected, Gladstone remarked bitterly to one of his
colleagues: "Within six years, if it please God to spare their
lives, they will be repenting in sackcloth and ashes." The
wearing of the sackcloth was not postponed so long.
IRELAND: A. D. 1909.
Amended Land Purchase Act.
The defects which have been noted above in the very promising
Land Purchase Act of 1903 raised increasing difficulties in
the operation of it, until the pressing need of amendatory
legislation was acknowledged by all parties. Wide differences
of view, however, between different interests involved made
the attainment of such legislation no easy task. A Bill for
the purpose, brought forward in the autumn of 1908, by the
Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, was pushed over into
the next session, and reintroduced in March, 1909. Mr. Birrell
then reviewed the circumstances which had rendered amendments
of the Act necessary, stating that "28 millions had now been
advanced for land purchase, and that there were pending
agreements involving the advance of 56 millions. The total
acreage of the land sold and agreed to be sold exceeded
7,000,000 acres. The country was now in the very middle of
this great agrarian revolution. Mr. Wyndham, the author of the
Act of 1903, thought that £100,000,000 would suffice to carry
this revolution through, but already £84,000,000 had been
accounted for and there was every reason for supposing that
Mr. Wyndham’s estimate should have been £183,000,000. With
regard to the loss on the flotation of land stock, he
expressed the opinion that for a decade, at any rate, it would
be unsafe to assume that a higher issue price would be
obtained than £85, and he calculated that if nothing were done
a charge of £855,000 annually would eventually have to be made
good by the ratepayers. It was impossible to expect them to
bear this enormous burden, and if the law were not amended the
scheme of land purchase must break down. His proposal in
regard to the bonus was that, instead of fixing it at 3 per
cent., it should be paid according to a scale under which the
lower the price given for the land the higher would be the
bonus. For this at least £3,000,000 would be required over and
above the original £12,000,000. By this Bill the Exchequer was
assuming, everything considered, a total capital liability of
about £30,000,000. Calling attention to the principal
provisions of the Bill, he reminded the House that landlords
were empowered to take payment partly in cash and partly in
stock at 92. He then mentioned the steps that were being taken
to accelerate the work of the Estates Commissioners and stated
that advances to the amount of £10,000,000 were never likely
to be exceeded in one year; they now had reached £8,000,000."
On a question arising as to one part, called a "bonus,"
provided for in the transaction of purchase, Mr. Wyndham, who
had been Chief Secretary in 1903, and author of the original
Act, said. "Some honourable members sitting for English
constituencies might think that the bonus was not necessary.
They might think that if the State lent its credit, landlord
and tenant could come to terms, and that the bonus was
something thrown in as a sop to the landlords. If the transfer
of land in Ireland were sporadic, he agreed that landlords
might sell without the assistance of a direct bonus from the
State. The question to be solved in Ireland, however, was that
of the general transfer of ownership of land throughout the
country, and that, broadly speaking, could not be effected
unless the present owners received an equivalent to the income
which they now enjoyed. In the past nearly all the cases of
the sporadic transfer of ownership of land had been got rid
of, and there were now left those cases which could not be
dealt with unless a bonus were given. It had been generally
recognized by all parties that a bonus should be given rather
than that the land difficulties in Ireland should continue,
and six years ago the decision arrived at was supported by the
unanimous opinion of all parties in the House. Now it was
proposed that the method of giving a substantial bonus at a
uniform rate should be set aside in such a way as to increase
the discrepancy between pending and future agreements. Already
by altering the rate of instalments in future agreements, and
by giving stock instead of cash, they had created a wide
difference between the two classes. On the top of that they
were now going to do away with the bonuses and apply a method
which he thought he would be able to show would prove most
injurious; and if it did prove injurious, it would touch the
cardinal point in the whole matter."
Mr. Wyndham opposed the new Bill on this point, apparently
without success. Strong opposition to a grant of the power of
compulsory purchase which the Bill embodied was raised, in the
House of Commons, as well as ultimately in the House of Lords.
Its contemplated changes in dealing with what are called
"congested estates" and "congested districts," being those in
which the holdings of tenants are too small to yield a decent
living, were also a subject of criticism and opposition.
The Bill received some amendment in the House of Commons,
before having its third reading and passage on the 18th of
September. In the House of Lords it met with harder treatment,
and was returned to the Commons with amendments which the
latter rejected in toto. Informal conferences brought
about an accommodation of the differences between the two
Houses and placed the Act on the statute book. The peers
yielded on the question of compulsory purchase, as well as
with regard to the tribunal which should have a deciding
authority in the matter, these being the two points most in
dispute.
IRELAND: A. D. 1909 (January).
Disclosures of Poverty by the Old Age Pensions Act.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS.
IRELAND: A. D. 1909 (October).
Organization of the two new Irish Universities.
See (in this Volume)
Education: Ireland.
{338}
IROQUOIS THEATER, Burning of the.
See (in this Volume)
CHICAGO: A. D. 1903.
IRRIGATION.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
ISLE OF PINES:
United States Supreme Court Decision concerning.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).
ISTHMIAN CANAL.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL.
ISVOLSKY, Alexander: Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs.
His Aide Memoire on Macedonian Affairs.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ISVOLSKY, Alexander:
Convention with Great Britain.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
ITAGAKI, Count.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).
----------ITALY: Start--------
ITALY: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
ITALY: A. D. 1901.
The First Year of the Reign of King Victor Emmanuel III.
Greatly improved conditions.
Restored Liberty of Speech and Meeting.
Neutrality of Government in Labor Disputes.
Zanardelli and Giolitti in the Ministry.
In the early months of 1901, when Volume VI. of this work went
to press, Italy was in an uncertain and anxious state. It had
not recovered from the shock of the assassination of King
Humbert, and could not foresee what length the sobering
effects of that tragedy would have. It had hope that the new
reign just beginning would quiet the dreadful disorders that
had become rife in Parliament and in the country at large, but
fear to the contrary was more than equal, perhaps, to the
hope. Happily it was the hope that found justification within
the passing year, as will be learned from the following report
of conditions, published in the last month of 1901:
"Those who expected that King Victor Emmanuel III’s reign
would be coincident with a marked improvement in Italy, have
so far been amply justified. Few ventured to hope that his
Liberal Ministry under Signors Zanardelli and Giolitti would
weather a Parliamentary session. As it is, despite some
weakness and a few mistakes, it has come out triumphant.
Compared with eighteen months ago, Italian politics have
undergone what is little less than a revolution. The closing
months of the last reign saw the most dangerous constitutional
crisis that United Italy has known. A reactionary Government
was threatening Parliamentary liberty; the Liberals and
Socialists were making a desperate stand, which at all events
preserved the Constitution, and perhaps saved Italy from
revolution. Now the signs of danger have almost passed. The
Crown is fast getting back its popularity. Parliament is
asserting itself as it has not done for many years, and is
able to give its time to quiet, useful work. The Extreme Left,
stubbornly obstructionist last year, is giving an independent
but fairly cordial support to the Ministry. Outside Parliament
Italians have for once a government ‘which allows them to
breathe and move and speak.’ For the first time since Crispi
introduced coercion, seven years ago, there is liberty of
speech and public meeting. Still, occasionally, the
unteachable censorship suppresses an issue of some democratic
paper. But there is no prosecution for political speeches, no
arbitrary political imprisonment, no harrying of cooperative
or benefit societies from empty fear of political designs or
at the bidding of shopkeepers.
"But this is of small account beside the altered attitude of
the Government towards labour questions. Hitherto its
influence had been always more or less on the side of the
employers. Trade Unions were dissolved and sometimes their
members arrested; their organisers were imprisoned for
‘exciting to class-hatred,’ and under the military courts of
1898 it was an offence to plead, however moderately, in
defence of the claims of labour. When the agricultural
labourers of the lower Po valley struck for a living wage, the
Government sent soldiers to reap the crops. Suddenly and

radically all this has changed. At last the law is observed,
and Trade Unions are allowed the legal sanction which
nominally they have had for years. The Government has
announced its neutrality in labour disputes, so long as there
is no violence or interference with individual liberty. The
result has been an epidemic of strikes. The Italian working
man, long cowed by his powerlessness before the alliance of
employer and Government, is using his new freedom to raise his
miserable wage. Signor Giolitti estimated in the middle of
last June that since the beginning of the year there had been
511 strikes, affecting 600,000 workmen (a number almost
unparalleled even in England) and resulting in an increase of
wages by nearly £2,000,000, a huge sum in poverty-stricken
Italy. Probably by now the total of strikers has reached a
figure which has never been equalled within a year in any
European country. … Thanks to the vigorous advocacy of
arbitration by the Chambers of Labour, the urban strikes have
generally been short, and, so far as I know, except for some
not very serious trouble at Naples, there has been no case of
disorder in them."
Bolton King,
The New Reign in Italy
(Contemporary Review, December, 1901).
ITALY: A. D. 1902 (June).
Renewal of the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume)
TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
ITALY: A. D. 1902-1904.
Coercive Proceedings against Venezuela concerted with
Great Britain and Germany.
Settlement of claims secured.
Reference to The Hague.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
ITALY: A. D. 1903 (March).
General Strike in Rome.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.
ITALY: A. D. 1903 (October).
Change of Ministry.
Signor Giuseppe Zanardelli, President of the Council, or
Premier, since February, 1901, gave his resignation to the
King in October, 1903, on account of ill-health, and a new
Ministry was formed by Signor Giolitti, who had been Minister
of the interior in the administration of Zanardelli, and who
still retained that portfolio after assuming the presidency of
the Council.
ITALY: A. D. 1903-1905.
Initiation of the International Institute of Agriculture
by the King.
See (in this Volume)
AGRICULTURE.
ITALY: A. D. 1904.
Tokens of a Disposition to bring the Church and the
State into better Accord.
Several marked tokens of a conciliatory disposition on both
sides of the long break in relations between the Papacy and
the Government of the Kingdom of Italy appeared in the course
of the year 1904. The Government brought in a bill for
increasing the public salaries of curés. Its diplomatic agents
in South America were instructed to give attention to a Papal
nuncio who travelled thither on a mission from the Vatican as
though he represented the King. The King conveyed a piece of
ground to the Pope which enlarged his domain. A Cardinal took
part in a reception to the King at Bologna and sat at table
with them. These were such amenities between the royal and
pontifical courts as had not been seen for a generation, and
they seemed to bear much significance; but little came from
them in the end.
{339}
ITALY: A. D. 1904 (October-December).
Dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies.
The Government sustained in the Elections.
Increased Participation by the Catholics.
The Chamber of Deputies was dissolved by royal decree on the
17th of October, and elections appointed to be held on the 6th
and 13th of November. The canvass was more animated than
usual, Catholics taking part in it, and in the subsequent
voting, more numerously than hitherto. The Ministry of Premier
Giolitti, representing the Liberals and Moderates in politics,
between groups of the extreme Right and Left, secured a strong
majority. Those of the Left lost a number of seats, though the
Socialists claimed to have made large gains in the popular
vote.
ITALY: A. D. 1905.
Effect of the Russo-Japanese War on the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
ITALY: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms
in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ITALY: A. D. 1905 (September).
Earthquake in Calabria.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES.
ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906.
Illness and Retirement of Premier Giolitti.
The Fortis and Sonnino Ministries.
The Demoralized Railway Service.
Catholic Abstention from Politics relaxed.
Return of Giolitti to Power.
The Italian Premier, Signor Giolitti, was forced by illness to
withdraw from office early in the year, and Signor Fortis was
commissioned by the King to form a new Ministry. He did not
succeed, and Signor Tittoni was then required by the King to
take the lead in Government with the late colleagues of Signor
Giolitti. Tittoni soon resigned, however, and Fortis was again
called, late in March, to form a Cabinet, which he now found
himself able to do. In the following December, however, a
reconstruction of the Fortis Ministry occurred, the King
requiring the Premier to retain his place, while his
colleagues were partly changed.
Throughout the year the Government and the country were
greatly troubled by a general demoralization in the management
and service of the railways. Travel and freight transportation
were exasperatingly delayed; accidents were of constant
occurrence, and strikes, having no result but the public
affliction, were repeated again and again.
Early in the summer an encyclical on the attitude to be taken
by the faithful in political controversies was addressed to
the Italian bishops by the Pope. Not distinctly, but by
inference, it was taken to be a relaxation of the policy of
abstention from politics, and to prompt political action by
Catholics, but always under clerical guidance and advice.
The Fortis Ministry held its ground in the Government, against
much attack, until February, 1906, when it lost the support of
a majority in the Chamber, and gave place to a coalition
Cabinet formed by Signor Sonnino, which conducted the
administration till the following May, when, on a question of
the purchase of the Southern railways, it suffered defeat.
Whereupon Signor Giolitti returned to power, in the face of a
threat from the employees of the railways that they would
proclaim a general strike if he took up the reins again. The
strike did not occur, and a notable access of vigor and
activity of Government appeared.
ITALY: A. D. 1906.
At the Algeciras Conference on the Morocco Question.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ITALY: A. D. 1906 (April).
Violent eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
See (in this Volume)
VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS.
ITALY: A. D. 1906-1909.
The Giolitti Administration.
Its recent resignation.
The Giolitti Ministry was maintained in the direction of the
Government for nearly four years, by virtue of the energetic
and efficient administration it conducted. Its capabilities
were demonstrated somewhat notably before the close of 1906,
by the conversion of the Italian rentes (Government bonds)
from 4 to 3 per cent.,—a financial operation which had been
discussed and fumbled over, apparently, for a long time.
Premier Giolitti brought the question to a determination in
the Chamber after less than one day of debate; and the
conversion of 8,000,000,000fr. of national debt was so readily
accepted by the rente-holders that only 1,700,000fr. needed to
be paid off.
Relations between the Government and the Papacy were improved
by the breach of the latter with France, which led to the
substitution of Italy for France as the protector of Catholics
and Catholic interests in the Empire of the Turks. This was
not, however, agreeable to Austria, and began a coolness
between these two of the parties to the Triple Alliance which
all the disturbing occurrences in the Near East have tended
since to increase. The Alliance with Austria and Germany had
been renewed in 1902; but there have been several occasions
within the past three years on which Italian ill-feeling
toward the former has flamed out quite threateningly in Press
and Parliament, and sometimes in popular demonstrations.
A disturbing agitation of the question of religious
instruction in the schools occurred in 1908, bringing demands
from anti-clerical parties for its prohibition; but the
Government was upheld in refusing such action. A disturbing
excitement in Sicily was produced that year by the conviction,
after a much prolonged and sensational trial, of Signor Nasi,
ex Minister of Public Instruction, on charges of embezzlement
of public moneys. The convicted Minister was a Sicilian, and
his fellow-countrymen resented the prosecution of him as an
indignity to themselves. To pacify them, Signor Nasi, after a
short detention in his own house, had the remainder of his
sentence of imprisonment remitted.
The Giolitti Ministry came to its end somewhat unexpectedly on
the 2d of December, 1909. It had brought forward, not long
before, a Bill embodying proposals for the reform of taxation,
avowedly to transfer some larger proportion of its burden from
the poor to the rich, especially by death duties and income
taxes. When the election of a committee to deal with the Bill
occurred December 2, the opponents of the Government secured a
majority, whereupon Premier Giolitti and his Cabinet resigned.
A new Ministry was formed, under Baron Sonnino, the leader of
the Opposition. The parliamentary support it must depend on is
said to be made up of extremely contradictory elements.
{340}
ITALY: A. D. 1908.
Falling off in Emigration.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: ITALY.
ITALY: A. D. 1908 (December).
The Awful Destruction of Messina and Reggio by Earthquake.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: ITALY.
ITALY: A. D. 1908.
Election of a Jewish Mayor of Rome.
Whether specially significant or not, the election in Rome, in
1908, of Ernesto Nathan, a Jew and an ex-Grand Master of the
Order of Free Masons, to be Mayor of the City, was an event
which excited wide interest and remark. Mr. Nathan’s birth,
and his education partly, were in England, but he acquired
citizenship in Italy, and rose in reputation and influence at
Rome, until he had become the leading figure in the hard
fought municipal election of the winter of 1908, which
defeated the Church party and elected sixty Radical members
out of eighty composing the City Council. The Mayor is elected
by the Council, and it gave the office to Nathan.
ITALY: A. D. 1909.
Church Movement of Agricultural Labor Organization.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.
ITALY: A. D. 1909.
Tardy Construction of "Dreadnoughts."
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ITALY: A. D. 1909 (March).
Parliamentary Elections.
Socialist, Republican, Radical, and Catholic Gains.
Conservative Losses.
Large, but Reduced Majority for the Government.
Extensive changes in the representation of the numerous
parties in Italian politics resulted from the Parliamentary
elections held in March, 1909. As finally reported, after
seventy four second ballots had been taken, the outcome was as
follows:
From seven Deputies the Catholics rose to 24. The Socialists
went up from 26 to 42, the extreme Radicals from 32 to 42, and
the Republicans from 19 to 24. The parties of the Extreme Left
had thus risen from 77 to 108. The Moderate Liberals, or
Constitutional Opposition, as they call themselves, declined
the most, numbering between 60 and 70. But the gains made by
the parties of the extreme Left had only recovered for them
the ground they had lost in the election of 1904.
"An interesting feature of the elections is that the Pope’s
supporters are said to have taken a more active part than they
have done since the beginning of united Italy. The Papal
inhibition against going to the polls was removed in
seventy-two constituencies, or one-seventh of the whole number
voting. The result has been no gain in Rome, where the
Anti-Clerical bloc repeated its victories of the preceding
year, and a fairly slight gain in the rural districts. In
general, it may be questioned whether the Papal non
expedit has really kept Catholics out of politics to a
very considerable extent. If we take the enrolled electors in
Germany, we find that they constitute 20 per cent. of the
entire population; in France the ratio is nearly 24 per cent.;
in Italy it is less than 8 per cent. At first sight that would
indicate that an enormous number of Italians boycott the
polls. We find, however, that the Italian franchise demands
not only the ability to read and write, but a certain degree
of additional elementary education. At the same time we find
that in 1901 nearly 44 per cent, of all males over twenty
years of age were illiterate. This at once nearly doubles the
electoral ratio. Add the fact that there are very considerable
property qualifications for the franchise, and we get for
Italy a ratio not far removed from Germany’s 20 percent. It
would follow that the number of Italians who refrain from
availing themselves of their electoral rights is not very
large."
New York Evening Post,
March 8, 1909.
ITALY: A. D. 1909 (May).
Proposed Payment of Members of Parliament.
A Press despatch from Rome, May 9, 1909, reported:
"Leave was asked yesterday to introduce in the Chamber of
Deputies two Bills for the payment of members of Parliament.
According to the first Bill, proposed by Signor Galli, all
Deputies and Senators would receive £240 a year; the second
Bill, proposed by Signor Chimienti, would make a payment of
24s. for every sitting attended. Signor Giolitti said that the
idea of the payment of members of Parliament was evidently
gaining ground, and that the Government would not oppose the
introduction of the Bills. On the other hand, he deprecated
the contention which had been advanced, that the non-payment
of Deputies was in any way responsible for a scanty
attendance, and earnestly recommended the Chamber to give the
question its very careful consideration before committing
itself either way."
ITALY: A. D. 1909 (November).
Naval strength.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
----------ITALY: End--------
ITO, Prince Hirobumi:
Visit to the United States.
Mission to St. Petersburg.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
ITO, Prince Hirobumi:
President of the Japanese Council.
His Party.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (June).
ITO, Prince Hirobumi:
Resident-General in Korea.
See (in this Volume)
KOREA: A. D. 1905-1909.
ITO, Prince Hirobumi:
His assassination.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).
J.
JAMAICA: A. D. 1906.
Harmony of relations between the White minority and the
Colored majority of inhabitants.
How explained.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: JAMAICA.
JAMAICA: A. D. 1907.
Destructive Earthquake.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: JAMAICA.
JAMES, Professor William:
Plan for ending War.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
JAMESON, Dr. Leander S.:
Premier of Cape Colony.
His Continuance of the Policy of Cecil Rhodes.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1904.
JAMESON, Dr. Leander S.:
At the Imperial Conference of 1907.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
{341}
JAMESON, Dr. L. S.:
In Movement for South African Union.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1908-1909.
JAMESTOWN TERCENTENIAL EXPOSITION.
The three hundredth anniversary of the first permanent English
settlement in America was celebrated on the site of the
settlement, at Jamestown, Virginia, by an Exposition which was
opened by President Roosevelt on the 26th of April, 1907. The
advantages of the place for naval display tempted Congress to
give that character, in the main, to so much of the
celebration as was organized under national auspices that
other features were quite eclipsed. As an illustration of
three centuries of progress from the beginnings of civilized
life in the United States it cannot be said to have had much
success. But the show, from many nations, of battle ships and
the paraphernalia of naval war was superb.
JANNARIS, Professor, Imprisonment of.
See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1905-1906.
----------JAPAN: Start--------
JAPAN: A. D. 1901 (July).
Unveiling of a Monument to commemorate the Advent
of Commodore Perry.
A monument to commemorate the arrival of Commodore Perry in
Japan, in 1853, was unveiled with imposing ceremonies, at
Kurihama, on the 14th of July, 1901, that being the
forty-eighth anniversary of the event. Commodore Rodgers, with
three vessels of the Asiatic Squadron of the United States,
attended to represent the United States officially in the
ceremonies of the day. The monument was erected by the
Japanese "America Association of Japan."
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
Persistent occupation of Manchuria by the Russians.
Japanese negotiations and demands, without satisfaction.
"In spite of repeated promises to evacuate the points seized
and held by Russian forces when, after the relief of the
Legations, these forces were withdrawn from Peking and Chili,
to be concentrated in Manchuria [see Manchuria, in Volume
VI.], and in disregard of the interests of the other allies,
the policy of keeping all that she had gained, and of gaining
more as far as possible, was steadily pursued by Russia. … It
was the probable effect of a continued occupation of Manchuria
by Russia upon their business interests which led Great
Britain and America to wish that the repeated Russian
assurances of good faith toward China and toward all foreign
nations should manifest themselves in works. The case could
not be wholly the same with Japan. Her interests of trade
were, indeed, if not at the time so large, more close and
vital than those of any other nation outside of China. But her
other interests were incomparable. So that when Russia failed
to carry out her engagements, even under a convention which
was so much in her favor [see, in this Volume, China. A. D.
1901-1902], there was a revival of suspicion and apprehension
on the part of the Japanese Government and the Japanese
people. Manchuria and Korea both pointed an index finger of
warning directed toward Russia.
"It was to further a peaceful adjustment of all the disturbed
conditions of the interests of Russia and Japan in the Far
East that Marquis Ito went, on his way home from his visit to
the United States, at the end of 1901, on an unofficial
mission to St. Petersburg. The failure of the overtures which
he bore discouraged those of the leading Japanese statesmen
who were hoping for some reconciliation which might take the
shape of allowing Russian ascendency in Manchuria and Japanese
ascendency in Korea. It also strengthened the conviction which
prevailed among the younger statesmen that the St. Petersburg
Government regarded Manchuria as not only its fortress in the
Far East, but also as its path to the peninsula lying within
sight of Japan’s shores. ‘The Japanese Government,’ says Mr.
D. W. Stevens, ‘at last felt that the vital interests of Japan
might be irrevocably jeopardized in Korea as well as in
Manchuria, if it continued to remain a mere passive spectator
of Russian encroachments; and in August, 1903, it resolved to
take a decisive step. In the most courteous form and through
the usual diplomatic channels Japan intimated at St.
Petersburg that her voice must be heard, and listened to, in
connection with Far Eastern questions in which her interests
were vitally concerned.’ The answer of Russia was the
appointment of Admiral Alexeieff as Viceroy over the Czar’s
possessions in the Far East, with executive and administrative
powers of a semi-autocratic character. … Negotiations having
in view the peaceful adjustment of the conflicting interests
of Russia and Japan in the Far East, which were begun by the
latter country in the summer of 1903, were further continued.
Mr. Kurino, the Japanese Minister at St. Petersburg, was
informed by Baron Komura, who was then Japanese Minister of
Foreign Affairs, that the recent conduct of Russia at Peking,
in Manchuria, and in Korea, was the cause of grave concern to
the Government at Tokyo. ‘The unconditional and permanent
occupation of Manchuria by Russia would,’ said Baron Komura,
‘create a state of things prejudicial to the security and
interests of Japan. The principle of equal opportunity would
thereby be annulled, and the territorial integrity of China be
impaired. There is, however, a still more serious
consideration for the Japanese Government; that is to say, if
Russia was established on the flank of Korea it would be a
constant menace to the separate existence of that empire, or
at least would make Russia the dominant power in Korea. But
Korea is an important outpost in Japan’s line of defence, and
Japan consequently considers its independence absolutely
essential to her own repose and safety. Moreover, the
political as well as the commercial and industrial interests
and influence which Japan possesses in Korea are paramount
over those of other Powers. These interests and this influence
Japan, having regard to her own security, cannot consent to
surrender to, or share with, another Power.’
{342}
"In view of these reasons, Mr. Kurino was instructed to
present the following note to Count Lamsdorff, the Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs:
‘The Japanese Government desires to remove from the relations
of the two empires every cause of future misunderstanding, and
believes that the Russian Government shares the same desire.
The Japanese Government would therefore be glad to enter with
the Russian Imperial Government upon an examination of the
condition of affairs in the regions of the extreme East, where
their interests meet, with a view of defining their respective
especial interests in those regions. If this suggestion
fortunately meets with the approval, in principle, of the
Russian Government, the Japanese Government will be prepared
to present to the Russian Government their views as to the
nature and scope of the proposed understanding.’
"The consent of Count Lamsdorff and the Czar having been
obtained, on August 12th articles were prepared and submitted
by the Japanese Government which it wished to have serve as a
basis of understanding between the two countries. The
essential agreements to be secured by these articles were:
(1) A mutual engagement to respect the independence and
territorial integrity of the Chinese and Korean empires, and
to maintain the ‘ open door’ in these countries; and
(2) a reciprocal recognition of Japan’s preponderating
interests in Korea and of Russia’s special interests in
Manchuria.
These demands were not altered in any very important way by
Japan during all the subsequent negotiations. It was their
persistent rejection by Russia, together with her long delays
in replying while she was meantime making obvious preparations
of a warlike character, which precipitated the tremendous
conflict that followed some months later."
George T. Ladd,
In Korea with Marquis Ito, chapter 10
(copyright, 1908, C. Scribner’s Sons).
JAPAN: A. D. 1902.
Defensive Agreement between Great Britain and Japan.
An agreement of great importance, in the nature of a defensive
alliance, between Great Britain and Japan, was concluded at
London on the 30th of January, 1902. On the publication of the
Treaty, a few days later, it was accompanied by a
communication from the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
the Marquis of Lansdowne, to Sir C. MacDonald, the British
Minister at Tokyo, in which the actuating motives of the
Agreement were set forth, as follows:
"Sir: I have signed to-day, with the Japanese minister, an
agreement between Great Britain and Japan, of which a copy is
inclosed in this dispatch.
"This agreement may be regarded as the outcome of the events
which have taken place during the last two years in the Far
East, and of the part taken by Great Britain and Japan in
dealing with them. Throughout the troubles and complications
which arose in China consequent upon the Boxer outbreak and
attack upon the Pekin legations, the two powers have been in
close and uninterrupted communication, and have been actuated
by similar views. We have each of us desired that the
integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire should be
preserved, that there should be no disturbance of the
territorial status quo either in China or in the adjoining
regions, that all nations should, within those regions, as
well as within the limits of the Chinese Empire, be afforded
equal opportunities for the development of their commerce and
industry, and that peace should not only be restored, but
should, for the future, be maintained.
"From the frequent exchanges of views which have taken place
between the two Governments, and from the discovery that their
Far Eastern policy was identical, it has resulted that each
side has expressed the desire that their common policy should
find expression in an international contract of binding
validity. …
"His Majesty’s Government have been largely influenced in
their decision to enter into this important contract by the
conviction that it contains no provisions which can be
regarded as an indication of aggressive or self-seeking
tendencies in the regions to which it applies. It has been
concluded purely as a measure of precaution, to be invoked,
should occasion arise, in the defense of important British
interests. It in no way threatens the present position or the
legitimate interests of other powers. On the contrary, that
part of it which renders either of the high contracting
parties liable to be called upon by the other for assistance
can operate only when one of the allies has found himself
obliged to go to war in defense of interests which are common
to both, when the circumstances in which he has taken this
step are such as to establish that the quarrel has not been of
his own seeking, and when, being engaged in his own defense,
he finds himself threatened, not by a single power, but by a
hostile coalition."
JAPAN:
Agreement between Great Britain and
Japan, signed at London, January 30, 1902.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, actuated solely
by a desire to maintain the status quo and general
peace in the extreme East, being moreover specially interested
in maintaining the independence and territorial integrity of
the Empire of China and the Empire of Corea, and in securing
equal opportunities in those countries for the commerce and
industry of all nations, hereby agree as follows:
"Article I.
The High Contracting Parties having mutually recognized the
independence of China and of Corea, declare themselves to be
entirely uninfluenced by any aggressive tendencies in either
country. Having in view, however, their special interests, of
which those of Great Britain relate principally to China,
while Japan, in addition to the interests which she possesses
in China, is interested in a peculiar degree politically, as
well as commercially and industrially, in Corea, the High
Contracting Parties recognize that it will be admissible for
either of them to take such measures as may be indispensable
in order to safeguard those interests if threatened either by
the aggressive action of any other Power, or by disturbances
arising in China or Corea, and necessitating the intervention
of either of the High Contracting Parties for the protection
of the lives and property of its subjects.
"Article II.
If either Great Britain or Japan, in the defence of their
respective interests as above described, should become
involved in war with another Power, the other High Contracting
Party will maintain a strict neutrality, and use its efforts
to prevent other Powers from joining in hostilities against
its ally.
"Article III.
If in the above event any other Power or Powers should join in
hostilities against that ally, the other high contracting
party will come to its assistance and will conduct the war in
common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it.
{343}
"Article IV.
The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will,
without consulting the other, enter into separate arrangements
with another Power to the prejudice of the interests above
described.
"Article V.
Whenever, in the opinion of either Great Britain or Japan, the
above-mentioned interests are in jeopardy, the two Governments
will communicate with one another fully and frankly.
"Article VI.
The present agreement shall come into effect immediately after
the date of its signature, and remain in force for five years
from that date. In case neither of the High Contracting
Parties should have notified twelve months before the
expiration of the said five years the intention of terminating
it, it shall remain binding until the expiration of one year
from the day on which either of the High Contracting Parties
shall have denounced it. But if, when the date fixed for its
expiration arrives, either ally is actually engaged in war,
the alliance shall, ipso facto, continue until peace is
concluded. In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorized
by their respective Governments, have signed this agreement,
and have affixed thereto their seals."
In August, 1905, the above Treaty was replaced by a fresh
Agreement of similar tenor.
See, below,
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
JAPAN: A. D. 1902 (August).
Success of Prince Ito’s Party in the Parliamentary Election.
"Thus far parties, so called, have been magnetized around men.
They have not crystallized along the axes of principles.
Marquis Ito, ultra-conservative in politics but radical and
reformer in things social, is at one pole. Count Okuma,
radical in politics, sternly conservative of social life and
the traditionary ethics, is at the other.
"The August elections of 1902 show apparently at least that
the day of party government has dawned, for now and for the
first time Marquis Ito leads in the Lower House a host of the
friends of the Constitution (Rikken Seiyu Kai) that has
an overwhelming majority of seats and in time of a ‘division’
nearly if not wholly a plurality of votes. The returns are
just in and the table stands about thus:
Seiyu Kai (Constitution Friends) 193
Progressists 106
Independents 56
Imperialists and others 21
"It was a smart stroke of policy for Ito, two years ago, to
unite in one organization [see in Volume VI. of this work,
Japan: A. D. 1900 (August-October)] the Radicals under Hoshi
Toru and his own following of ‘clansmen, capacities and young
statesmen.’ It was the union of the strong and the subtle,
taking the name not of a party but of an ‘Association,’ with a
purpose of upholding the constitution (in the Prussian sense),
in order to control both the educational and the economic
policy of the country, to complete the radical transformation
of the Japanese into a modern man, and ‘to screen Japan’s
Western evolution against all possibility of reaction.’"
W. E. Griffis,
in The Independent.
JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (June).
The Marquis Ito accepts Presidency of the Council
to strengthen the Government.
To strengthen the Ministry of Count Katsura in the Diet, the
Marquis Ito, powerful head of the Rikken Seiyu-kai
(Association of the Friends of the Constitution, foreseeing
trouble to come from the proceedings of Russia in Manchuria,
consented in June to accept the post of President of the
Council, and was joined in the Council by Marquis Yamagata and
Count Matsukata. The Government was thus greatly reinforced
for dealing with the difficulties that now approached very
fast. A section of the Seiyu-kai seceded from it, however, and
formed the Doshishukai (Assembly of Fellow-thinkers), under
Count Itagaki.
See (in Volume VI.)
JAPAN: A. D. 1900, AUGUST-OCTOBER.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-July).
War with Russia.
Sudden opening of Hostilities.
Occupation of Korea.
Battles at the Yalu.
The Armies in Manchuria.
Movement of General Nogi on Manchuria.
Simultaneously with the rupture of diplomatic relations with
Russia, on the 6th of February, 1904, the Japanese Government
dispatched from Sasebo a fleet of 7 battle-ships, 18 cruisers,
and flotillas of torpedo boats and destroyers, under
Vice-Admiral Togo, with transports conveying troops, to open
operations of war. The transports were convoyed to Chemulpho,
the port of Seoul, Korea, by 4 cruisers and a number of
torpedo boats, under Rear-Admiral Uryu; while Admiral Togo
proceeded with the remainder of his fleet to Port Arthur. The
troops sent to Chemulpho were landed on the 8th, and Admiral
Uryu, the next day, attacked a Russian cruiser and gunboat in
Chemulpho harbor with such effect that they were destroyed by
their commanders. On the night of the 8th Togo’s torpedo boats
were sent against the Russian fleet at Port Arthur and
crippled it to a serious extent. A second body of 14,000
troops was landed at Chemulpho on the 15th.
The Japanese had now a strong footing in Korea, with Seoul
securely in hand, and the First Japanese Army, under General
Kuroki, was ready to begin its northward advance. Phyangyang
was occupied on the 20th, after which further troops could be
landed at Chinampho, saving a long march. By the end of March
there were about 45,000 men in the force moving toward the
Yalu. The first encounter with the Russians was near Chengju,
where 600 of the latter’s cavalry were driven back. On the 4th
of April the Japanese advance guard reached the Yalu, which
forms the boundary between Korea and Manchuria, and occupied
Wiju, near its mouth, the opposing cavalry having been
withdrawn to the opposite bank of the river on the preceding
day. The main body arrived at Wiju April 20. The Russians, on
the other side of the Yalu, were then concentrating a force of
about 25,000 men, with Liaoyang and Fenghuangcheng for its
first and secondary bases.
For ten ensuing days both armies were busy in preparations and
manoeuvres, the one for attempting to force a crossing of the
Yalu, the other to resist it. How their preparations compared
in effectiveness is described by an experienced correspondent,
David Fraser, who accompanied the Japanese and wrote the story
of the campaign, publishing it subsequently in a book entitled
"A Modern Campaign." The difference that Mr. Fraser saw
between the painstaking, the thoughtfulness and the carefully
acquired knowledge which went into the Japanese preparation
for their attack,—the concealment of their forces, the masking
of their batteries, the obscuring of all that they did,—and
the contrasting carelessness of the Russians in the same
particulars, was the difference that gave success to the one
and brought defeat on the other.
{344}
Before the Japanese moved they knew everything they needed to
know,—the fordable places on the streams they had to cross,
the points of advantage on every mile of the ground to be
traversed, the positions of the enemy,—and the Russians did
not. And the Japanese were able to repeat much of the same
feinting and maneuvering by means of which they had forced the
passage of the Yalu at the same place, against the Chinese, in
1894.
On the 25th of April the Japanese were ready to bring their
preparations into use, and on that and the next two days they
drove the Russian outposts from the islands they needed to
occupy, and began building bridges at night. In the end, ten
bridges were built, some of them invisible to the enemy. Many
signs of Japanese movement down the river were then exhibited
to the Russians. A Japanese battery became busy at a point
some distance below Wiju; gunboats and other vessels were
collected in that direction; troops were in motion in the same
direction; but quiet reigned at and around Wiju, the batteries
behind which had not yet betokened their existence. That quiet
in this part of the Japanese line was broken suddenly at
midday on the 29th, when a pontoon train, with accompanying
troops, was hurried to the river, the pontoons launched,
manned and paddled to the opposite bank. A Russian outpost
which fired on these invaders drew the first revelation of a
hitherto hidden and silent Japanese battery, and fled from its
shells. Possession of the further shore was thus secured for
sufficient time to enable the construction of the pontoon
bridge, which the strong current in the river made a difficult
task. It was ready, however, for the crossing of the river
that night by the infantry of the entire 12th division of the
Japanese Army.
The thrilling episode of the battle of the next two days was
the opening of fire from the hitherto hidden and unsuspected
batteries of Japanese heavy guns. Mr. Fraser tells us that the
Russians had believed it impossible to bring heavy artillery
over the Korean roads, and were in consternation when the
howitzers belched forth their shells in a fairly overpowering
way. "The trees," he says, "screened the flashing of the
Japanese guns from the Russian eyes. There was no smoke to
indicate their whereabouts. The indirect fire of the howitzers
was as deadly as if it had been aimed point-blank. The
Russians, on the other hand, fired at random into the belt of
trees; they had been able to locate only two of the Japanese
guns. Their fire had little or no effect upon the
well-protected Japanese gunners. In ten minutes the Russian
shooting grew wild. … After twenty-five minutes both batteries
were silenced."
It is the testimony of all witnesses of the fighting on both
days of the battle, especially on the 1st of May, that the
Russians showed desperate courage; but every advantage, of
position, of equipment, of numbers, and, above all, of
generalship, was in favor of the Japanese. They drove the
enemy from all his entrenchments, and entered Manchuria, to
pursue there an equally successful campaign, for the same
reasons, of superior ability and more thorough preparation.
The reported loss of the Japanese in the conflicts on the Yalu
was 5 officers and 218 men killed, 33 officers and 780 men
wounded. They captured 22 field guns, 8 machine guns, a
quantity of rifles and ammunition, and took 628 prisoners,
including 18 officers. General Zasulich, the Russian
commander, reported 70 officers and 2324 men killed, wounded
and taken prisoners. Another Russian report of losses gave 28
officers and 564 men killed, 38 officers and 1081 men wounded,
and 6 officers and 679 men missing.
The Russians retreated on Fenghuangcheng, but made no stand
there, and the Japanese, who followed, occupied the place on
the 6th of May. The advance of the latter was halted at that
point until late in June, waiting for operations in other
parts of the field.
Meantime, between the 4th and the 22d of May, the Second
Japanese Army, General Oku commanding, had been landed near
Pitsewo, on the western coast of the Liao-tung peninsula, and
this began a general advance on the 25th. It fought a severe
battle on the following day, at Nanshan, or Kinchou, from
which the Russians fell back. The victory of the Japanese cost
them heavily, their reported loss being 739 killed and 5455
wounded; while General Stössel, the Russian commander,
reported a loss of 30 officers and 800 men killed and wounded.
On June 6th this Second Army was divided into two, one of
which, passing to the command of General Nogi, became the
Third Japanese Army, and was marched presently toward Port
Arthur, to open the famous siege of that stronghold. General
Oku, retaining about 50,000 men in the Second Army, and
starting northward on the 15th, was opposed by Russian forces
under General Stackelberg. The first important conflict was on
June 15 at or near Telissu station, which gave the battle its
name. Again the Russians were forced back, with a loss of 103
officers and about 2600 men, killed and wounded, besides a
missing list of 764. The Japanese loss was 50 officers and
1113 men killed and wounded. Hard fighting occurred again
between the 6th and 9th of July, on the approach of the
Japanese to Kaiping and the Kaiping River, beyond which their
opponents were driven. "The occupation of Kaiping and the
country immediately to the north placed General Oku’s army on
the edge of the Liao Valley, opened the way to the Yingkon and
Newchwang, and facilitated his further advance to the north by
allowing supplies to be received from the sea, thus shortening
his line of communications."
A Fourth Japanese Army, under General Nodzu, had now been
landed at Takushan, on the eastern coast of the Liao-tung
peninsula, and was reconnoitering toward Oku’s forces, as well
as toward the First Japanese Army, which had remained in the
vicinity of Fenghuangcheng until the 24th of June, waiting for
these cooperative masses of troops to be got into place. It
was now being moved in three columns, one of which was soon in
touch with the Fourth Army (Nodzu’s), and the two began
working to the west and northwest. The Russians gave up
Fenshuiling, and by the 9th of July, when Oku, with the Second
Army, occupied Kaiping, the three Japanese armies in the
northern part of the Liao-tung peninsula—the First, Second,
and Fourth—"were united on a front from Kaiping east to
Fenshuiling, thence northeast through Motienling, with
covering detachments of Kobi troops eastward at Saimachi,
Hsienchang and Huaijen.
{345}
The Russians were concentrated in the Liao Valley at
Tashihchiao, Haicheng, Anping and Liaoyang." On the 6th of
July Field Marshal Oyama had left Tokyo to take active command
of this united army, and the great operations of the
Manchurian campaign were about to begin.
Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War,
United States War Department,
Second [Military Information] Division,
General Staff, Number 11.
At this time General Nogi, with the Third Japanese Army, was
fighting his way slowly toward Port Arthur, against obstinate
resistance, not arriving at the front of the land defences
proper until the 14th of August.
The Russians had evacuated Dalny (formerly called Talienwan),
with its fine harbor, on Talienwan Bay, thirty miles distant
from Port Arthur, and the Japanese had occupied it on the 30th
of May. This was an acquisition of great importance to them.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-August).
The War with Russia: Siege of Port Arthur.
The Naval Surprise.
Unreadiness of the Defence.
Naval operations of the six months.
Fate of the Russian fleets in the East.
Mr. E. K. Nojine, "accredited Russian War Correspondent," who
went through the whole experience at Port Arthur, from first
to last of the war, and who wrote what he entitles "The Truth
about Port Arthur," opens his severely critical narrative with
the following statement:
"When, one hour before midnight on February 8, 1904, our
warships began to belch fire from their many steel mouths, and
the seaward batteries suddenly thundered forth their angry
death-dealing tidings, no one dreamed that the noise was War,
for no one had taken the constant rumors of the rupture of
diplomatic relations and of approaching hostilities at all
seriously. … Although the sky in the East had for weeks been
blood-red with the menace of immediate war, yet when it came
the surprise was absolute, its horror intensified by our
complete unreadiness."
What this writer tells of the unreadiness, and of the slowness
with which the serious need of more readiness was comprehended
by the controlling authority at Port Arthur, during the weeks
that passed before the stronghold was fully invested, goes
almost beyond belief. He writes bitterly and contemptuously of
General Stössel, who held command of the district, and
admiringly of General Smirnoff, Commandant of the fortress,
whom Stössel could overrule. He seems to have been sustained
in his judgment by the court-martial which subsequently
condemned Stössel to death.
The sound of midnight battle on its sea-front (February 8-9)
which announced a beginning of war to the surprised garrison
of Port Arthur came from the attack of Admiral Togo’s torpedo
boats on the Russian fleet in the harbor. Three of the Russian
ships were crippled, but not seriously. The next day Togo made
a general attack with his whole fleet of fifteen vessels,
including five battle-ships, and did some damage to four more
of his enemies’ vessels; but a fortnight is said to have
repaired them all. The general result of the two operations
was "to insure the at least temporary immobility of the Port
Arthur fleet," so that "the transport of the army from Japan
to Korea might go on without fear of molestation." A squadron
was then detached to look after four cruisers at Vladivostock,
and that harbor was cannonaded for the same purpose on the 6th
of March. Meantime, on the 9th of February, a Russian cruiser
and a gunboat, attempting to leave Chemulpho harbor, were
driven back, and were then destroyed by their Russian
commander.
The main Japanese fleet hovered constantly near Port Arthur,
not only maintaining a strict blockade, but making frequent
close approaches, to sink vessels and plant mines in the
entrance channels of the harbor; to harass the Russian fleet
with torpedo attacks, or to come boldly within range of its
shore defenses and give battle to them, as well as to bombard
the fortress and town. There were heavy bombardments on the
10th and the 22d of May. The Russian fleet, commanded by
Vice-Admiral Makaroff, made retaliatory sorties, in returning
from one of which, on the 13th of April, the admiral’s
flag-ship, the Petropalovsk, struck and exploded a line of
floating mines. The huge battle-ship was so shattered by the
explosion that she sank in two minutes, carrying down the
admiral, the famous painter, Verestchagin, who was his guest,
and 550 other officers and men. Of all on board only 85 were
saved.
In the course of the next month the Japanese suffered several
of the same disasters, two of their battle-ships, the Hatsuse
and the Yashima, and two other vessels of less importance,
being blown up by the explosion of mines. Of the crew of the
Hatsuse nearly 500 perished, while all on board the Yashima
were said to have been saved. By collision in a fog one of the
Japanese cruisers was sunk, with all but 90 of her crew. And
the three most calamitous of these happenings, to the two
battle-ships and the cruiser, occurred on the same day—the
15th of May. Admiral Togo’s fleet was weakened very seriously
by these losses. Somewhat later the same fate befell a number
of Russian ships, but the loss in them was less.
Though watched by a Japanese squadron under Vice-Admiral
Kamimura, the Russian war-ships at Vladivostock were able to
slip out for occasional cruises, in which they captured or
destroyed Japanese transports and merchant ships. In more than
one instance—notably that of the Kinshu-Maru—the soldiery on
captured transports refused to surrender and committed
"hara-kiri" in a body, or were engulfed by the sea. "It is
quite true that the work done by the Vladivostock squadron was
not great in amount, but they must have caused some
inconvenience to the military forces of Japan engaged in the
campaign."
On the 23d of June Rear-Admiral Vithöft, who had succeeded the
late Admiral Makaroff in the naval command at Port Arthur,
sailed out of the harbor with six battle ships, five cruisers
and ten torpedo boats, apparently intending to offer battle to
the Japanese. The Russians had repaired their damaged vessels
and now seemed to have a fleet that was equal to Togo’s in
strength, since he opposed only four battle-ships to their
six. Nevertheless when the Japanese approached them they
withdrew, returning to Port Arthur, pursued by torpedo-boats,
and nearly losing the battle ship Sevastopol, which struck a
mine and was disabled for six weeks.
{346}
Little occurred during that period on the naval side of the
Port Arthur campaign. Then, on the 10th of August, it was
reopened startlingly, to be ended with practical completeness
within the next few days. On that morning the Port Arthur
fleet and the Vladivostock squadron put to sea from their
respective harbors, evidently attempting a junction. The Port
Arthur fleet was the first to encounter its enemy, which it
did the same day, when no more than 25 or 30 miles out from
the port. Admiral Vithöft now had with him only five battle
ships, having left one, probably disabled, behind. With these
were the four cruisers, two gunboats and a number of torpedo
craft. Admiral Togo brought against this force four
battle-ships and four armored cruisers in the battle that
ensued. It "took the form of a long-range engagement between
the fleets, steering nearly the same course towards the east.
… At a time which is variously reported, but probably about
6.15 p. m., a 12-inch shell … burst near the conning tower of
the Cesarevitch [the flagship], killing Admiral Vithöft and
wounding the captain of the ship. At the same time the
Cesarevitch’s steering gear was damaged, the helm jammed, and
she made a sudden sheer to port. This threw the Russian line
into confusion. … The Russian formation was now broken up, and
the ships fell into a confused group at which the Japanese
directed a hot fire at the comparatively short range of 3500
yards. At times the Russian ships were hidden by the smoke of
exploding shells, and about 7 p. m. their fire slackened
perceptibly. One report states that a second-class battle-ship
and two coast-defence vessels had joined the Japanese, besides
another ship of a class not certainly known. The whole twelve
Japanese ships concentrated their fire on the six Russian
battle-ships and four unarmored cruisers till 8 p. m. Prince
Ukhtomsk, who had succeeded to the Russian command on Admiral
Vithöft’s death, then signalled to the fleet to follow him,
and turned toward Port Arthur. All could not follow, and some
made for shelter in other ports, harassed by torpedo attacks,
but not otherwise pursued.
The result of the Russian sally from Vladivostock was much the
same. The three armored cruisers from that port were not
intercepted by the Japanese until the morning of the 14th,
three days after the defeat of the Port Arthur fleet which
they had hoped to join. They were then attacked by four
armored and two unarmored cruisers. They fought obstinately
and suffered frightful losses in officers and men,—415 wounded

and 251 killed. One of the ships, reduced to helplessness, was
sunk by its own surviving crew, most of whom were picked up by
the Japanese. The other two escaped to Vladivostock in a
wrecked state.
These engagements "really ended the naval campaign of 1904. Of
the ships [from Port Arthur] that got through the Japanese
fleet, one battle ship, the Cesarevitch, and three destroyers
were disarmed and interned at Kiachow (Tsingtau); one cruiser,
the Askold, and one destroyer had the same fate at Shanghai,
and another cruiser, the Novik, was destroyed … at Korsakovsk.
A third cruiser, the Diana, was disarmed and interned at the
neutral French port of Saigon. One destroyer had been seized
at Chefoo by the Japanese for disregard of Chinese neutrality,
and one was wrecked on the coast of Shantung. The rest of the
fleet which got back to Port Arthur remained there only to be
destroyed in nearly every case by their own crews, to save
them from the fate of being surrendered to their enemy on the
fall of the fortress. … The grand total of the Russian loss
[of officers and men] in the six battle-ships and four
cruisers amounted to 81 killed and 420 wounded. … The total
Japanese loss, as reported at the time, was 61 killed and 124
wounded." Later statements brought the total loss up to 225.
Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge,
The Naval Annual, 1905, chapter 7.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (July-September).
The War with Russia: Campaign in Manchuria.
Japanese advances; Russian retreats.
The great battle and Japanese victory at Liao-Yang.
On the 4th of July the Russians, who had given up Motienling
to the Japanese five days before, made an attempt to recover
it, but failed. They repeated the attempt on the 17th, and
again without success. On the 10th a force from the Fourth
Japanese Army (Nodzu’s), advancing from Fenshuiling toward
Tomucheng, met with a repulse. The right column of Kuroki’s
army (the First) fought a considerable engagement with the
Russians at Hsihoyen on the 19th. Oku’s army (the Second),
advancing from Kaiping, fought them at Tashinchiao on the
24th. Nodzu was engaged with them again on the 31st at
Tomucheng, and Kuroki’s right column at Yushulingtzu on the
same day; while the left column, simultaneously, expelled them
from Yangtzuling. On the 2d of August the Russians retired
from Haicheng and the Japanese occupied it the following day.
The Russians had been steadily forced back to the vicinity of
Liao-Yang, where they had prepared themselves for a determined
stand.
"The front of the Russian forces at and in the vicinity of
Liao-Yang extended from Anshantien through Lantzushan and the
mountain range east of Anping to the Taitzu River. The
Japanese front extended from Haicheng through Tomucheng and
Yantzuling to Yushulingtzu."
Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War,
United States War Department,
Second [Military Information] Division.
General Staff, Number 11.
Both sides were now making ready for the first of the two most
terrific battles of the war; but the month of August was near
its close before the Japanese began their assault on the
formidable works behind which the Russians awaited their
attack. In the "Epitome" cited above the effective Russian
force taking part in this struggle is estimated at about
140,000, commanded by General Kuropatkin.
Lord Brooke, Reuter’s special correspondent in Manchuria, in
his book entitled "An Eye-witness in Manchuria," describes the
battle of Liao-Yang as "the biggest artillery battle of which
history has record." The Russians occupied a line of rocky
hills south and east of Liao-Yang. Oku opposed their right and
center; Nodzu the center and left; Kuroki was farther east,
intending to force the passage of the Tai-tze-ho and reach the
rear of their main body. Artillery on both sides opened the
battle at dawn, August 30, and a terrible duel was fought for
five hours.
{347}
Then, at half-past eleven, General Oku delivered the first
infantry assault, which cost a fearful loss of life, and
failed. Late in the afternoon a resolute turning movement on
the Russian right was attempted by the Japanese and pressed
until darkness came, with success only to the extent of
driving the enemy from one village. Then a night attack on the
Russian center was made, and that, too, was repelled.
The morning of the 31st brought a renewal of the artillery
duel, followed by assault after assault from Oku’s indomitable
troops on the Russian right flank, with the result of driving
it back to the cover of the railway embankment. Meantime
General Kuroki, whose army was on the extreme right of the
Japanese line, had forced the passage of the Tai-tze-ho River,
at a ford 26 miles east of Liao-Yang. This compelled
Kuropatkin to withdraw some of his troops from the outer
fortifications south and east of Liao-Yang and send them
against Kuroki. The crisis of the struggle was now in the
battles fought on the next two days with Kuroki, in vain
attempts to cut him off from the river ford and crush his not
large army. At the same time the Japanese were making a direct
attack on Liao-Yang and endeavoring to cut Kuropatkin’s
communications with Mukden. Neither Russians nor Japanese had
success in these attempts, but the former were brought to a
situation which compelled retreat. On the fourth of September
they evacuated Liao-Yang and withdrew from the surrounding
works. "As soon as the evacuation began," wrote Lord Brooke,
"the Japanese guns opened fire on the Russians, who had for
line of retreat only the railway bridge and the two pontoons
across the Tai-tze-ho. Nevertheless the retirement was carried
on with great coolness, and the loss sustained in crossing the
river was comparatively small in view of the difficult
position from which the Russians had to extricate themselves.
All the artillery was got away. But if the evacuation of
Liao-Yang was cleverly effected, the army of Kuropatkin was
still in great danger, and the Commander-in-chief seemed
really afraid that a large part of his force would be cut off.
It was a reasonable apprehension, for General Kuroki’s army
began the day with renewed vigor. … In a melancholy frame of
mind the whole army marched northward, with Kuroki continually
pressing its flank and the fear that Oku would ere long be on
his heels."
Pursuit by the Japanese was given up on the morning of
September 6th.
In the "Epitome" of the war, prepared and published by the
American Army Staff, the total Russian loss in the Liao-Yang
battles is given as reported to have been 54 officers and 1810
men killed; 252 officers and 10,811 men wounded; 5 officers
and 1211 men missing. The Japanese reported a total loss of
17,539 officers and men, without details.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (October).
War with Russia: Quiet Aspect of Life during the War.
Spartan Discipline of Japanese Feeling and Conduct.
"For all industrial civilization the contest is one of vast
moment;—for Japan it is probably the supreme crisis in her
national life. As to what her fleets and her armies have been
doing, the world is fully informed; but as to what her people
are doing at home, little has been written.
"To inexperienced observation they would appear to be doing
nothing unusual; and this strange calm is worthy of record. At
the beginning of hostilities an Imperial mandate was issued,
bidding all non-combatants to pursue their avocations as
usual, and to trouble themselves as little as possible about
exterior events;—and this command has been obeyed to the
letter. It would be natural to suppose that all the
sacrifices, tragedies, and uncertainties of the contest had
thrown their gloom over the life of the capital in especial;
but there is really nothing whatever to indicate a condition
of anxiety or depression. On the contrary, one is astonished
by the joyous tone of public confidence, and the admirably
restrained pride of the nation in its victories. Western tides
have strewn the coast with Japanese corpses; regiments have
been blown out of existence in the storming of positions
defended by wire-entanglements; battle-ships have been lost;
yet at no moment has there been the least public excitement.
The people are following their daily occupations just as they
did before the war; the cheery aspect of things is just the
same; the theatres and flower displays are not less well
patronized. The life of Tokyo has been, to outward seeming,
hardly more affected by the events of the war than the life of
nature beyond it, where the flowers are blooming and the
butterflies hovering as in other summers. Except after the
news of some great victory,—celebrated with fireworks and
lantern processions,—there are no signs of public emotion; and
but for the frequent distribution of newspaper-extras, by
runners ringing bells, you could almost persuade yourself that
the whole story of the war is an evil dream.
"Yet there has been, of necessity, a vast amount of
suffering—viewless and voiceless suffering—repressed by that
sense of social and patriotic duty which is Japanese religion.
… The great quiet and the smiling tearlessness testify to the
more than Spartan discipline of the race. Anciently the people
were trained, not only to conceal their emotions, but to speak
in a cheerful voice and to show a pleasant face under any
stress of moral suffering; and they are obedient to that
teaching to-day. It would still be thought a shame to betray
personal sorrow for the loss of those who die for Emperor and
fatherland."
Lafcadio Hearn,
A Letter from Japan
(Atlantic Monthly, November, 1904).
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (May-January).
War with Russia: Operations against Port Arthur.
Preliminary battles.
Investment and Siege.
The Defences.
Desperate assaults in August.
Story of Lieutenant Sakurai.
The assault on 203 Metre Hill and its capture.
Surrender of the Fortress.
Trial and condemnation of General Stössel.
As stated heretofore, the Japanese began landing their Second
Army, under General Oku, at Petsiwo, for operations against
Port Arthur, on the 4th of May. Very quickly thereafter the
railway was cut and Port Arthur was blockaded by land as well
as by sea. On the 8th the last train from the north was
brought in. By the 25th Oku was ready to advance, and on the
following day he attacked the Russians at Kinchou (the battle
bearing sometimes the name of Nan-shan), and expelled them
from that position, the loss of which, according to the
correspondent Nojine, sealed the fate of Port Arthur.
{348}
He accuses General Stössel of having boastfully assumed that
the Japanese could never take Kinchou, denouncing as traitors
all who questioned the sufficiency of its fortification and
urged the strengthening of the works. The expulsion from
Kinchou necessitated the abandonment of the important port of
Dalny, which was done with great haste on the night of the
26th. "In Dalny," says Nojine, "there were numerous buildings,
docks, and the most splendid breakwaters running out into
the sea for a distance of one and a half miles. … Owing to
want of time nothing except a few of the railway bridges was
blown up. … Besides the numerous town, harbor and railway
buildings, there was an immense amount of private house
property, as well as large warehouses, stocked with food and
stores of all sorts, both public and private. The enemy got
possession of them all undamaged, just as they were. After the
capture of Arthur the Japanese confessed that by not
destroying Dalny we had assisted them enormously in their
difficult task of disembarking their siege-train, and that the
railway had enabled them easily to get it into position in the
investing lines. …
"The enemy having now taken complete possession of Dalny, at
once used it as their base. There, quietly and comfortably,
without any interference from us, they carried out the landing
of troops for the investment. Ten transports would arrive
daily, bringing everything necessary for the concentrating
army. The railway from Dalny and all the rolling stock was in
perfect order; … our fleet did not hinder them in any way;
they had command of both land and sea."
On the 6th of June Oku’s army was divided, that general
leading part of it (still called the Second Army) northward,
leaving the remainder, as a Third Japanese Army, under General
Nogi, to conduct the investment and siege of Port Arthur.
At about this time, according to Nojine, Stössel was persuaded
by Smirnoff to permit the latter to fortify some of the outer
hills of the peninsula, which had been neglected hitherto;
these were Kuen-san Hill, the Green Hills, Angle Hill, Wolf’s
Hill, Ta-ku-shan and Sia-gu-shan hills. "The latter," says
Nojine, "were of immense importance, as they were quite
inaccessible, and protected the whole of the western front of
the Fortress, but only so long as Wolf’s Hills were in our
possession." On the 26th and 27th of June the Japanese
attacked and captured Kuen-san and Green Hills. The latter
were recovered by the Russians on the 4th of July, but they
failed to retake Kuen-san. The loss of the latter was very
serious; for the Japanese from its summit could look into the
works on the Green Hills and, by telephone, direct the fire of
their batteries on them.
Until the 26th of July not much occurred, as the assailants
were busy strengthening the positions they had acquired. Then
they began a determined attack on Green Hill, and continued it
through two days. On the morning of the 28th the Russians gave
up the position and drew back towards Port Arthur, to what is
called the Wolf’s Hills line. They were driven from this on
the 30th, and the close investment of Port Arthur began then.
E. K. Nojine,
The Truth about Port Arthur,
chapters 11-22.
As described in the "Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War"
prepared for the United States of America General Staff, the
immediate "defences of Port Arthur, divided into eastern and
western sectors by the valley through which the railway enters
the town, consisted of permanent masonry forts whose gorges
were connected by the old Chinese Wall, temporary works
constructed just prior to and during the siege, and connecting
and advance trenches. The west sector followed an irregular
crest, with an elevation of about 500 feet, around the new
town, and terminated on Laotiehshan, the highest point in the
vicinity, with an elevation of about 1000 feet. The east
sector encircled the old town at a distance of from two to two
and a half miles, running along an irregular crest, about 350
feet in elevation, within which was an elevation (Wangtai or
Signal Hill) of about 800 feet. The permanent forts were
polygonal in trace and had ditches with caponieres and
galleries. The gap between the two sectors was covered by the
fort on Paiyushan (Quail Hill).
"Of the works most intimately connected with the siege the
Sungshushan, Ehrlungshan, North and East Tungchikuanshan,
Itzushan, and Antzushan forts were strong permanent
fortifications. The two Panglungshan forts, East and West,
were semi-permanent redoubt-shaped fortifications; 203 Meter
Hill and Aksakayama were semi-permanent works with two lines
of advance trenches. Kuropatkin Fort was a strong field-work
with deep ditch; the Shuishihyung lunettes were also provided
with ditches, but not so deep. P. H., Kobu and Hachimakiyama
were more in the nature of semi-permanent trenches with
bomb-proofs."
Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War,
United States War Department,
Second [Military Information] Division,
General Staff, Number 11, pages. 28-29.
"In this fortress, for the first time, were utilised all those
terrible agencies of war which the rapid advance of science in
the past quarter of a century has rendered available. Among
these we may mention rapid-fire guns, machine-guns, smokeless
powder, artillery of high velocity and great range, high
explosive shells, the magazine rifle, the telescopic sight,
giving marvellous accuracy of fire, the range-finder, giving
instantaneously the exact distance of the enemy, the
search-light, the telegraph and the telephone, starlight
bombs, barbed-wire entanglements, and a dozen other
inventions, all of which were deemed sufficient, when applied
to such stupendous fortifications as those of Port Arthur, to
render them absolutely impregnable.
"The Russians believed them to be so—certainly the indomitable
Stössel did. And well he might, for there was no record in
history of any race of fighters, at least in modern times,
that could face such death-dealing weapons and not melt away
so swiftly before their fury as to be swept away in defeat.
But a new type of fighter has arisen, as the sequel was to
tell."
Richard Barry,
How Port Arthur Fell
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1905).
"The first bombardment from the land side began suddenly on
August 7. … The bombardment continued all day, though doing
little material damage. Next morning, from 2 to 5 A. M., we
heard heavy musketry fire from the direction of Ta-ku-shan:
the enemy leaving the town and the main defences in peace,
were turning their attention to it.
{349}
This hill corresponded in the east to 203 Metre Hill in the
west, and was equally important and equally unfortified. It
and Sia-gu-shan, the natural forts of Arthur on the eastern
front, had a bad time. In the first place they had not been
made the most of, for in the original plan of defence of Port
Arthur they had been thought to be important points and so had
been neither fortified nor armed as their position with regard
to the Fortress warranted, and Smirnoff had only recently
succeeded in arming them to a small extent. In the second
place they became, after the abandonment of Wolf’s Hills, open
to flanking fire, and therefore untenable. The companies of
the 13th East Siberian Rifle Regiment sent there went
literally to their death, but, together with the gunners, they
held on as long as possible."
Both of the hills were taken by the Japanese that night. The
Russians immediately concentrated a heavy artillery fire on
the new occupants, and the next day they attempted to retake
Ta-ku shan by assault, but failed. On the 11th they repeated
the attempt, with no better success. On the 16th General Nogi
sent in a flag of truce, bearing the proposal of "a discussion
of negotiations for the surrender of the Fortress," saying:
"The Russians have given signal proofs of their gallantry, but
Arthur will be taken all the same." The invitation was
declined. On the 20th the Japanese gained Angle Hill and
Pan-lun-shan redoubt; but the Russians recaptured the latter
on the following night.
The Japanese now hoped to be able to take the Fortress by a
general assault, and made the attempt with extraordinary
determination on the 21st, 22d, and 23d. "On the night of the
23d," writes Nojine, "the Japanese made the most desperate of
all their attacks so far. They made three separate and most
determined assaults on Zaredoubt Battery, on the line between
it and Big Eagle’s Nest, and on Ruchevsky Battery. Though
temporarily successful at one or two points, they were finally
driven back out of all with shocking slaughter." It is of this
assault that Lieutenant Tadayoshi Sakurai tells the terrible
story in one of the chapters of his book, entitled "Human
Bullets: A Soldier’s Story of Port Arthur," from which the
following is quoted:
"I gathered my men around me and said: ‘I now bid you all
farewell. Fight with all your might. This battle will decide
whether Port Arthur is to fall or not. This water you drink,
please drink as if at your death moment.’
"I filled a cup with water that was fetched by one or two
soldiers at the risk of their lives, and we all drank farewell
from the same cup. Soon we received orders to advance to a
point half-way up the side of Panlung. … This fortress of
Panlung had been captured with the flesh and blood of the
Ninth Division of the Seventh and Eighth Regiments of the
Second Reserve, and was now an important base from which a
general assault on the northern forts of East Kikuan and
Wantai was to be made. This critical spot was finally taken
after a terrible struggle and a valiant action by the men of
General Oshima’s command. The sad story was eloquently told by
the horrible sights of the ravine. While running through the
opening in the wire-entanglement beyond, I noticed many
engineers and infantry men dead, piled one upon another caught
in the wire, or taking hold with both arms of a post, or
grasping the iron shears.
"When we reached the middle of the side of Panlung, I saw the
regimental flag that I used to carry, flying above our heads
in the dark. My heart leaped at the sight of the dear flag. …
As soon as we were gathered together the Colonel rose and gave
us a final word of exhortation, saying: ‘This battle is our
great chance of saving our country. To-night we must strike at
the vitals of Port Arthur. Our brave assaulting column must be
not simply a forlorn-hope ("resolved-to-die"), but a
"sure-death" detachment. I as your father am more grateful
than I can express for your gallant fighting. Do your best,
all of you.’
"Yes, we were all ready for death when leaving Japan. Men
going to battle of course cannot expect to come back alive.
But in this particular battle to be ready for death was not
enough; what was required of us was a determination not to
fail to die. Indeed we were ‘sure death’ men, and this new
appellation gave us a great stimulus. Also a telegram that had
come from the Minister of War in Tokyo was read by the
aide-de-camp, which said, ‘I pray for your success.’ This
increased the exaltation of our spirits.
"Let me now recount the sublimity and horror of this general
assault. I was a mere lieutenant and everything passed through
my mind as in a dream, so my story must be something like
picking out things from the dark. I can’t give you any
systematic account, but must limit myself to fragmentary
recollections. If this story sounds like a vain-glorious
account of my own achievements, it is not because I am
conscious of my merit when I have so little to boast of, but
because the things concerning me and near me are what I can
tell you with authority. If this partial account prove a clue
from which the whole story of this terrible assault may be
inferred, my work will not have been in vain.
"The men of the ‘sure-death’ detachment rose to their part.
Fearlessly they stepped forth to the place of death. They went
over Panlung-shan and made their way through the piled-up
bodies of the dead, groups of five or six soldiers reaching
the barricaded slope one after another. I said to the colonel,
‘Good-by, then!’ With this farewell I started, and my first
step was on the head of a corpse. Our objective points were
the Northern Fortress and Wang-tai Hill.
"There was a fight with bombs at the enemy’s
skirmish-trenches. The bombs sent from our side exploded
finely, and the place became at once a conflagration, boards
were flung about, sand bags burst, heads flew around, legs
were torn off. The flames mingled with the smoke, lighted up
our faces weirdly, with a red glare, and all at once the
battle-line became confused. Then the enemy, thinking it
hopeless, left the place and began to flee. ‘Forward! forward!
now is the time to go forward! Forward! Pursue! Capture it
with one bound!’ and, proud of our victory, we went forward
courageously. Captain Kawakami, raising his sword, cried,
‘Forward!’ and then I, standing close by him, cried,
‘Sakurai’s company, forward!’ Thus shouting I left the
captain’s side, and, in order to see the road we were to
follow, went behind the rampart. What is that black object
which obstructs our view? It is the ramparts of the Northern
Fortress. Looking back, I did not see a soldier. Alack, had
the line been cut? In trepidation, keeping my body to the left
for safety, I called the Twelfth Company.
{350}
"‘Lieutenant Sakurai!’ A voice called out repeatedly in
answer. Returning to the direction of the sound, I found
Corporal Ito weeping loudly. ‘What are you crying for? What
has happened?’ The corporal, weeping bitterly, gripped my arm
tightly. ‘Lieutenant Sakurai, you have become an important
person.’ ‘ What is there to weep about?’ I say, ‘what is the
matter?’ He whispered in my ear, ‘Our captain is dead.’
Hearing this, I too wept. Was it not only a moment ago that he
had given the order ‘Forward’? Was it not even now that I had
separated from him? And yet our captain was one of the dead.
In a moment our tender, pitying Captain Kawakami and I had
become beings of two separate worlds. Was it a dream or a
reality, I wondered?
"Corporal Ito pointed out the captain’s body, which had fallen
inside the rampart only a few rods away. I hastened hither and
raised him in my arms. ‘Captain!’ I could not say a word more.
But as matters could not remain thus, I took the secret map
which the captain had, and, rising up boldly, called out,
‘From henceforward I command the Twelfth Company.’ And I
ordered that someone of the wounded should carry back the
captain’s corpse. A wounded soldier was just about to raise it
up when he was struck on a vital spot and died leaning on the
captain. One after another of the soldiers who took his place
was struck and fell.
"I called Sub-Lieutenant Ninomiya and asked him if the
sections were together. He answered in the affirmative. I
ordered Corporal Ito not to let the line be cut, and told him
that I would be in the center of the skirmishers. In the
darkness of the night we could not distinguish the features of
the country, nor in which direction we were to march. Standing
up abruptly against the dark sky were the Northern Fortress
and Wang-tai Hill. In front of us lay a natural stronghold,
and we were in a caldron-shaped hollow. But still we marched
on side by side.
‘The Twelfth Company forward!’ I turned to the right and went
forward as in a dream. I remember nothing clearly of the time.
‘Keep the line together!’ This was my one command. Presently I
ceased to hear the voice of Corporal Ito, who had been at my
right hand. The bayonets gleaming in the darkness became
fewer. The black masses of soldiers who had pushed their way
on now became a handful. All at once, as if struck by a club,
I fell down sprawling on the ground. I was wounded, struck in
my right hand. The splendid magnesium light of the enemy
flashed out, showing the piled-up bodies of the dead, and I
raised my wounded hand and looked at it. It was broken at the
wrist; the hand hung down and was bleeding profusely. I took
out the already loosened bundle of bandages, tied up my wound
with the triangular piece, and then wrapping a handkerchief
over it, I slung it from my neck with the sunrise flag, which
I had sworn to plant on the enemy’s fortress.
"Looking up, I saw that only a valley lay between me and
Wang-tai Hill, which almost touched the sky. I wished to drink
and sought at my waist, but the canteen was gone; its leather
strap alone was entangled in my feet. The voices of the
soldiers were lessening one by one. In contrast, the glare of
the rockets of the hated enemy and the frightful noise of the
cannonading increased. I slowly rubbed my legs, and, seeing
that they were unhurt, I again rose. Throwing aside the sheath
of my sword, I carried the bare blade in my left hand as a
staff, went down the slope as in a dream, and climbed Wang-tai
Hill.
"The long and enormously heavy guns were towering before me,
and how few of my men were left alive now! I shouted and told
the survivors to follow me, but few answered my call. When I
thought that the other detachments must also have been reduced
to a similar condition, my heart began to fail me. No
reinforcement was to be hoped for, so I ordered a soldier to
climb the rampart and plant the sun flag overhead, but alas!
he was shot and killed, without even a sound or cry.
"All of a sudden a stupendous sound as from another world rose
around about me. ‘Counter-assault!’ A detachment of the enemy
appeared on the rampart, looking like a dark wooden barricade.
They surrounded us in the twinkling of an eye and raised a cry
of triumph. Our disadvantageous position would not allow us to
offer any resistance, and our party was too small to fight
them. We had to fall back down the steep hill. Looking back, I
saw the Russians shooting at us as they pursued. When we
reached the earthworks before mentioned, we made a stand and
faced the enemy. Great confusion and infernal butchery
followed. Bayonets clashed against bayonets; the enemy brought
out machine-guns and poured shot upon us pell-mell; the men on
both sides fell like grass. But I cannot give you a detailed
account of the scene, because I was then in a dazed condition.
I only remember that I was brandishing my sword in fury. I
also felt myself occasionally cutting down the enemy. I
remember a confused fight of white blade against white blade,
the rain and hail of shell, a desperate fight here and a
confused scuffle there. At last I grew so hoarse that I could
not shout any more. Suddenly my sword broke with a clash, my
left arm was pierced. I fell, and before I could rise a shell
came and shattered my right leg. I gathered all my strength
and tried to stand up, but I felt as if I were crumbling and
fell to the ground perfectly powerless. A soldier who saw me
fall cried, ‘Lieutenant Sakurai, let us die together.’"
Tadayoshi Sakurai,
Human Bullets, chapter 26
(Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston).
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47548
The soldier who offered to die with him stayed with the
Lieutenant till morning, binding his wounds, and finally
creeping away to find and bring help if he could. He, too, had
been wounded, and Sakurai found him later in a hospital. At
the end of many hours of constantly imminent death, the
helpless and suffering Lieutenant was saved by two soldiers
who bore him, stealthily and with infinite difficulty out of
the range of the Russian rifles and to a field hospital, where
he found himself among intimate friends.
{351}
Of the scene on the morning following the terrific assaults of
August 23d, the correspondent Nojine writes:
"The rising sun showed up sheaves of corpses on the ground
that was still ours. Death had indeed triumphed, and had
claimed 22,000 lives. From this time forward the enemy
remained content with the slower advance of regular siege
operations. … The enemy had got close up to our positions, and
the salient angle of the north-east was almost in their hands.
I say ‘almost,’ because the ruins of these works remained the
greater part of the time untenanted, neutralized by the
gun-fire of both sides." A month passed before another serious
assault was undertaken by the Japanese. Then, on the 21st of
September, they attacked what was called "203 Metre Hill."
"Column after column rushed forward on to 203 Metre Hill,
covering all its fore hills and slopes with heaps of dead; but
at 8.45 a. m. they were repulsed. This assault was
distinguished by particular obstinacy. … Having got
three-quarters of [the hill] they meant to get possession of
the rest at all costs: they slowly crawled upwards, fell dead,
rolled back, and others dashed forward; they lay concealed and
waited for reinforcements; nothing would drive them back. All
their thoughts, all their endeavors were to get possession of
this hill. Our men began rolling down great boulders from the
top. These bounded down, flattened out the dead and sought out
the living, who, in trying to dodge, exposed themselves and
were shot by our men on the lookout. … During the night of the
21st about 900 corpses were collected under 203 Metre Hill."
Nevertheless the assault was repeated on the following day.
"From the moment this assault was beaten back, the trenches in
front of 203 Metre Hill were gradually evacuated and the enemy
went to earth only on Angle Hill. All their sapping was
confined to the north-east. On the western front of the
Fortress there now remained in our possession only 203 Metre,
Flat and Divisional Hills. … October 1 was an epoch in the
history of the defence of Port Arthur, for it was on this day
that the first of the 11-inch shells fell into the Fortress,
and so changed the aspect of affairs. … Nowhere could we find
real safety from them. … The concrete of the forts, the armor
on the battle ships, were penetrated clean through." Mining
and counter-mining, by the besiegers and the besieged, were
now in progress, and the explosion of such mines was begun
near the end of October. On the 30th of that month the
Japanese made another general assault, after a "cruel
bombardment" of four days. "The October attacks were short,
but most determined and bloody. As regards their success, it
was but slight. The enemy had gained some dozens of yards—no
more. … The Japanese had fired over 150,000 shells." The
"November assault season" began on the 20th. Its climax was on
the 26th, "when time after time, the enemy threw themselves
with extraordinary gallantry and persistence on forts
Ehr-lung-shan, Chi-kuan-shan and B Battery. Thousands were
mown down, but the living surged onwards. But it could not go
on forever, and at 3.30 the infantry attacks slackened and
ceased. … All next day and night an incessant stream of
wounded poured into Arthur, our losses being more than 1500
men. … The slopes below and beyond Tumulus Hill were thickly
spread with dead Japanese. A thick, unbroken mass of corpses
covered the cold earth like a coverlet. On the day of the
assault the following order had been issued by Major-General
Nakamura, who commanded the Japanese force told off for that
forlorn hope: … ‘Our objective is to sever the Fortress on two
parts. Not a man must hope to return alive. If I fall, Colonel
Watanabe will take over the command; if he also falls, Colonel
Okuno will take his place. Every officer, whatever his rank,
must consider himself his senior’s successor. The attack will
be delivered mainly with the bayonet. No matter how fierce the
Russian fire, our men will not reply by a single shot until we
have established ourselves. Officers will shoot any men who
fall out or retire without orders.’ … This is the kind of foe
we had to fight. …
"We now come to the culmination of the tragedy, and perhaps
the bloodiest scene of carnage of the whole war—the fight for
and capture of 203 Metre Hill." The attack began November 27
and was continuous for eight days, excepting that an hour’s
truce was obtained by the Japanese, December 2, for the burial
of their dead. The next day "the fight on the hill was, if
possible, more exasperated. In the Fortress the feeling of
alarm was intensified, and all unemployed men had been got
under arms, … and the other points denuded, in order to feed
the maw of 203 Metre Hill. Even the hospitals gave their
contribution. December 4—bright and frosty—ushered in a fresh
hell. It was now hardly a fight between men that was taking
place on this accursed spot; it was a struggle of human flesh
against iron and steel, against blazing petroleum, lyddite,
pyroxiline and mélinite, and the stench of rotting corpses. It
was the last day but one of the long-drawn agony." At noon on
the 5th the Japanese gained the top of the hill, and held it
against an attempt that evening to drive them off. "203 Metre
Hill was lost, and with it more than 5000 Russians."
The end was now near. On the 15th four generals, and other
officers, including General Kondratenko, the most valued
assistant of General Smirnoff, were holding a consultation in
one of the casemates, and were killed by a 11-inch shell,
which penetrated even that shelter. On the 18th Chi-kuan-shan
Fort was captured; on the 28th Ehr-lung-shan was lost; on the
31st the Japanese took fortification Number 3, and on New
Year’s Day they won the Eagle’s Nest. That day General Stössel
sent a flag of truce to open negotiations for surrender. The
capitulation was signed the next day. "Of 18,000 sick and
wounded reported on the day the garrison marched out, 6000
only were wounded; the balance were cases of scurvy."
E. K. Nojine,
The Truth about Port Arthur
(Dutton & Co., New York).
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59972
General Stössel was subsequently ordered for trial before a
military commission, on a number of charges, including
disobedience of orders from the General Commanding in
Manchuria, false reports to headquarters, improper
interference with the commandant of the Fortress, and personal
absence from most of the engagements that had taken place in
and around Port Arthur. He was condemned to death, but the
Tzar commuted the sentence to imprisonment for ten years. He
began serving the sentence in March 1908, and was pardoned and
released on the 19th of May, 1909.
{352}
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (September-March).
War with Russia: The Campaign in Manchuria.
From the Battle of Liao-Yang to the end of
the Battle of Mukden.
Early in October, a month after the escape of the Russian army
from its defeat at Liao-Yang, General Kuropatkin attacked the
Japanese at the Sha-ho river and fought a desperate battle
with no substantial success. Extensive movements were then
interrupted by the approach of winter, and the campaign was
practically suspended for the next four months. "The three
Japanese armies had maintained the same relative positions in
which they had fought their way from Hai-Cheng northward.
Kuroki’s was the right, Oku’s the left, and Nodzu’s the
center. By the middle of February, Marshal Oyama had been
reënforced by Nogi’s one hundred thousand veterans of Port
Arthur, hereafter to be known as the fourth Japanese army,
operating to the west of Oku. A somewhat mysterious fifth
army, under command of General Kawamura, had been operating
somewhere between Kuroki and Vladivostok, and, while its
movements had not been known definitely, it had been expected
to threaten General Kuropatkin’s left. Both Russians and
Japanese were within a few miles of Mukden, the sacred city of
the Manchus. This city of half a million people lies in a
plain,—really the valley of the Hun River,—with the Hun and
the Liao rivers twenty to thirty miles west and southwest.
Eastward are the Mao-Tien Mountains, extending along the line
of the Port Arthur & Harbin Railway. The Russian and Japanese
lines formed a huge bow or crescent, the Japanese to the
southward, extending over a hundred miles of plains and hill
from Chang-Tan eastward across the railway to Lone Tree
(Putiloff) Hill, almost all the strong positions being held by
the Russians." In this position of the two stupendous armies
the long series of engagements known collectively as the
Battle of Mukden was opened by the Japanese on the 20th of
February, 1905. The center of the Russian army rested on the
Sha-ho; its right wing, commanded by General Kaulbars, was
distant from its left wing, commanded by General Linevitch,
more than one hundred and twenty miles. The Japanese attack
was begun by Kuroki, commanding their right. Crossing the
Sha-ho, he "swung around the Russian left, driving it from the
mountains in the vicinity of Tie Pass to Fushun, an important
fortified post (and the Russian coal depot) on the Hun River;
Nogi’s force had attacked General Kuropatkin from the west.
Nogi had marched through the neutral zone south of the Liao
River, to Sin-Min-Tun, a violation of neutrality against which
the Russians and Chinese had protested. This neutral zone,
however, had already been used by the Russians as a base to
forward coal and supplies to their army, so the Japanese
Government claimed that the neutrality had become null and
void. On March 3, Nogi rolled up the Russians in flight, and
his advance was not checked until his right wing had come into
touch with Oku’s left, only about eight miles south of Mukden.
While the armies of Oku and Nodzu continued to pound the
Russian center, with tremendous losses to themselves and to
the enemy, Nogi’s left, after a forced march of forty miles,
fell upon the Russian center. Through this Oku and Nodzu drove
a wedge, and, although Generals Linevitch and Kaulbars had
made a desperate defense and General Rennenkampf’s Cossacks
had performed prodigies of valor, the Russians had found
themselves (by the end of the first week in March) attacked in
so many places on the north of their flanks that it had become
a question with Kuropatkin, not only of retreat, but of saving
large bodies of troops from being surrounded and annihilated.
"Early on the morning of March 10, the Japanese occupied
Mukden, and the Russian retreat had become a rout. The next
day the important fortified town of Fushun was seized by the
Japanese, and thereafter the Russians, disorganized and
suffering from hunger and the weather, poured northward to Tie
Pass, forty miles from Mukden,—outmarched, outgeneraled, and
outfought."
American Review of Reviews,
April and May, 1905.
"The sufferings caused by the retreat cannot be exaggerated.
It must be remembered that the weather remained intensely cold
and that the arrangements for collecting the wounded were all
disorganised. … Defeat, it may be added, was wholly unexpected
by the Manchurian Army, and that view was shared by the
foreign attaches and the war correspondents. Whatever their
opinions might be as to the possibility of General Kuropatkin
marching on Liao-Yang, they felt confident that the Japanese
would be unable to turn the Russians out of the positions so
long and so carefully prepared. The Japanese accomplished this
seemingly impossible task. …
"Following on the disaster of Mukden, General Kuropatkin was
relieved of his command, exchanging places with General
Linevitch. The new Commander-in-Chief fixed his headquarters
at Guntzuling, where the shattered army was re-formed."
Lord Brooke,
An Eye Witness in Manchuria,
chapter 37.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (October-May).
War with Russia: The expedition of the Baltic Fleet
to relieve Port Arthur.
The Dogger Bank incident.
The Seven Months Voyage.
Battle of Tsushima.
Destruction of the Fleet.
After the sea-fights of August 10-14, between Port Arthur and
Vladivostok (see above, A. D. 1904, February-August) Russia
had no naval force of any importance in the Pacific, and
hastened preparations for sending out a fleet from the Baltic
Sea.
See above,
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-August).
Under the command of Admiral Rozhdestvensky, this intended
reinforcement of the defence of Port Arthur was despatched
from Reval and Libau, sailing from the latter port on October
15. At the outset of its voyage, while traversing the North
Sea, the Russian fleet experienced a misadventure which
occasioned much excitement for a time and threatened to raise
a serious question between the Russian and British
governments. Briefly stated, the main facts of the case,
according to evidence accepted subsequently by an
International Commission of Inquiry, were these:
Before sailing from Reval, and, further, while anchored at the
Skagen, making ready to pass to the North Sea, Admiral
Rozhdestvensky had been warned by agents of his government
that suspicious vessels were on the coast of Norway, and that
he must beware of hostile undertakings, which were likely to
have the form of torpedo attacks. Accordingly he sailed from
the Skagen, October 20, twenty-four hours earlier than he had
planned, sending off the fleet in six divisions, that which he
accompanied being the last, and starting at 10 p. m.
{353}
In one of the preceding divisions a transport, by reason of
defects in her engine, fell behind the cruisers which escorted
her, and at 8 p. m. on October 21 was some fifty miles astern
of the remainder of the fleet. She then met several Swedish
vessels which she imagined to be torpedo craft, and fired on
them, sending a wireless message to the Admiral that she was
attacked by torpedo boats on all sides. This message led the
Admiral to signal to his captains that they might expect
attacks and must keep a doubly vigilant watch. At an early
hour in the following morning his own immediate squadron
arrived at the Dogger Bank, where, as usual, many fishing
craft, mostly English, were "shooting their trawls," and doing
so in a regulated way, under the direction of a fishing master
or captain, who signalled with rockets to his fleet. One of
the preceding divisions of the Russian armada had passed these
without alarm, recognizing what they were; but Admiral
Rozhdestvensky and the officers of his flagship were so
expectant of enemies that the sight of a green rocket shot
into the air, and a distant glimpse of some kind of a ship
which seemed to be headed straight for them, at a great rate
of speed, convinced them instantly that they were in the midst
of swarming foes, and they opened fire.
According to testimony, their fire was kept up for about half
an hour, as they passed through the fishing fleet, one of the
vessels in which was sunk, her skipper and one other man
killed, while all but one of the remaining crew received
wounds. Two others of the fishing craft were struck, and the
hospital ship of the National Mission which attended the fleet
received some damage. Ultimately it was learned that the
Russians, in their wild firing, did harm to one another, so
seriously that the chaplain of one of their ships received a
wound from which he died.
Wild excitement was created in England by the news of this
strange performance. Hurried naval preparations were made for
vigorous action, if found necessary, and formal demands for
apology, inquiry and compensation were presented at St.
Petersburg. Nothing, however, was done rashly, and the two
governments concerned agreed sensibly and quickly to an
investigation of the affair by an International Commission,
which gave hearings in Paris soon afterwards. The Commission
found precedents in recent naval experience—even in the
manoeuvres of the British navy—of a similar mistaking of
fishing boats and other vessels for torpedo craft, and was
able to deal gently and pacifically with the facts brought
before it. It decided that the fishing fleet had committed no
hostile act, and that no torpedo boat was either among them or
near them, and that, consequently, the Russian Admiral was not
justified in opening fire. As for his not stopping to
ascertain the damage he had done, the conclusion was that
enough uncertainty on the subject of danger had been raised in
his mind to warrant that neglect; but a majority of the
commissioners expressed regret that he had not given notice of
what had happened when he passed through the Straits. Then, as
The Naval Annual remarked, in reviewing the incident,
"diplomacy steps in and seeks to soothe military and national
susceptibilities by declaring that Admiral Rozhdestvensky’s
‘valeur militaire’ is unimpaired, and his ‘sentiments
d’humanité’ unimpeachable."
Naval Annual, 1905,
chapter vi.
Between the English and Russian governments the affair was
settled amicably by an indemnity of £65,000 from the latter to
the fishermen who suffered.
The first halt in Rozhdestvensky’s voyage was off Tangier,
where he divided his fleet, sending one division, under
Admiral Folkersahm, by the Suez Canal route, and leading the
other in person down the Atlantic and round the Cape. They met
off Madagascar on the 3d of January, and got news there of the
fall of Port Arthur and, later, of the defeat of the Russian
army at Mukden. The stay of the reunited fleet at Nossi Bé
island, off the west coast of Madagascar, near its northern
extremity, was prolonged, awaiting orders, till the 17th of
March. Nothing was known of its next movements until it was
seen off Singapore, April 8. Thence it proceeded to Kam-ranh
Bay, in French Indo-China, where it stayed for some weeks,
waiting to be joined by another squadron from the Baltic,
which came under the command of Admiral Nebogatoff. This use
of the waters of a neutral Power was bitterly complained of in
Japan and sharply criticised elsewhere. The whole fleet
resumed its northward voyage on the 14th of May, and on the
27th, in the Korean Straits, off the island of Tsushima, it
was intercepted by Admiral Togo’s fleet. An account of the
circumstances of the interception, and of the wonderfully
decisive battle which ensued, derived by Mr. George Kennan
from both Russian and Japanese participants in the engagement,
was published in The Outlook of July 29, 1905. Mr.
Kennan, who had been with the Japanese forces during the siege
of Port Arthur, and had described it for The Outlook,
obtained permission to visit some of the wounded and captured
officers of Rozhdestvensky’s fleet in hospital at one of the
naval stations in Japan. As he spoke their language they
talked with him freely, and information from both victors and
vanquished is thus combined in the account from which we quote
a few passages, as follows:
"When the Baltic fleet left the coast of Annam, on its way to
Vladivostok, Admiral Rojesvensky [so Mr. Kennan writes the
name] had no accurate information with regard to the
whereabouts of the Japanese squadrons. They might all be
concentrated in the Tsushima Strait, between Japan and Korea,
or they might be watching, in three separate detachments, the
three channels that give access to the Sea of Japan, viz,
Tsushima, Tsuguru, and La Perouse. Thinking that Togo would
not dare to leave wholly unguarded the two northern passages,
which are nearest to Vladivostok, Rojesvensky assumed that the
Japanese fleet had been divided into three sections, and that,
on any route which he might select, he would probably have to
deal with only one of them. …
"Admiral Togo, however, did not divide his fleet.
Anticipating, with acute prescience, the reasoning and the
decision of the Russian commander, he concentrated his whole
force in the Tsushima Strait, and concealed it so perfectly in
unfrequented harbors at the southern end of Korea that nobody
ever saw it or discovered its location. … It seems to have had
its main base near Masampho, Korea. The arrangements made for
discovering the approach and reporting the movements of the
Russian fleet were as comprehensive and perfect as possible.
{354}
All along the southwestern coast of Japan signal stations had
been established on prominent islands and on the tops of high
mountains, and every one of these ‘watch-towers,’ as they were
called, was connected by telephone, either with Sasebo or with
Maizuru. Fast scouting ships, equipped with wireless telegraph
instruments, patrolled the entrance to the strait, and on the
charts carried by them, as well as by all other vessels of the
Japanese fleet, the whole stretch of water between Japan and
Korea had been divided into small numbered squares, so that
the exact location of the enemy at any moment might be
designated by a number. There was no possibility of
Rojesvensky’s getting through the strait unobserved unless he
should be favored by dense fog.
"At five o’clock on the morning of Saturday, May 27, the
scouting ship Shinano-maru reported by wireless telegraphy
from the vicinity of Quelpart Island, ‘Enemy's fleet sighted
in square 203. He seems to be steering for the East Channel’
(the passage between Tsushima Island and the Japanese
mainland, which is called on English charts Krusenstern
Strait). The Japanese fleet, which was all ready for sea, left
its Korean base at once. Admiral Togo himself, with four
battle-ships and eight armoured cruisers, took a northerly
course in order to get ahead of the enemy and stop his
progress at or near Oki Island (Okinoshima), while Admirals
Kamimura, Uriu, Dewa, and Kataoka sailed in a southeasterly
direction for the purpose of enveloping his rear. The officers
last named came into touch with the Russian fleet between Iki
Island and Tsushima soon after ten o’clock; but as the
Japanese plan of action did not contemplate an attack at that
point, they merely kept the enemy in sight and reported to
Admiral Togo by wireless telegraphy the number and disposition
of his ships. Rojesvensky had in all thirty-eight vessels, and
they entered the strait in two parallel columns.
"The Russians, of course, saw on their left flank and in their
rear the squadrons of Admirals Kamimura, Kataoka, Uriu, and
Dewa, but, as these ships showed no disposition to attack,
they (the Russians) were confirmed in their belief that only a
part of the Japanese fleet was there, and that they should get
through the strait without a serious fight. They remained
under this delusion until half past one o’clock in the
afternoon, when, to their great surprise, Admiral Togo, with
four battle-ships and eight armored cruisers, appeared
directly ahead. … At 1.55 p. m., when the flag-ships of the
two fleets were a little more than four miles apart, Togo
hoisted the following signal: ‘The fate of the Empire depends
upon this battle. Let every man do his best.’ At two o’clock
the Japanese squadrons on the flank and rear of the Russians
closed in a little, and eight minutes later the fight began,
Admiral Togo opening fire at a distance of about four miles.
It became evident at once to the officers of the Orel that in
the matter of marksmanship they were wholly outclassed. The
fire of the Japanese was a little wild at first, but in a few
minutes they got the range with surprising accuracy, and
struck the leading battle-ships of the two Russian columns
with almost every shot. Ten minutes after the fight began, a
twelve-inch shell entered the forward turret of the Kniaz
Suvaroff, burst there with terrific violence, exploded three
or four rounds of ammunition that had just been brought up
from the magazine, wrecked both guns, and blew the top of the
turret completely off. In less than an hour the Russian
flag-ship had lost one mast and both funnels, and had taken
fire fore and aft; the Oslabya and the Alexander III. were
also in flames; the Orel, the Sissoi Veliki, and the Borodino
had been severely if not fatally injured; the Russian columns
had been broken up and thrown into disorder; and the issue of
the battle had been fully determined. In other words, the
Baltic fleet had been overwhelmed and defeated, by gun-fire
alone, in less than forty-five minutes. Most of the

second-class Russian vessels were still in fighting condition,
but the battle-ship section had lost more than half of its
original efficiency, and there was no longer any doubt as to
the outcome of the engagement. … Admiral Togo says, in his
detailed official report, that ‘at 2.45 p. m. the result of
the battle had been decided.’ And in this judgment the
officers of the Orel virtually coincide. They frankly admit
that they were overwhelmed from the very first by the accuracy
and destructiveness of Admiral Togo’s long-range gun-fire."
Though the result of the battle was made certain within its
first hour, the destruction of Russian ships went on to the
end of the day and through most of the night, with pursuit of
those in flight continued until the 26th. Twenty-two of the
Russian vessels of all classes were sunk, 6 were captured, 6
were afterwards interned in neutral ports, and two only made
their way to Valdivostok. The Japanese lost 3 torpedo boats;
116 of their officers and men were killed, and 538 received
wounds. The prisoners they captured numbered about 6000.
Admiral Rozhdestvensky, accused of cowardice in the battle,
was tried by court-martial and acquitted by a verdict rendered
in July, 1906.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904: A. D. 1904-1905.
War with Russia: Japan’s greatest achievement.
Sanitation of the Army.
"Without minimizing for a moment the splendor of Japanese
victories on land and sea, at Mukden, Port Arthur, Liao-Yang,
or with Togo off Tsushima, in the Korean Straits (and two of
these battles are among the bloodiest in history), I yet
unhesitatingly assert that Japan’s greatest conquests have
been in the humanities of war, in the stopping of the needless
sacrifice of life by preventable diseases. This dreadful and
unnecessary waste of life, especially in conflicts between
so-called civilized and Anglo-Saxon races, is one of the most
ghastly propositions of the age. The Japanese have gone a long
way toward eliminating it. …
"Longmore’s tables, which are accepted as the most reliable
statistics of war, and which are based on the records of
battles for the past two hundred years, show that there has
rarely been a conflict of any great duration in which at least
four men have not perished from disease for every one from
bullets. In the Russo-Turkish War, 80,000 men died from
disease and 20,000 from wounds. In the Crimean campaign, it is
asserted on eminent French authority that in six months the
allied forces lost 50,000 soldiers from disease and only 2,000
from casualties.
{355}
In the French campaign in Madagascar, in 1894, of the 14,000
men sent to the front 29 were killed in action and 7,000 from
disease, most of which was preventable. In our Spanish
American War, in 1898, in a campaign the actual hostilities of
which lasted six weeks, the deaths from casualties, as given
me by the surgeon-general of the United States army, last
week, were 293, while those from disease amounted to 3,681, or
nearly 14 to 1.
"Compare these frightful figures with the record of killed,
wounded, and sick in the Japanese army from February, 1904, to
May, 1905, as furnished me by Minister of War General
Terauchi, in Tokio, in August last. There were killed on the
field 43,892, or 7.32 per cent. of the entire army in the
field; there were wounded 145,527, or 24.27 percent.; there
died of wounds 9,054, or 1.51 percent.; there died from
sickness and disease, including contagious cases, 11,992, or
about 2 per cent. of the army. In other words, the total
number of deaths from casualties and wounds amounted to
52,946, or nearly 9 per cent, of the army, while the total
deaths from sickness amounted to 11,992, or 2 per cent. of the
army. This record is unparalleled and unapproached in the
history of warfare. How did the Japanese accomplish it? In
three preeminently fundamental ways. First, thorough
preparation and organization for war, such as was never before
made in history; second, through the simple, non-irritating,
easily digested ration furnished the troops; and third,
because of the brilliant part played by the members of the
medical profession in the application of practical sanitation
and the stamping out of preventable disease in the army,
thereby saving its great hosts for the legitimate purpose of
war, the defeating of the enemy in the field. …
"She organized her medical department on broad, generous
lines, and gave its representatives the rank and power their
great responsibilities merited, recognizing that they had to
deal with a foe which history has shown has killed 80 percent.
of the total mortality in other wars. She even had the
temerity (strange as it may seem to an American or an English
army official) to grade her medical men as high as the
officers of the line, who combat the enemy who kills only 20
per cent., and to accord them equal authority, except, of
course, in the emergency of battle, when all authority
devolves, as it should, on the officers of the line. In her
home land she organized the most splendid system of hospitals
that has ever been devised for the treatment of sick and
wounded, and with her army at the front she put into execution
the most elaborate and effective system of sanitation that has
ever been practised in war. Upon the declaration of war, she
was prepared to house, scientifically treat, and tenderly care
for 25,000 wounded in Japan alone, and as the war progressed
the hospital capacity was rapidly increased, so that one and
one-half years after its commencement, or on the sixth day of
July, 1905, the twelve military home hospitals possessed a
normal capacity of 58,261."
Major Louis L. Seaman, M. D.,
Lessons for America in the Japanese Medical Service
(American Review of Reviews November, 1905).
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905. War with Russia:
Casualties of the entire war on the Japanese side.
The following is an official Japanese statement of the
casualties of the entire war on the Japanese side:
"Killed in battle. 47,387
Died of wounds 11,500
Wounded, but recovered 161,925
Total killed and wounded 220,812
Died of sickness 27,158
Sick, but recovered 209,065
Total sick 236,223
Total of killed,
wounded, and sick 457,035
Total of fatal casualties 86,045
"These figures relate to the field only, not including cases
among the troops in Japan or Formosa, and they may be slightly
altered when all the reports of hospitals are compiled. Of
those who succumbed to disease nearly three-fourths died in
the field and one-fourth after reaching home.
"To find the total number of killed in battle and patients
treated the following additions must be made:
Total of killed, wounded,
and sick in the field 457,035
Patients treated at home 97,850
Russian prisoner patients 77,803
Grand total 632,688
"The above figures do not include slight cases remaining with
the Japanese regiments. In April, 1906, when these figures
were published, the Japanese missing had been reduced to
3,000.
"Comparative statement of the result of treatment, by wars:
Sick and wounded Wounded treated
treated in Hospital. in Hospital.
Recovered Died. Recovered Died.
completely. completely.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.
Chinese-Japanese war 50.94 14.24 63.23 7.49
Russo-Japanese war 54.81 7.65 71.58 8.83
"The difference between each of the totals and 100 represents
men incapacitated for active service.
"Comparative statement of cases and deaths from sickness and
wounds, by wars:
Wounded. Sick. Died of Died of
Wounds. Disease.
Chinese-Japanese 1 6.93 1 12.09
North China 1 4.37 1 1.97
Russo-Japanese 1 1.07 1 0.46
"Comparative statement of percentage of sickness in total
number of troops in field, by war:
Percentage of Percentage of deaths
sickness for all from sickness for
troops engaged. all troops engaged.
Chinese-Japanese 59.20 9.29
North China war 34.88 4.33
Russo-Japanese 36.04 2.99

"The average monthly percentage of sickness during the
twenty-one months of the Russo-Japanese war was 8.69, while
the average monthly percentage for 1902, which is said to have
had an exceptionally good medical record, was 10.21."
Charles Lynch,
Report (United States War Department,
Reports of Military Observers …
during the Russo-Japanese War, part 4).
{356}
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905.
General Consequences in Europe of the Russo-Japanese War.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905.
Conventions with Korea, establishing a Protectorate over
that Empire, with Control of its Finances and its
Foreign Relations.
See (in this Volume)
KOREA: A. D. 1904-1905.
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905.
The Red Cross Society.
See (in this Volume)
RED CROSS SOCIETY.
JAPAN: A. D. 1905.
Report on treatment of the Opium Problem in Formosa.
See (in this Volume)
OPIUM PROBLEM.
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (June-October).
Ending of the war with Russia.
Mediation offered by the President of the United States
and accepted.
Negotiation and Conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Portsmouth.
In the third article of the Convention for the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes agreed to and signed at
the First International Peace Conference, at The Hague, in
1898, it was recommended, "in case of serious disagreement or
conflict," "that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute,
should on their own initiative, and as far as circumstances
may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States
at variance." To this recommendation was added the declaration
that "Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to
offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of
hostilities"; and "that the exercise of this right can never
be regarded by one or the other of the parties in conflict as
an unfriendly act."
The first important action on this recommendation was taken by
the President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, on the 8th
of June, 1905, when he directed a communication from the then
acting Secretary of State, Mr. Loomis, to be dispatched by
telegraph to the Ambassadors of the United States at Tokyo and
St. Petersburg, identically the same to each, and to be
presented by the latter to the Governments of Russia and
Japan. The communication was in the following words:
"The President feels that the time has come when, in the
interest of all mankind, he must endeavor to see if it is not
possible to bring to an end the terrible and lamentable
conflict now being waged. With both Russia and Japan the
United States has inherited ties of friendship and good will.
It hopes for the prosperity and welfare of each, and it feels
that the progress of the world is set back by the war between
these two great nations. The President accordingly urges the
Russian and Japanese Governments, not only for their own
sakes, but in the interest of the whole civilized world, to
open direct negotiations for peace with one another. The
President suggests that these peace negotiations be conducted
directly and exclusively between the belligerents—in other
words, that there may be a meeting of Russian and Japanese
plenipotentiaries or delegates without any intermediary, in
order to see if it is not possible for these representatives
of the two powers to agree to terms of peace. The President
earnestly asks that the Russian Government do now agree to
such meeting, and is asking the Japanese Government likewise
to agree. While the President does not feel that any
intermediary should be called in in respect to the peace
negotiations themselves, he is entirely willing to do what he
properly can if the two powers concerned feel that his
services will be of aid in arranging the preliminaries as to
the time and place of meeting; but if even these preliminaries
can be arranged directly between the two powers, or in any
other way, the President will be glad, as his sole purpose is
to bring about a meeting which the whole civilized world will
pray may result in peace."
The despatch to Tokyo was delayed in transmission and did not
reach Minister Griscom until the evening of the 9th, but was
delivered to the officials of the foreign office the same
night, and the following reply from Baron Komura was handed to
Mr. Griscom at 1 o’clock on the morning of the 10th:
"The Imperial Government have given to the suggestion of the
President of the United States, embodied in the note handed to
the minister for foreign affairs by the American minister on
the 9th instant, the very serious consideration to which,
because of its source and its import, it is justly entitled.
Desiring in the interest of the world as well as in the
interest of Japan the reestablishment of peace with Russia, on
terms and conditions that will fully guarantee its stability,
the Imperial Government will, in response to the suggestion of
the President, appoint plenipotentiaries of Japan to meet
plenipotentiaries of Russia at such time and place as may be
found to be mutually agreeable and convenient, for the purpose
of negotiating and concluding terms of peace directly and
exclusively between the two belligerent powers."
At St. Petersburg, the reply from Count Lamsdorff, Minister
for Foreign Affairs, was given to Ambassador Meyer on the 12th
as follows:
"I have not failed to place before my august master the
telegraphic communication which your excellency has been
pleased to transmit to me under instructions of your
government. His Majesty, much moved by the sentiments
expressed by the President, is glad to find in it a new proof
of the traditional friendship which unites Russia to the
United States of America, as well as an evidence of the high
value which Mr. Roosevelt attaches, even as His Imperial
Majesty does, to that universal peace so essential to the
welfare and progress of all humanity. With regard to the
eventual meeting of Russian and Japanese plenipotentiaries,
‘in order to see if it is not possible for the two powers to
agree to terms of peace,’ the Imperial Government has no
objection in principle to this endeavor if the Japanese
Government expresses a like desire."
This Russian response seemed somewhat equivocal to the
Japanese Government, and Foreign Minister Komura asked for an
assurance as to the powers to be conferred on the peace
plenipotentiaries from St. Petersburg. How the assurance was
obtained has not been made known to the public; but Japan
received it soon through President Roosevelt, and Baron Komura
requested Mr. Griscom to "assure the President that the
attitude taken by the Japanese Government regarding the nature
of the powers to be conferred on the peace plenipotentiaries
was not in any degree inspired by a desire to raise
difficulties or delay negotiations.
{357}
Experience has taught the necessity of caution, and the
Japanese Government thought that by securing at the outset a
common understanding upon this subject they would preclude
possibility of any difficulty arising in the initial stage of
negotiations and would smooth the way for the real work of the
negotiators; but having entire confidence in the wisdom of the
President, the Japanese Government accepts his interpretation
of the intention of Russia and will without further question
appoint plenipotentiaries with full powers to negotiate and
conclude terms of peace."
In consultations as to the place of meeting, Russia suggested
Paris and Japan proposed Chefu, but objections were raised to
both, as well as to The Hague and Geneva, recommended by
President Roosevelt. Japan wanted it nowhere in Europe and
Russia would have it nowhere in the East; so Washington became
the chosen point. But, when one of the first ten days of
August became the appointed time of assembly for the
negotiation, the probable heat of Washington was forbidding,
and Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where the Government of the
United States possesses an island domain of its own, for
navy-yard uses, was finally fixed on for the most important
peace-parley that has taken place in the world within a
century, at the least.
The plenipotentiaries commissioned by Japan were Baron Komura
Iutaro and Mr. Takahira Kogoro, then Japanese Minister at
Washington. Mr. Nelidoff, Russian Ambassador at Paris, was
named in the first instance for chief plenipotentiary by the
Tzar, but illness prevented his serving. Mr. Nicholas
Mouravieff, Ambassador at Rome, was then appointed, but became
equally disabled in health, and M. Sergius Witte took his
place, with Baron Roman Rosen, Russian Ambassador at
Washington, associated in the mission. On Saturday, the 5th of
August, on board the Government yacht Mayflower, at
Oyster Bay, the summer residence of President Roosevelt, the
four plenipotentiaries, attended by members of their
respective suites, were received by the President, introduced
to each other, and entertained at a lunch. Thence they were
conveyed, by separate vessels, first to Newport, where Sunday
was spent, and afterwards to Portsmouth. Their conference was
opened on Wednesday, the 9th, and the resulting Treaty of
Peace was signed by the negotiators, September 5th.
At the outset of their communications with each other the
differences of mind seemed insurmountable. How they were
brought to agreement has been told by two writers who had
better opportunities, perhaps, for knowing the inner
circumstances of the negotiation than any other persons
outside of the plenipotentiaries themselves. One of these was
Dr. Frederick de Martens, the eminent Russian Professor of
International Law, who came as a special consulting delegate
with M. Witte. In an article on "The Portsmouth Peace
Conference," published in The North American Review of
November, 1905, he wrote:
"During three long weeks the pourparlers between the
representatives of the two Powers seemed to show the absolute
impossibility of attaining the desired object, that is, peace.
There were especially two obstacles in the way—the Japanese
demands that Russia should cede Saghalin and that Russia
should pay Japan a war indemnity. These two conditions Russia
categorically rejected, and the failure of the Conference
seemed inevitable. Then it was that the President of the
United States, again basing his action on the principles of
the Hague Convention, considered himself once more justified
in intervening between the two disputing nations. At first,
Mr. Roosevelt proposed that a Commission composed of neutrals,
whose decision however, would not be binding on the contending
parties, should fix the amount of the sum that Russia should
pay to Japan. But this proposal was immediately abandoned
because of its evidently impracticable nature. The second
intervention of the President was more effective and happy.
Japan was now to be asked to withdraw her demand for an
indemnity, and the Tsar, who desired sincerely to see the
unfortunate war ended, was to consent to the cession of the
southern portion of the island of Saghalin. It was at the
sitting of August 29th that an accord, based on these mutual
concessions, was brought about; and, during the six days that
followed, the stipulations of the definitive treaty of peace
were drawn up by a commission named for that purpose. At last,
on September 5th, the treaty was concluded, and a battery of
artillery, in front of the building where the sittings had
been held, fired a salute of nineteen guns in honor of the
great event."
F. de Martens,
The Portsmouth Peace Conference
(North American Review, November, 1905).
To the same effect Dr. E. J. Dillon, the well known publicist,
who had been an intermediary in some of the preliminary
unofficial diplomacy, wrote in The Contemporary Review of October as follows:
"The Peace of Portsmouth is the outcome of rare moral courage
meeting, assailing and worsting a combination of forces, the
classification and labelling of which had best be left to the
future historian and biographer who can appreciate, without
bias and blame, without apprehension. The first man to display
that unwonted moral courage was Theodore Roosevelt, whose
influence for good on the living and working of nations is a
beneficent force to which the world is beginning to look as to
some permanent institution. It is not too much to say that if
Japan and Russia are at peace today, if countless human beings
doomed seemingly until a few weeks ago to a terrible death on
the battlefield are now about to return to their homes and
families and set about building up instead of pulling down,
the credit for this welcome change in international relations
is due in the first place to the President of the United
States. …
"There was hardly a man in Russia acquainted with the elements
of the problem who considered Mr. Roosevelt’s invitation to a
peace conference as other than a voice crying in the
wilderness. He had felt his way some months before and
convinced himself that it then led nowhither. Soon afterwards
I was myself authorised to put forth a feeler and inquire
whether a war indemnity formed part of Japan’s irreducible
minimum. And the result of that inquiry was that hostilities
were allowed to take their course.
{358}
"After the Battle of Mukden Mr. Roosevelt again returned to
the attack, moving slowly and very cautiously, but creating
his opportunity as well as utilising it, advising as well as
questioning, exhorting almost as much as he argued. With
Japan, whose statesmen he knew well, and with the mainsprings
of whose action he was perfectly familiar, he experienced no
difficulty. What Nippon said, she really meant; what she
promised—but not one iota more—she religiously fulfilled; and
both her declarations and her promises apparently flowed from
a desire to do what every man in the forum of his own
conscience would term the right thing. Probably never before
in human history has the world’s cultivated sense of what is
fair and just been taken by any nation, Christian or
non-Christian, as its own standard of ethics, its own rule of
action regardless of immediate consequences. …
"And Japan’s capacity and readiness to sacrifice the less to
the greater, the material to the moral, was, so to say, the
fulcrum on which Mr. Roosevelt rested his lever. All the force
of his endeavours was concentrated here, all his fund of
optimism was derived from this source.
"But it takes two to make peace as well as to make war. And
the President’s great and greatest difficulty was to persuade
Russia, not indeed to imitate Japan’s example, but to consult
what to outsiders appeared to be her own national interest and
to make peace on acceptable terms."
E. J. Dillon,
The Story of the Peace Negotiations
(Contemporary Review, October, 1905).
The Treaty of Peace thus happily agreed upon at Portsmouth was
duly ratified by the Emperors of Russia and Japan, at St.
Petersburg and at Tokyo simultaneously, on the 14th of
October, 1905. The following is the text of the Treaty in
full:
JAPAN:
The treaty of peace signed at Portsmouth.
By the helping grace of God, we, Nicholas II, Emperor and
Autocrat of all the Russias, etc., hereby declare that, in
consequence of a mutual agreement between us and His Majesty,
the Emperor of Japan, our plenipotentiaries concluded and
signed at Portsmouth, August 23, 1905, a treaty of peace
which, word for word, reads as follows:
His Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, on the one hand,
and His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, on the other baud,
being animated by the desire to restore the benefits of peace
for their countries and their peoples, have decided to
conclude a treaty of peace and have appointed for this purpose
their plenipotentiaries, to wit:
His Majesty the Emperor of Russia—
His Excellency, Mr. Sergius Witte, his secretary of state and
president of the committee of ministers of the Empire of
Russia, and
His Excellency, Baron Roman Rosen, master of the Imperial
Court of Russia and his ambassador extraordinary and
plenipotentiary to the United States of America:
And his Majesty, the Emperor of Japan—
His Excellency, Baron Komura Iutaro, Iusammi, knight of the
Imperial Order of the Rising Sun, his minister of foreign
affairs, and His Excellency, Mr. Takahira Kogoro, Iusammi,
knight of the Imperial Order of the Sacred Treasure, his envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the United
States of America;
Who, after having exchanged their full powers, found in good
and due form, concluded the following articles:
Article I.
There shall be in the future peace and friendship between
Their Majesties the Emperor of all the Russias and the Emperor
of Japan, as well as between their respective nations and
subjects.
Article II.
The Imperial Government of Russia, recognizing that Japan has
predominant political, military, and economic interests in
Korea, agrees not to interfere or place obstacles in the way
of any measure of direction, protection, and supervision which
the Imperial Government of Japan may deem necessary to adopt
in Korea.
It is agreed that Russian subjects in Korea shall be treated
in exactly the same manner as the citizens of other foreign
countries; that is, that they shall be placed on the same
footing as the citizens of the most-favored nation.
It is likewise agreed that, in order to avoid any cause of
misunderstanding, the two high contracting parties shall
refrain from adopting, on the Russo-Korean frontier, any
military measures which might menace the security of the
Russian or Korean territory.
Article III.
Russia and Japan mutually engage:
1. To completely and simultaneously evacuate Manchuria, with
the exception of the territory over which the lease of the
peninsula of Liao tung extends, in accordance with the
provisions of additional Article I annexed to this treaty, and
2. To entirely and completely restore to the exclusive
administration of China all parts of Manchuria now occupied by
Russian and Japanese troops, or which are under their control,
with the exception of the above-mentioned territory.
The Imperial Government of Russia declares that it has no
territorial advantages or preferential or exclusive
concessions in Manchuria of such a nature as to impair the
sovereignty of China or which are incompatible with the
principle of equal opportunity.
Article IV.
Russia and Japan mutually pledge themselves not to place any
obstacle in the way of general measures which apply equally to
all nations and which China might adopt for the development of
commerce and industry in Manchuria.
Article V.
The Imperial Government of Russia cedes to the Imperial
Government of Japan, with the consent of the Government of
China, the lease of Port Arthur, of Talien, and of the
adjacent territories and territorial waters, as well as the
rights, privileges, and concessions connected with this lease
or forming part thereof, and it likewise cedes to the Imperial
Government of Japan all the public works and property within
the territory over which the above-mentioned lease extends.
The high contracting parties mutually engage to obtain from
the Government of China the consent mentioned in the foregoing
clause.
The Imperial Government of Japan gives on its part the
assurance that the property rights of Russian subjects within
the above-mentioned territory shall be absolutely respected.
{359}
Article VI.
The Imperial Government of Russia obligates itself to yield to
the Imperial Government of Japan, without compensation and
with the consent of the Chinese Government, the Chan-chun
(Kwan-Chen-Tsi) and Port Arthur Railroad and all its branches,
with all the rights, privileges, and property thereunto
belonging within this region, as well as all the coal mines in
said region belonging to this railroad or being operated for
its benefit.
The two high contracting parties mutually pledge themselves to
obtain from the Chinese Government the consent mentioned in
the foregoing clause.
Article VII.
Russia and Japan agree to operate their respective railroads
in Manchuria for commercial and industrial purposes
exclusively, but by no means for strategic purposes. It is
agreed that this restriction does not apply to the railroads
within the territory covered by the lease of the Liao tung
peninsula.
Article VIII.
The Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan, with a view to
favoring and facilitating relations and traffic, shall
conclude, as soon as possible, a separate convention to govern
their operations of repair on the railroads in Manchuria.
Article IX.
The Imperial Government of Russia cedes to the Imperial
Government of Japan, in perpetuity and full sovereignty, the
southern part of the island of Saghalin, and all the islands
adjacent thereto, as well as all the public works and property
there situated. The fiftieth parallel of north latitude is
adopted as the limit of the ceded territory. The exact
boundary line of this territory shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of additional Article II
annexed to this treaty.
Japan and Russia mutually agree not to construct within their
respective possessions on the island of Saghalin, and the
islands adjacent thereto, any fortification or similar
military work. They likewise mutually agree not to adopt any
military measures which might hinder the free navigation of
the Straits of La Perouse and Tartary.
Article X.
The right is reserved to Russian subjects inhabiting the
territory ceded to Japan to sell their real property and
return to their country; however, if they prefer to remain in
the ceded territory, they shall be guarded and protected in
the full enjoyment of their property rights and the exercise
of their industries, provided they submit to the laws and
jurisdiction of Japan. Japan shall have perfect liberty to
withdraw the right of residence in this territory from all
inhabitants laboring under political or administrative
incapacity, or to deport them from this territory. It pledges
itself, however, to fully respect the property rights of these
inhabitants.
Article XI.
Russia obligates itself to reach an understanding with Japan
in order to grant to Japanese subjects fishing rights along
the coast of the Russian possessions in the Seas of Japan,
Okhotsk, and Bering. It is agreed that the above-mentioned
obligation shall not impair the rights already belonging to
Russian or foreign subjects in these regions.
Article XII.
The treaty of commerce and navigation between Russia and Japan
having been annulled by the war, the Imperial Governments of
Russia and Japan agree to adopt as a basis for their
commercial relations, until the conclusion of a new treaty of
commerce and navigation on the basis of the treaty in force
before the present war, the system of reciprocity on the
principle of the most favored nation, including import and
export tariffs, custom-house formalities, transit and tonnage
dues, and the admission and treatment of the agents, subjects,
and vessels of one country in the territory of the other.
Article XIII.
As soon as possible, after the present treaty takes effect,
all prisoners of war shall be mutually returned. The Imperial
Governments of Russia and Japan shall each appoint a special
commissioner to take charge of the prisoners. All prisoners in
the custody of one of the governments shall be delivered to
the commissioner of the other government or to his duly
authorized representative, who shall receive them in such
number and in such suitable ports of the surrendering nation
as the latter shall notify in advance to the commissioner of
the receiving nation.
The Governments of Russia and Japan shall present to each
other, as soon as possible after the delivery of the prisoners
has been completed, a verified account of the direct
expenditures made by them respectively for the care and
maintenance of the prisoners from the date of capture or
surrender until the date of their death or return. Russia
agrees to refund to Japan, as soon as possible after the
exchange of these accounts, as above stipulated, the
difference between the actual amount thus spent by Japan and
the actual amount likewise expended by Russia.
Article XIV.
The present treaty shall be ratified by Their Majesties the
Emperor of all the Russias and the Emperor of Japan. This
ratification shall, within the shortest possible time and at
all events not later than fifty days from the date of the
signature of the treaty, be notified to the Imperial
Governments of Russia and Japan, respectively, through the
ambassador of the United States of America at St. Petersburg
and the minister of France at Tokyo, and from and after the
date of the last of these notifications this treaty shall
enter into full force in all its parts. The formal exchange of
the ratifications shall take place at Washington as soon as
possible.
Article XV.
The present treaty shall be signed in duplicate, in the French
and English languages. The two texts are absolutely alike;
however, in case of difference of interpretation the French
text shall prevail.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have
signed the present treaty of peace and affixed thereto their
seals.
Done at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the twenty-third day of
August (fifth of September) of the year one thousand nine
hundred and five, corresponding to the fifth day of the ninth
month of the thirty-eighth year of Meiji.
IUTARO KOMURA. [L. S.]
K. TAKAHIRA. [L. S.]
SERGIUS WITTE. [L. S.]
ROSEN. [L. S.]
In conformity with the provisions of Articles II and IX of the
treaty of peace between Russia and Japan under this date, the
undersigned plenipotentiaries have concluded the following
additional articles:
{360}
I. To Article III:
The Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan mutually agree to
begin the withdrawal of their military forces from the
territory of Manchuria simultaneously and immediately after
the entrance into force of the treaty of peace; and within a
period of eighteen months from this date the armies of the two
powers shall be entirely withdrawn from Manchuria, with the
exception of the leased territory of the peninsula of
Liao-tung.
The forces of the two powers occupying advanced positions
shall be withdrawn first.
The high contracting parties reserve the right to maintain
guards for the protection of their respective railroad lines
in Manchuria.
The number of these guards shall not exceed 15 men per
kilometer, and within the limit of this maximum number the
commanders of the Russian and Japanese armies shall, by mutual
agreement, fix the number of guards who are to be employed,
this number being as low as possible and in accordance with
actual requirements. The commanders of the Russian and
Japanese forces in Manchuria shall reach an understanding
regarding all the details connected with the evacuation, in
conformity with the principles herein above set forth, and
shall, by mutual agreement, adopt the measures necessary to
carry out the evacuation as soon as possible and at all events
within a period not exceeding eighteen months.
II. To Article IX:
As soon as possible after the present treaty takes effect, a
boundary commission composed of an equal number of members
appointed respectively by the two high contracting parties
shall mark on the spot and in a permanent manner the exact
line between the Russian and Japanese possessions on the
island of Saghalin. The commission shall be obliged, as far as
topographical conditions permit, to follow the 50th parallel
of north latitude for the line of demarcation, and in case any
deviations from this line are found necessary at certain
points compensation shall be made therefor by making
corresponding deviations at other points. It shall also be the
duty of said commission to prepare a list and description of
the adjacent islands which are comprised within the cession,
and finally the commission shall prepare and sign maps showing
the boundaries of the ceded territory. The labors of the
commission shall be submitted to the approval of the high
contracting parties.
The additional articles mentioned hereinabove shall be
considered as being ratified by the ratification of the treaty
of peace, to which they are annexed.
Portsmouth, August 23 (September 5), 1905, corresponding to
the 5th day, 9th month and 28th year of Meiji.
IUTARO KOMURA.
K. TAKAHIRA.
SERGIUS WITTE.
ROSEN.
The ratification by the Tsar was in the following terms:
Therefore, after mature consideration of this treaty and the
two additional articles, we approved, confirmed, and ratified
them, and do hereby approve, confirm, and ratify them in their
full purport, pledging our imperial word for ourselves, our
successors, and our heirs, that everything set forth in the
above-mentioned acts shall be inviolably observed. In witness
whereof we, having signed this, our imperial ratification,
with our own hand, have ordered affixed thereto our imperial
seal.
Given at Peterhoff, the first day of October, in the year of
our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five and of our reign
the eleventh.
On the original is written in His Imperial Majesty’s own hand:
L. S. "NICHOLAS."
countersigned
COUNT LAMSDORFF,
Secretary of State, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (August).
New Defensive Agreement between Great Britain and Japan.
On the 12th of August, 1905, three days after the
plenipotentiaries of Japan and Russia had held their first
meeting at Portsmouth and opened the negotiations which
resulted in a Treaty of Peace, a new Agreement of defensive
alliance between Japan and Great Britain, replacing that of
three years before, was signed at London, but not made public
until the 6th of September, the day following the conclusion
of the Russo-Japanese Treaty of Peace.
See, above,
JAPAN: A. D. 1902.
It was then communicated to the Governments of Russia and
France, through the medium of the British Ambassadors at St.
Petersburg and Paris, with an accompanying explanatory
despatch from Lord Lansdowne, as follows:
"Sir, I inclose, for your Excellency's information, a copy of
a new Agreement concluded between His Majesty’s Government and
that of Japan in substitution for that of the 30th January,
1902. You will take an early opportunity of communicating the
new Agreement to the Russian Government. It was signed on the
12th August, and you will explain that it would have been
immediately made public but for the fact that negotiations had
at that time already commenced between Russia and Japan, and
that the publication of such a document whilst those
negotiations were still in progress would obviously have been
improper and inopportune.
"The Russian Government will, I trust, recognize that the new
Agreement is an international instrument to which no exception
can be taken by any of the Powers interested in the affairs of
the Far East. You should call special attention to the objects
mentioned in the preamble as those by which the policy of the
Contracting Parties is inspired. His Majesty’s Government
believe that they may count upon the good-will and support of
all the Powers in endeavouring to maintain peace in Eastern
Asia, and in seeking to uphold the integrity and independence
of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities
for the commerce and industry of all nations in that country.
"On the other hand, the special interests of the Contracting
Parties are of a kind upon which they are fully entitled to
insist, and the announcement that those interests must be
safeguarded is one which can create no surprise, and need give
rise to no misgivings.
"I call your especial attention to the wording of Article II,
which lays down distinctly that it is only in the case of an
unprovoked attack made on one of the Contracting Parties by
another Power or Powers, and when that Party is defending its
territorial rights and special interests from aggressive
action, that the other Party is bound to come to its
assistance.
{361}
"Article III,
dealing with the question of Corea, is deserving of especial
attention. It recognizes in the clearest terms the paramount
position which Japan at this moment occupies and must
henceforth occupy in Corea, and her right to take any measures
which she may find necessary for the protection of her
political, military, and economic interests in that country.
It is, however, expressly provided that such measures must not
be contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the
commerce and industry of other nations. The new Treaty no
doubt differs at this point conspicuously from that of 1902.
It has, however, become evident that Corea, owing to its close
proximity to the Japanese Empire and its inability to stand
alone, must fall under the control and tutelage of Japan.
"His Majesty’s Government observe with satisfaction that this
point was readily conceded by Russia in the Treaty of Peace
recently concluded with Japan, and they have every reason to
believe that similar views are held by other Powers with
regard to the relations which should subsist between Japan and
Corea.
"His Majesty’s Government venture to anticipate that the
alliance thus concluded, designed as it is with objects which
are purely peaceful and for the protection of rights and
interests the validity of which cannot be contested, will be
regarded with approval by the Government to which you are
accredited. They are justified in believing that its
conclusion may not have been without effect in facilitating
the settlement by which the war has been so happily brought to
an end, and they earnestly trust that it may, for many years
to come, be instrumental in securing the peace of the world in
those regions which come within its scope.
JAPAN:
Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan.
"PREAMBLE.
The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, being desirous of
replacing the agreement concluded between them on the 30th of
January, 1902, by fresh stipulations, have agreed upon the
following articles, which have for their object—
(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in
the regions of Eastern Asia and of India.
(b) The preservation of the common interests of all powers in
China, by insuring the independence and integrity of the
Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for
the commerce and industry of all nations in China.
(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the high
contracting parties in the regions of eastern Asia and of
India, and the defense of their special interests in the said
regions.
"ARTICLE I.
It is agreed that whenever in the opinion of either Great
Britain or Japan any of the rights and interests referred to
in the preamble of this agreement are in jeopardy, the two
governments will communicate with one another fully and
frankly and will consider in common the measures which should
be taken to safeguard those menaced rights or interests.
"ARTICLE II.
If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action,
wherever arising, on the part of any other power or powers
either contracting party should be involved in war in defense
of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in
the preamble of this agreement, the other contracting party
will at once come to the assistance of its ally and will
conduct the war in common and make peace in mutual agreement
with it.
"ARTICLE III.
Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic
interests in Korea, Great Britain recognizes the right of
Japan to take such measures of guidance, control, and
protection in Korea as she may deem proper and necessary to
safeguard and advance those interests, provided always that
such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal
opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations.
"ARTICLE IV.
Great Britain having a special interest in all that concerns
the security of the Indian frontier, Japan recognizes her
right to take such measures in the proximity of that frontier
as she may find necessary for safeguarding her Indian
possessions.
"ARTICLE V.
The high contracting parties agree that neither of them will
without consulting the other enter into separate arrangements
with another power to the prejudice of the objects described
in the preamble of this agreement.
"ARTICLE VI.
As regards the present war between Japan and Russia, Great
Britain will continue to maintain strict neutrality unless
some other power or powers should join in hostilities against
Japan, in which case Great Britain will come to the assistance
of Japan and will conduct the war in common and make peace in
mutual agreement with Japan.
"ARTICLE VII.
The conditions under which armed assistance shall be afforded
by either power to the other in the circumstances mentioned in
the present agreement, and the means by which such assistance
is to be made available, will be arranged by the naval and
military authorities of the contracting parties, who will from
time to time consult one another fully and freely upon all
questions of mutual interest.
"ARTICLE VIII.
The present agreement shall, subject to the provisions of
Article VI., come into effect immediately after the date of
its signature and remain in force for ten years from that
date. In case neither of the high contracting parties should
have notified twelve months before the expiration of the said
ten years the intention of terminating it, it shall remain
binding until the expiration of one year from the day on which
either of the high contracting parties shall have denounced
it. But if when the date fixed for its expiration arrives
either ally is actually engaged in war the alliance shall
ipso facto continue until peace is concluded."
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (December).
Treaty with China relative to Manchuria.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1905 (DECEMBER).
JAPAN: A. D. 1905-1909.
Korea under Japanese Control.
The rule of Prince Ito.
Insurrection and its suppression.
Constructive and Reformative Work.
See (in this Volume)
KOREA: A. D. 1905-1909.
JAPAN: A. D. 1905-1909.
Disputes with China.
The Fa-ku-menn Railway and
the Antung-Mukden Railway Questions.
Settlement of the latter by Japanese Ultimatum.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1905-1909.
JAPAN: A. D. 1906.
Chinese Students in the Country.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: CHINA: A. D. 1906.
{362}
JAPAN: A. D. 1906.
Resentment at Segregation of Oriental Children in
San Francisco Schools.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
JAPAN: A. D. 1907.
Riotous attacks on Japanese laborers in British Columbia
and the State of Washington.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: CANADA.
JAPAN: A. D. 1907 (June).
Treaty with France concerning affairs in the East.
A treaty between the governments of Japan and France was
signed on the 10th of June, 1907, according to which France
recognizes the rights of Japan in Korea and her special
interests in Manchuria, and Japan, on her side, promises not
to interfere with French possessions in Siam and Indo-China.
JAPAN: A. D. 1908 (May).
Slender victory of the Saionji Ministry in
the Parliamentary Elections.
Parliamentary elections in May, 1908, gave the Ministry a bare
probability of support by combinations of the party of Prince
Ito—the Rikken Seiyu-kai—with some of the other partly
sympathetic groups. The maintenance of the prudent policy of
Government since the close of the great war, against the Jingo
element, was left somewhat precarious.
JAPAN: A. D. 1908 (November).
Exchange of Notes with the United States, embodying an
important Declaration of Common Policy in the East.
On the 30th of November, 1908, distinct form was given to a
common understanding between Japan and the United States, as
to their agreement in purposes and policy touching affairs in
the East. The form was not that of a treaty, but of a simple
Declaration, identical in notes exchanged at Washington
between Secretary Root and Ambassador Takahira. The following
is the text of the Declaration:
"I.
It is the wish of the two Governments to encourage the free
and peaceful development of their commerce on the Pacific
Ocean.
"II.
The policy of both Governments, uninfluenced by any aggressive
tendencies, is directed to the maintenance of the existing
status quo in the region above mentioned, and to the
defense of the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and
industry in China.
"III.
They are accordingly firmly resolved reciprocally to respect
the territorial possessions belonging to each other in said
region.
"IV.
They are also determined to preserve the common interests of
all Powers in China by supporting, by all pacific means at
their disposal, the independence and integrity of China and
the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and industry
of all nations in that Empire.
"V.
Should any event occur threatening the status quo as
above described, or the principle of equal opportunity as
above defined, it remains for the two Governments to
communicate with each other, in order to arrive at an
understanding as to what measures they may consider it useful
to take.
JAPAN: A. D. 1908-1909.
Suppression of Race-track Gambling.
See (in this Volume)
GAMBLING.
JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
Material Development of the Country.
"The mileage of Japanese railways, now over 5,000 miles, has
been quadrupled within 20 years—without counting the Korean
and South Manchurian railways, which are owned by Japanese
companies. The development of posts, telegraphs, and
telephones has proceeded on an even greater scale, and the
revenues of the department, which only amounted in 1899 to
£1,740,000, exceeded £3,850,000 in 1909, whilst the amount

invested in postal savings banks rose during the same decade
from under £2,200,000 to £10,698,409. The Japanese merchant
flag, represented by a steam tonnage of nearly one and a
quarter million tons, is known in every sea, and the Nippon
Yusen Kaisha, on one of whose excellent steamers I crossed the
Pacific a few weeks ago, has alone a well-equipped fleet of
265,000 tons in the aggregate, running not only to the United
States and to Europe, but to South America and Australia,
besides local services in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean
waters. …
"Powerful firms like the Mitsui, the Mitsubishi, Messrs.
Okura, Messrs. Takata, &c., take a leading part in every
branch of a national import and export trade which has risen
within 30 years from under £6,000,000 to nearly £100,000,000
in 1907. Great industrial cities have grown up like Osaka, the
centre of the cotton-spinning industry, whose population, less
than 400,000 a quarter of a century ago, now exceeds
1,200,000. The aggregate capital of Japanese industrial
companies, which in 1882 was estimated at £10,000,000, rose
within the same period to more than £126,000,000, and in the
cotton industry alone the number of spindles increased from
65,000 to over one and a half million. According to statistics
collected by Mr. Takahashi and Mr. Igarashi, the national
wealth of Japan was assessed at the beginning of 1905 at close
upon £2,500,000,000, to which must now be added, over and
above any normal increment, the economic value of the position
she has acquired in Southern Manchuria and Korea."
Correspondent of The Times, London.
JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
Parties in Domestic Politics.
The present parties in the lower house of the Japanese
Parliament were thus described by the Tokio correspondent of
the London Times, in January, 1909:
"The Lower House consists of 379 members. These are divided
into five sections—namely,
the Seiyu-kai (192 members),
the Progressists (67),
the Boshin Club (42),
the Yushin-kai (44) and
the Daido Club (34).
If any man were required to indicate clearly the lines of
division between these sections, he would be much perplexed to
do so. On the broad bases of Liberalism and Conservatism the
first four occupy the same Liberal platform, while the last
stands as the sole exponent of Conservative views. Yet the
four Liberal sections are not more hostile to each other than
the fifth is to all. They are held asunder by traditions and
by prejudices.
"The Seiyu-kai has fought its way to an overwhelmingly strong
position in the face of perennial opposition from the
Progressists. Once only did the two join hands, but their
union lasted no more than a few weeks, and they separated with
a strong access of mutual rancour. Yet both had entered the
arena originally as champions of the same cause,
constitutional government, and nothing held them apart save
personal rivalries. In the course of their 28 years of
strenuous evolution, they gradually sloughed off their
extremists, and these constitute the present
Yushin-kai, a coterie of brilliant Radical free-lances,
whose hand may be said to be against every one.
{363}
The Daido Club are frank Conservatives. They are the
only unequivocal supporters of the Cabinet now in office. …
There remain the Boshin Club. They are an association
of business men—the first political association of that
complexion in Japan. The early Diets were all conspicuously
deficient in representatives of the commercial and
manufacturing classes; mainly because politics had become a
more or less discredited pursuit before ever a general
election was held, and partly because the urban population did
not return a due proportion of members. The latter defect
having been remedied by the new election law of 1901, there
was thereafter found in the Lower House a group of men calling
themselves ‘Independents,’ but always seen in the Government
lobby. In fact their sense of business interests prompted them
to lend their support to the principle of stable Cabinets
above everything."
JAPAN: A. D. 1909.
Present Status of Christianity.
See (in this Volume)
MISSIONS, CHRISTIAN.
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (July-September).
The State of the War Debt and its Payment.
The following is a Press despatch from Tokyo to London, July
17, 1909:
"At the close of 1906, when Japan came to make out the
accounts of her war with Russia, she found that she had
incurred a total expenditure of about 1,700 million yen
(£170,000,000). By that amount her national debt was
increased. She then determined to lay aside every year a sum
of at least 110 million yen (£11,000,000) for the service of
the debt. That did not mean, of course, that redemptions
aggregating 110 millions were to be made annually. These 110
millions were for the service of the debt; in other words,
they were for the purpose of paying interest as well as
principal. The portion applicable to redemption would be from
30 to 37 millions yearly, and the loan would thus be
completely paid off in about 30 years. That was the programme
when the Marquis Katsura came into office. But very soon he
announced the Treasury’s intention of increasing the
redemption fund to 50 millions. That is to say, he added some
16 millions to the money available for paying off the debt;
and evidently, if the increase were permanent, the whole
indebtedness would be wiped off in about 20 years instead of
30, as originally planned. Still better things, however, are
said to be contemplated. The sum actually devoted to the
sinking fund during the last fiscal year was 50,800,000 yen,
and since the interest on that amount will go to augment the
redemption fund during the current year, the amount paid off
from that source will be 53,340,000 yen. To this it is
proposed to add another 10 millions obtained from the national
growth of the State’s income, for the experience of the last
year encourages the belief that such growth may be confidently
expected, the actual development of the ordinary revenue
having reached a sum of over 30 millions. It is further
expected that from 1912 onwards the yield from the Customs
duties will advance from 38 to 53 millions, unless Japan
manages her negotiations for tariff revision clumsily."
Speaking to the Bankers’ Club at Tokyo in September, 1909,
Premier Katsura expressed the belief that the financial
condition of the country was encouraging, and while
maintaining that the present system of finances was excellent,
he expressed the hope to improve it steadily until perfection
is reached. The premier said that the government’s policy
would begin this year, and the development of resources and
the avoidance of unproductive expenditure would be
consistently followed. He announced the following measures as
forming part of the financial programme for the ensuing year:—
1. Reduction and modification of the war taxes in order to
relieve the pressure on the people.
2. Increase of the sinking fund. By the allocation of a
considerable amount out of the surplus of previous years the
sum of 53,000,000 yen (£5,300,000) previously fixed for this
service will be greatly exceeded.
3. The raising of the salaries of all Government officials by
30 per cent. This reform had been delayed by the outbreak of
the Russo-Japanese war.
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Burning of Osaka.
See (in this Volume)
OSAKA.
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (September).
Visit of a Commercial Commission to the United States.
A large party of prominent Japanese business men, headed by
Baron Shibusawa, and coming as a Commercial Commission to seek
more intimate commercial relations between Japan and the
United States, landed at Seattle on the 1st of September,
1909, and toured the country for a number of weeks. The party
received much attention and were entertained most hospitably
everywhere, nowhere with more warmth than on the Pacific
Coast, where ill-feeling toward Japan had been manifested in
some circles a few years before. In a statement to the Press
at Seattle Baron Shibusawa said: "It is interesting to note
that while different European nations are talking about the
increase of armament, and when especially great rulers are
exchanging visits accompanied by warships, the Japanese people
are perfectly satisfied in sending us plain business men on a
peaceful mission to this great commercial country. I have been
told that Japan is spoken of as a warlike nation, but this is
altogether absurd. We are all deeply interested in the
development of the Japanese-American commercial relations,
which, of all reasons, prompts us to pay a visit to your
country. Let us therefore work for the extension of commercial
relations to our mutual interests. We must go hand in hand
with you to develop the vast field in the East."
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (October).
Assassination of Prince Ito.
Prince Hirobumi Ito, the man of most light and leading, as he
appears to have been, in the transformation of Japan within
the past half century, was foully assassinated on the 26th of
October, 1909, at Kharbin, or Harbin, Manchuria. He had gone
to Kharbin to meet M. Kokovsoff, Russian Minister of Finance,
for a conference on the Manchurian questions that had arisen
between Russia and Japan. As he stepped from the railway train
which brought him to the city, and was approaching the
Minister, who came to welcome him, he was fired upon from the
surrounding crowd. Three revolver shots struck the Prince, two
of which inflicted wounds that caused his death within twenty
minutes. Three of his attendants were wounded, not fatally, by
other shots. All were found to have been fired by one
bystander, who proved to be a Korean. The assassin made no
attempt to escape, but exclaimed when seized: "I came to
Kharbin for the sole purpose of assassinating Prince Ito, to
avenge my country." He had two companions who boasted of being
parties to the crime. He was subsequently identified as Indian
Angan, formerly editor of a newspaper at Seoul.
{364}
Since retiring from his responsible post in Korea, as
Resident-General, Prince Ito had resumed the presidency of the
Privy Council, in the Japanese Government, which Prince
Aritomo Yamagata had filled during his absence. Prince
Yamagata was now reappointed to that office. He and Prince Ito
had been intimate friends, and yet political opponents,
differing in opinions and heading rival parties, but always
acting together on the vital questions of national policy.
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (December).
Naval Armament, Present and Prospective.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL: JAPAN.
----------JAPAN: End--------
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION:
The Resistance to it in America, Australia, and South Africa.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS.
JEANES, Miss Anna T.:
Great Gift to Schools for Southern Negroes.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES. A. D. 1907.
JEROME, William Travers:
Reelection as District Attorney of the County of New York.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905.
JEWS, THE: In Roumania.
Oppressions.
Remonstrance of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: ROUMANIA.
JEWS, THE:
Persecution and Massacre in Russia.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904, and 1903 (APRIL).
JIMENEZ, President: His overthrow.
See (in this Volume)
SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1904-1907.
JOAN OF ARC, Beatification of.
See (in this Volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1909 (APRIL).
JOINT STATEHOOD ACT.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906.
JOLO, Sultan of.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901-1902.
JONES, John Paul:
Recovery and removal of his remains from Paris.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
JOUBERT-PIENAAR, General F.:
On Slavery in Portuguese Africa.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: PORTUGUESE: A. D. 1905-1908.
JUAREZ, BENITO:
Celebration of his centenary.
See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1906.
JUDSON, Harry Pratt:
President of the University of Chicago.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: A. D. 1901-1909.
JUNIOR REPUBLIC, The.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
JUSTH, M. de.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.
JUVENILE COURTS.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
JUVENILE REFORM.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
K.
KAFFIR, The Problem of the.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: IN SOUTH AFRICA.
KAIPING.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
KAJAR TRIBE, The:
The Tribe of the Persian Imperial Dynasty.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
KAMIMURA, Admiral.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
KANO:
British capture.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1903 (NIGERIA).
KANSAS: A. D. 1904.
Legislation and action against the Standard Oil Company.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.:
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
KARAGEORGEVICH.
See (in this Volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: SERVIA.
KATANGA, Railway Lines to.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: CENTRAL AFRICA.
KATSURA, Count:
His Ministry strengthened by Marquis Ito.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).
KAULBARS, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (SEPTEMBER-MARCH).
KAWAMURA, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (SEPTEMBER-MARCH).
KELANTAN:
Cession of Suzerainty to Great Britain.
See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1909.
KELLY, Charles F.:
Confessions as a "Boodler."
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
KENNEDY, John Stewart, the Bequests of.
See (in this Volume)
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS.
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Tobacco Farmers’ Union and its Night Riders.
"Kentucky has been having an experience unique, costly,
tragic, and probably to some extent valuable, with the farmers
engaged in the chief agricultural industry of the state—
growing tobacco. Some 80,000 of them, representing probably
400,000 of the population of the state, have been engaged in a
union demonstration for the purpose of securing higher pay.
The result has been in some sections anarchy, in all great
distress. …
"A trust having arisen in New York which was able to control
the output, and therefore to make prices to suit itself, the
farmers have answered this trust by forming under the equity
society a union of their own, and going on a strike for higher
prices. … The union to which I refer is the Burley Tobacco
Society, in Kentucky. It is organized to oppose the exactions
of the American Tobacco Company of New Jersey. Tobacco is
grown in several distinct districts in Kentucky, and there, as
elsewhere, each district has, by reason of soil or climate, a
virtual monopoly of its own type. Down in the southwestern
corner, in the so-called Black Patch, embracing several
counties of Tennessee, a dark and heavy leaf is grown and
fire-cured for the foreign trade. This is bought by
government, or so-styled ‘regie’ buyers. North of this is a
heavy leaf stemmed for the British trade. North and east of
this is the region in which a dark air-cured leaf is grown for
domestic uses. East of this, embracing all Blue Grass and
extending to Maysville, is the Burley district, in which is
grown the famous red and white Burley tobacco. …
{365}
"Pooling tobacco in Kentucky started down in the Black Patch,
or received its greatest impetus there. The regie buyers
combined, or were formed into a combination by their
superiors, and the Patch was districted, each man being given
an exclusive territory, and no farmer being allowed to sell to
any one but his own buyer. In this way a set price as low as
four cents was made, and the farmer had no option but to take
it; no option, at least, that was open to the farmer not rich
enough to ship his crop to Bremen and seek European
competition. In this situation a group of canny planters
formed a tight little corporation of $200 capital, for the
avowed purpose of holding, handling, buying, and selling
tobacco. They induced about a thousand of their
neighbors—there are forty thousand dark-tobacco growers in the
Patch—to pledge their crops with them, and they planned to
hold this much off the market and compel the regie buyers to
pay a higher price for it. This proving popular, they soon had
five thousand pledges. Then they—or interests closely allied
with them—organized a band of Ku-Klux, called Night Riders,
who, first by so-called ‘peace armies,’ and then by raiding at
night all who resisted, frightened or forced—during the next
three years—all the forty thousand to sign.
"The tight little corporation thus had a monopoly of the dark
tobacco. It forced the regie buyers to pay a price raised by
slow degrees to 11 cents round, exacted large commissions and
profits,—as much as 1500 per cent a year on the capital,—and
now controls the Black Patch absolutely. All its pledges
expire in January, 1909, and the situation will then become
anarchistic. The success of this Black Patch plan was entirely
due to the employment of Night Riders, who correspond to the
professional ‘sluggers’ of a labor union, or the hired
assassins of a Black-Hand league."
J. L. Mathews,
The Farmers’ Union and the Tobacco Pool
(Atlantic Monthly, October, 1908).
KHARBIN, OR HARBIN, RUSSIAN CONTROL AT.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1909 (MAY).
KHARBIN: A. D. 1909.
Assassination of Prince Ito.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).
KHARKOFF, DISTURBANCES IN.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
KHARTUM, THE NEW.
See (in this Volume)
SUDAN, THE: A. D. 1907.
KHARTUM, THE NEW:
Gordon Memorial College.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: EGYPT.
KIAMIL PASHA: GRAND VIZIER.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.
KIEFF, DISTURBANCES IN.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
KINCHOU, BATTLE OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-July), and
1904-1905 (May-January).
KINGSTON, Jamaica: A. D. 1907.
Destruction of Kingston.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: JAMAICA.
KINSHU-MARU, THE INCIDENT OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
KIPLING, RUDYARD.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
KIRDORF, HERR:
Head of the Coal and Steel Syndicates in Germany.
His attitude towards the Workingmen.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1907.
KISHINEFF, JEWISH MASSACRE AT.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1903 (APRIL).
KITCHENER OF KHARTUM, GENERAL LORD:
In South Africa.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
KITCHENER OF KHARTUM, GENERAL LORD:
In India.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
KLERKSDORP CONFERENCE.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
KNIAZ POTEMKIN, MUTINY ON THE.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
KNIGHTS OF LABOR.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES.
KNOX, PHILANDER C.:
Attorney-General.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
KNOX, PHILANDER C.:
Secretary of State.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
KOCH, Robert.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
KOCHER, E. T.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
KOMURA, BARON IUTARO,
Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
KOMURA, BARON IUTARO,
Japanese Plenipotentiary for negotiating
Treaty of Peace with Russia.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
KONDRATENKO, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
KOREA: A. D. 1901-1904.
Japanese distrust of Russian designs.
Negotiations and demands.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
KOREA: A. D. 1902.
Agreement respecting Korea between Great Britain and Japan.
See (in this Volume)
Japan: A. D. 1902.
KOREA: A. D. 1904 (February).
Occupation by the Japanese.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
KOREA: A. D. 1904-1905.
Conventions with Japan, creating Protectorate Relations
with that Empire and submitting Financial and
Diplomatic Affairs to Japanese control.
On the 25th of February, 1904, the text of a protocol,
concluded on the 23d, between the Governments of Japan and
Korea, was communicated to the Government of the United States
(and, of course to others), by the Government of Japan, with
an accompanying explanation, as follows:
"In the prosecution of the present war the use of some of the
ports and some portions of the territory of Korea is found
inevitable, and therefore, with a view to facilitate military
operations and to show that such use of ports and territory is
made with the full knowledge and consent of Korea, and not in
disregard or violation of her independence or territorial
integrity, and also in order to prevent future complications,
the Japanese Government concluded with the Korean Government
on the 23d instant the following protocol. …
"ARTICLE I.
For the purpose of maintaining permanent and solid friendship
between Japan and Korea and firmly establishing peace in the
Far East, the Imperial Government of Korea shall place full
confidence in the Imperial Government of Japan and adopt the
advice of the latter with regard to improvements in
administration.
"ARTICLE II.
The Imperial Government of Japan shall, in a spirit of firm
friendship, insure the safety and repose of the Imperial House
of Korea.
{366}
"ARTICLE III.
The Imperial Government of Japan definitively guarantee the
independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire.
"ARTICLE IV.
In case the welfare of the Imperial House of Korea or the
territorial integrity of Korea is endangered by the aggression
of a third power or internal disturbances, the Imperial
Government of Japan shall immediately take such necessary
measures as circumstances require, and in such case the
Imperial Government of Korea shall give full facilities to
promote the action of the Imperial Japanese Government. The
Imperial Government of Japan may, for the attainment of the
above-mentioned object, occupy, when circumstances require it,
such places as may be necessary from strategic points of view.
"ARTICLE V.
The Government of the two countries shall not in future,
without mutual consent, conclude with a third power such an
arrangement as may be contrary to the principles of the
present protocol.
"ARTICLE VI.
Details in connection with the present protocol shall be
arranged as the circumstances may require between the
representative of Japan and the minister of state for foreign
affairs of Korea."
On the 30th of August, 1904, an additional Agreement between
the Governments of Japan and Korea, signed in part on the 19th
and in part on the 22d of that month, was communicated by the
Japanese Ambassador to the United States to the State
Department at Washington, with a note saying: "In
communicating this agreement to the Government of the United
States I am instructed to say that it is nothing more than the
natural consequence or development of the protocol concluded
between the Japanese and Korean Governments on the 23rd of
last February, which I had the honor to communicate at that
time for the information of the Government of the United
States. I am further directed to say that the agreement does
not in anywise interfere with the full operation or validity
of Korea’s existing treaties; and that Article II thereof is
not intended to place any impediment in the way of legitimate
enterprise in Korea, but merely to check, as far as possible,
the future conclusion of unwise and improvident engagements,
which in the past have been fruitful sources of trouble and
complication."
The Agreement thus announced was in the following terms:
"ARTICLE I.
The Korean Government shall engage a Japanese subject
recommended by the Japanese Government as financial adviser to
the Korean Government, and all matters concerning finance
shall be dealt with after his counsel shall have been taken.
"ARTICLE II.
The Korean Government shall engage a foreigner recommended by
the Japanese Government as diplomatic adviser to the foreign
office, and all important matters concerning foreign relations
shall be dealt with after his counsel shall have been taken.
"ARTICLE III.
The Korean Government shall consult the Japanese Government
before concluding treaties and conventions with foreign
powers, and also in dealing with other important diplomatic
affairs, such as grants of concessions to or contracts with
foreigners."
Writing of this Agreement a few days later to the State
Department at Washington, the American Minister to Japan, Mr.
Lloyd Griscom, remarked:
"It is interesting to note that Mr. Megata, selected to be
financial adviser to the Korean Government, was educated in
America and is a graduate of Harvard University, and Mr.
Stevens, who has been chosen as adviser to the foreign office,
is an American gentleman about whom it would be superfluous to
inform you."
Under a third Agreement, signed April 1, 1905, Japan took over
the control and operation of the post, telegraph, and
telephone services of Korea, in order to "rearrange the system
of communications in that country, and, by amalgamating it
with that of Japan, to unite the two systems into one."
Finally, on the 17th of November, 1905, a fourth Agreement was
signed, which definitely surrendered to Japan the "control and
direction of the external relations and affairs of Korea," in
the following stipulations:
"ARTICLE I.
The Government of Japan, through the department of foreign
affairs in Tokyo, will hereafter have control and direction of
the external relations and affairs of Korea and the diplomatic
and consular representatives of Japan will have the charge of
the subjects and interests of Korea in foreign countries.
"ARTICLE II.
The Government of Japan undertake to see to the execution of
the treaties actually existing between Korea and other powers,
and the Government of Korea engage not to conclude hereafter
any act or engagement having an international character,
except through the medium of the Government of Japan.
"ARTICLE III.
The Government of Japan shall be represented at the court of
His Majesty the Emperor of Korea by a resident general, who
shall reside at Seoul primarily for the purpose of taking
charge of and directing the matters relating to diplomatic
affairs. He shall have the right of private and personal
audience of His Majesty the Emperor of Korea. The Japanese
Government shall have the right to station residents at the
several open ports and such other places in Korea as they may
deem necessary.
"Such residents shall, under the direction of the resident
general, exercise the powers and functions hitherto
appertaining to Japanese consuls in Korea, and shall perform
such duties as may be necessary in order to carry into full
effect the provisions of this agreement.
"ARTICLE IV.
The stipulations of all treaties and agreements existing
between Japan and Korea not inconsistent with the provisions
of this agreement shall continue in force.
"ARTICLE V.
The Government of Japan undertake to maintain the welfare and
dignity of the Imperial House of Korea."
With the communication of this Agreement to foreign Powers
there went a declaration by the Japanese Government, in part
as follows:
"The relations of propinquity have made it necessary for Japan
to take and exercise, for reasons closely connected with her
own safety and repose, a paramount interest and influence in
the political and military affairs of Korea. The measures
hitherto taken have been purely advisory, but the experience
of recent years has demonstrated the insufficiency of measures
of guidance alone.
{367}
The unwise and improvident action of Korea, more especially in
the domain of her international concerns, has in the past been
the most fruitful source of complications. To permit the
present unsatisfactory condition of things to continue
unrestrained and unregulated would be to invite fresh
difficulties, and Japan believes that she owes it to herself
and to her desire for the general pacification of the extreme
East to take the steps necessary to put an end once for all to
this dangerous situation."
KOREA: A. D. 1904-1905.
Status of the Korean Empire under Japanese Control.
The Japanese View.
"After her quick entry into Seoul at the outbreak of the war,
Japan found herself precisely in the position which she had
long desired to establish. The plan of joint non-intervention
in Korean affairs as agreed upon between Japan and Russia in
1896 and 1898 [see, in Volume VI. of this work, Korea], which
had again and again resulted in competitive intervention, had
proved disastrous to the interest of Japan and of general
reform; but now Russia had abruptly withdrawn from Seoul, and
Japan found herself free to move alone. Thereupon she hastened
to impose upon the Korean Foreign Minister a treaty of
alliance [as above], on February 23, 1904, which laid the
foundation for all Japan’s subsequent conduct in the
peninsula. …
"An analysis and interpretation of the forces which the war
has set loose and which are bringing their inevitable
consequences would be highly instructive. Let us, however,
content ourselves here by pointing to the Korean clauses in
the three important documents concluded within the last two
years, in which the rapid development of the Korean problem is
easily traceable,—namely, the Korean-Japanese treaty of
alliance of February 23, 1904, the Russo-Japanese treaty of
peace signed on September 5, 1905 [see, in this Volume, JAPAN;
A. D. 1905 (June-October)], and the Anglo Japanese agreement
of alliance concluded on August 12 [see JAPAN: A. D. 1905
(August)], and published with Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch to the
British Ambassador at St. Petersburg on September 26, 1905. It
will be remembered that the first instrument at once placed
Korea under Japan’s military protection and administrative
guidance, and bound Japan to uphold Korea’s independence and
territorial integrity, including the safety of her Imperial
house. One will readily observe that two distinct points are
here involved. These two points the further progress of
events, some of which have already been described, seems to
have put so far apart, that in the treaty of Portsmouth
Japan’s preponderance over Korea was recognized by Russia,
while little was said of the independence of the peninsular
empire. It was even said that M. Witte insisted during the
discussion of the clause that Baron Komura should declare in
his proposed terms that Japan intended to make of Korea a
province of the Japanese Empire. This the Baron is reported to
have emphatically declined, presumably because he would not
consider the protection by Japan and the territorial integrity
of Korea incompatible with each other. The difference between
the theoretical and practical situation is, however, reflected
unmistakably in the Anglo-Japanese agreement, the third
article of which reads: ‘Japan possessing paramount political,
military, and economic interests in Korea, Great Britain
recognizes Japan’s right to take such measures for the
guidance, control and protection of Korea as she may deem
proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests,
providing the measures so taken are not contrary to the
principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry
of all nations.’ In other words, Japan is left free to control
Korea and then prevail upon the latter to open her door
equally wide to all nations, including Japan herself. After
specially dwelling on the substance of this article, Lord
Lansdowne says in his dispatch: ‘The treaty at this point
differs conspicuously from that of 1902. It has, however,
become evident that Korea, owing to its close proximity to the
Japanese Empire, and to its inability to stand alone, must
fall under the control and tutelage of Japan. His Majesty’s
Government observes with satisfaction that this point has been
readily conceded by Russia in the treaty of peace, and there
is every reason to believe that similar views are held by the
other Powers with regard to the relations which should subsist
between Japan and Korea.’ Thus are Korea’s alleged incapacity
of self-government and Japan’s need of control over the
peninsular affairs openly recognized by a third Power, and it
is taken for granted that no other Power will deny these
points. Such a declaration could not be made, it is admitted,
in 1902, when the first treaty of alliance was concluded, nor
perhaps even at the time when the Korean-Japanese protocol was
signed in February, 1904. Yet the doctrine of Korea’s
independence is still not theoretically contradictory with
this situation now recognized by the Russian and British
governments, nor has it become less effective than in the last
year, for, while the control by Japan has since been
tightened, Korea remains a separate empire with all the
sovereign rights of an independent State. Japan, speaking
technically, exercises a supervisory control and discharges
administrative functions entrusted to her care. The future
trend of affairs—whether the Korean independence will vanish
into a mere fiction as the Japanese control advances, or
whether under the latter the peninsular people will be trained
to an effective self-government—must largely be determined by
the mutual interaction of the complex factors, both Korean and
Japanese, public and private, conscious and unconscious, which
are steadily working out the destiny of the peninsula."
K. Asakawa,
Korea and Manchuria under the New Treaty
(Atlantic Monthly, November, 1905).
KOREA: A. D. 1905 (August).
New Agreement concerning Korea between Great Britain and Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
KOREA: A. D. 1905-1909.
Japanese Control of Korean Affairs.
Under Prince Ito.
Attempted appeal of Korea to the Hague Conference of 1907.
Enforced abdication of the Emperor.
Elevation of his Son to the Throne.
Extensive and fierce Revolt rigorously fought down.
Retirement of Prince Ito.
Recent Measures.
As to the use made by the Japanese of the entireness of their
domination in Korea, as conceded to them in the treaties
referred to above, by the Government of Korea, primarily, and
by Great Britain and Russia, secondarily, in their recognition
and endorsement of the status thus established, there has been
much controversy since.
{368}
The Koreans themselves have been loud complainants of harsh
and oppressive exercises of Japanese power in their country,
and have found many sympathizers among the western peoples to
denounce their alleged wrongs. On the other hand, many foreign
visitors to Korea, after careful observation of conditions in
the country, have borne strong testimony in favor of the
Japanese conduct of Korean affairs. Professor George T. Ladd,
for example, of Yale University, is one of these witnesses
whose judgment has great weight. Having gone to Japan to give
a course of lectures there, Professor Ladd was asked by Prince
Ito, the Japanese Resident-General in Korea, to visit the
latter country as an observer, and lend counsel to the Prince
relative specially to some matters that touched American
missions. His subsequent book, entitled "In Korea with Prince
Ito," represents, beyond question, a careful and candid study
of conditions which he had the best of opportunities for
becoming rightly acquainted with. It does not approve or
justify everything that the Japanese dictators of Korean
administration were doing, but it represents the general
motive and intent of their undertakings to have been for the
improvement of the people and country whose affairs they had
taken into their hands. The same may be said of what has been
written of Korea since the Russo-Japanese war by Mr. George
Kennan, the experienced traveller in the East and student of
its peoples and their life.
The truth appears to be that the Japanese are using their
power in Korea as justly, as honestly, as rightly as the
English are using similar power in Egypt, as the Americans are
using it in the Philippine Islands, or as any people has ever
used the power to dictate government to another people. The
question of right and wrong in all such cases goes back of the
mode of using the overlordship, and is a question of the right
to hold it for any mode of use. That there was compulsion in
the procurement of the convention by which the Emperor of
Korea and his decadent Government surrendered themselves to
the dictatorial protection of Japan goes without saying. That
there is not a strong nation in the world to-day that would
not, in the same circumstances, have exercised the same
compulsion and wrung the same surrender, is just as
indisputable; but the political morality of the world is still
too undeveloped for that fact to be exonerating. It only
"sights" the political ethics of Japan along the level of our
Christendom, and finds her to be, at least, not below it.
Soon after the Convention of November 17, 1905 had been
signed, Marquis Ito, the Japanese Resident-General in Korea,
invited the newspaper editors in Seoul to a luncheon, at which
he addressed them, as reported at the time, partly in these
words:
"If the state of affairs in Korea be examined, it is found
that the relations between sovereign and subject, government
and governed, are of a very distant nature, and are by no
means so close as those in Japan. Hence it becomes inevitable
to adopt toward the Government measures of a more or less
compulsory nature. The people, however, are eminently peaceful
and quiet, and toward them, therefore, the policy pursued must
be one of gentle persuasion. Those are points which have to be
kept in view not merely by our officials, but also by all
Japanese subjects residing in Korea. Such Japanese subjects
must carefully refrain from all acts of violence to which
their country’s victories may prompt them, and must be guided
by a spirit of kindness in their dealings with the Koreans.
Already the United States representative in Seoul has received
instructions from his Government for the removal of the legation,
and it may be assumed that the other powers will similarly
recognize Japan’s convention. It will then be for Japan not to
forget the duties that heaven has delegated to her, but to
lead Korea gently and helpfully along the path of progress,
for assuredly anything like arbitrary or coercive conduct will
earn for Korea the sympathy of the nations, and will defeat
the true and abiding policy of Japan."
Discontent, complaint, resistance in Korea were inevitable,
whatever treatment the country in so helpless and humbled a
situation might receive. By a dexterous movement in 1907 it
compelled the world to take notice of its plight. The Emperor,
or his immediate entourage, succeeded by some means in fairly
smuggling out of the country a delegation commissioned to
claim a hearing before the Peace Conference at The Hague.
Their claim was effectually extinguished by the agreement of
1904, which turned over to Japan the whole management of the
foreign affairs of Korea; but the Korean situation was
discussed widely for a time. Nothing of benefit to the native
Korean Government, however, came from the event. The iron hand
of Japanese control was laid in heavier pressure on the feeble
court, at once. The nominal Korean Ministry was made to demand
and compel the abdication of the Emperor, on the ground that
he had endangered the national welfare by violation of the
treaty of August, 1904. His young son was crowned in his
stead, and Korea was required to submit to a new Agreement,
signed on the 24th of July, 1907, by which the
Resident-General "acquired initiative as well as consultatory
competence to enact and enforce laws and ordinances, to
appoint and remove Korean officials, and to place capable
Japanese subjects in the ranks of Korean officialdom." Special
provision was made for the separation of the Judiciary and the
Executive, so as to put an end, wrote an English
correspondent, "to the grievous corruption practised under a
system which invested provincial governors and district
magistrates with judicial functions, reducing the
administration of justice to a mere matter of favour or
interest." Under this new agreement the Resident-General
acquired authority sufficient to overcome obstruction, for it
pledged the Government of Korea to act under his guidance in
matters of administrative reform; not to enact any laws or
take any important measures without his previous assent; and
not to appoint or dismiss high officials without his
concurrence.
The attempt to carry an appeal to the Hague Conference was not
fortunate for Korea in the result. As a coup it was skilfully
executed, but can hardly be regarded as shrewd in the
planning. It was attributed, in both plan and execution, to an
American, Mr. Homer B. Hurlbert, who went to Korea as an
educator some years before, under an appointment by the
Government of the United States, on an official request from
Korea; who had acquired much influence there and was
strenuously a partisan of the Koreans, as against the
Japanese.
{369}
Publishing a small periodical, the Korean Review, Mr.
Hurlburt became an effective champion of their cause, publicly
as well as privately in the native counsels of the overlorded
empire. In the latter capacity he was pitted against another
American, Mr. Durham White Stevens, whose appointment by
Japanese selection, in 1904, to be adviser to the Korean
Foreign Office, is mentioned above. Originally in the service
of his own country, Mr. Stevens had then become official
adviser to the Japanese Legation at Washington, and passed
from that to the service in Korea. His fidelity to Japanese
interests centered on him the animosity of the rebellious
element in Korea, and he fell a victim to their hate.
The forcing of the old Emperor from the throne and the
exaction of a more direct and complete submission of Korea to
Japanese rule had provoked an extensive revolt. This was made
more serious by an acknowledged mistake committed by Prince
Ito, in disbanding the Korean army. A correspondent of the New
York Evening Post, who wrote from Tokyo on the 14th of
December, 1908, gave this account of the effect, and of the
dreadful suffering of the country from the conflict that
followed, in 1907-1908:
"The discharged soldiers, stung by the disgrace of dismissal
and the dishonor of forced submission to hated intruders,
quickly spread all over the country, stirring up their
compatriots to a fearless and often a fatal zeal against the
alien administration. The Japanese authorities forthwith set
about a vigorous suppression of the malcontents, even to the
extent of a merciless annihilation of life and a wholesale
destruction of property. … The rebel forces only waxed more
formidable, until by the approach of spring the insurgent
bands were so widely distributed and menacing that no Japanese
could safely venture beyond the confines of well-guarded towns
and cities.
"Accordingly the imperial authorities were driven to replace
their new policy of remaining on the defensive by the former
one of extermination, and no quarter. Last summer, therefore,
a well-organized campaign for completely wiping out the
insurrectionary forces was resolved upon and put into
execution. … A proclamation had previously been issued to the
effect that all Koreans affording food or shelter to the
insurgents, or in any way rendering assistance liable to
involve a charge of complicity, would be summarily dealt with;
while those who surrendered to the proper authorities would be
pardoned. The message placed the people between the devil and
the deep sea. If the natives refused assistance to the
insurgents, obedience would be required of them at the point
of the bayonet by their insulted fellow-patriots; while if
they were suspected of thus acquiescing, they perished at the
hands of the Japanese soldiery. Under the circumstances the
Koreans naturally chose rather to die serving their own people
than to suffer the same fate by resisting them."
A tragical incident of this fierce struggle was the
assassination of Mr. Durham White Stevens, while visiting the
United States. He had been marked for death by the Korean
insurgents, and was slain by their emissaries, in March, 1908,
soon after his landing in California.
The correspondent above quoted regarded the insurrection as
having spent its force at the time of his writing, December,
1908. Against the enormous destruction of life and property
which the suppression of it had cost, he proceeded to set a
brief summary of the simultaneous constructive and reformative
work which the Japanese had been carrying on. This was
described more broadly, however, a little later, by a writer
in the London Times, from whom we quote;
"The coasts have been lighted and buoyed; posts, telegraphs,
and, telephones have been provided; roads and railways have
been built; public buildings have been erected; various
industrial enterprises have been started, as printing,
brick-making, forestry, and coal-mining; model farms have been
laid out; the cultivation of cotton has been commenced and
promises to become a great industry; an industrial training
school has been built and equipped; an exposition has been
held in Seoul; sanitary works have been inaugurated; fine
hospitals and medical schools have been opened; an excellent
educational system modelled on that of Japan has been
organized; waterworks have been constructed in several towns;
and, last though not least, complete freedom of conscience has
replaced the old anti-Christian bigotry."
In June, 1909, the veteran statesman, Prince Ito, was relieved
of the trying office of Resident-General in Korea, and
succeeded by Viscount Sone, who had previously served with him
as Vice Resident-General. A Tokyo correspondent wrote of the
change:
"It was first planned to appoint Viscount Terauchi, minister
of war in the Japanese Cabinet, to the residency in Korea, but
Prince Ito objected, pointing out to the ministers that the
selection of Viscount Terauchi, a lieutenant-general, would be
considered as a triumph for the military regime and an
abandonment and disavowal of Prince Ito’s policy for the
peaceful development of Korea. As usual, Prince Ito’s advice
was accepted by his fellow statesmen, and Viscount Sone, who
received his training in Korea under the administration of
Prince Ito, was named to the post.
"A high officer said to-day that when the Korea residency was
created it was incumbent upon Japan to send her most able
statesman, Prince Ito, to fill the important post. He
formulated his policy of administration without interference,
and while some of the leading men of Japan were inclined to
doubt the wisdom of that policy they are now virtually
converted to his ideas, and it is generally believed that the
feeling of confidence and friendship for Japan can be created
among the Koreans and make the country doubly valuable."
Further changes in the administration of Korean affairs
attended this official change. They were reported to the
London Times by its Tokyo correspondent, July 18, as
follows:

"Japan has just taken some important steps in Korea, the
occasion chosen being the simultaneous presence of the
outgoing and the incoming Residents-General in Seoul. She has
made arrangements for the establishment of a central bank
under official auspices, and she has negotiated for the
abolition of the two Departments of War and Justice. … The
capital will be one million sterling in £10 shares, 30,000 of
which shares will be allotted to the Korean Government, the
remainder being offered for subscription in Korea and Japan.
… An important feature is that all the bank’s officers will
be nominated by the Japanese Government, though they may
include Korean subjects.
{370}
"This being a purely financial measure which falls naturally
into its place in the sequence of Japan’s protectorate
programme has not attracted any special attention. Not so,
however, the abolition of the Korean Department of Justice,
and its replacement by a bureau in the Residency-General. The
immediate effect of that change is to convert the Korean
Courts of law into branches of the Japanese tribunals of
justice. Korean laws will, of course, be administered—and
their revision and codification cannot be accomplished in a
moment—but all the occupants of the bench will be selected
and appointed by Japan, and if competent Koreans cannot be
found, or until they are educated, Japanese alone will be
nominated. Japan is to bear the charges of this arrangement—
namely, £50,000 annually. The innovation is not so radical as
it appears at first sight. Already the assistant Judges in the
principal Courts were Japanese subjects, so that what is now
done is to extend the system rather than to alter it. …
"These things may be regarded as a definite step towards the
reality of Japan’s control in Korea. There have been three
distinct stages in her attitude towards her neighbour: first,
the advisory stage; then the stage of subordinate
administration; and finally the stage of well-nigh effective
direction. The first stage was antecedent to the Convention of
November, 1906. During that period Japan limited herself to
tendering counsels which Korea adopted or rejected at will.
The second stage was marked by assumption of entire authority
in the realm of foreign affairs; entire authority in the
domain of communications; practically entire authority in
military and police affairs, and vicarious authority in the
Departments of State by means of Vice-Ministers, in the field
of justice by the agency of assistant judges, and in
provincial administration by means of secretaries who ranked
as assistant-governors. The third stage has just been
inaugurated; military control has been made complete; judicial
control has been made complete, and financial control has been
made well-nigh complete. Very little remains to be done."
----------KOREA: End--------
KOSSUTH, Ferencz:
Leader of the Independence Party in Hungary.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903; 1904;
1905-1906; 1908-1909.
KRATZ, Charles:
Municipal "Boodler" of St. Louis.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
KRONSTADT:
Revolutionary Disturbances.
The treachery that defeated the Rising of 1906.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER), and
1906 (AUGUST).
KUANG-HSU: Emperor of China.
His death.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).
KUENSAN HILL, CAPTURE OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
KULTURKAMPF, The.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: PRUSSIA; A. D. 1904.
KURINO: JAPANESE MINISTER AT ST. PETERSBURG.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
KUROKI, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.
KUROPATKIN, General:
In the Russo-Japanese War.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.
KUYPER, REVEREND DR. ABRAHAM.
See (in this Volume)
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.
L.
LABOR EXCHANGES ACT, British.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: ENGLAND.
----------LABOR ORGANIZATION: Start--------
Trade Unions
Labor Parties
Strikes
Lockouts
Mediations
Arbitrations
Industrial Agreements
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Australia: A. D. 1886-1906.
The Rise of the Labor Party.
Its rigorous organization.
Some account of the part played in Australian politics by the
Labor Party is given elsewhere.
See, in this Volume,
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1903-1904, and after.
The circumstances of the rise and growth of the party are
related briefly and the rigorousness of its organization is
described in the following:
"To trace the origin of the movement we must go back to the
fall of prices which began about 1886, to the succeeding lean
years 1886-1892, and the miseries of the consequent period of
unsuccessful strikes. The strikers and their working-class
sympathizers were taunted with appealing to brute force, and
recommended to depend rather upon constitutional political
methods for the redress of grievances. The workingmen took the
advice and bettered it. The trades unions devoted a portion of
their funds and much of their energy to political propaganda.
First in New South Wales, later in all the colonies and in
many widely separated districts, labor leagues were organized
which sketched out a policy and laid down a pledge which all
candidates supported by the leagues must sign. These formed
the nucleus of a new and independent political party which
gave their votes to either Liberal or Conservative
indifferently, regardless of which was in office, in return
for legislative concessions from either. The new party
springing thus almost simultaneously to life all over the
continent was at first regarded as a pathetic joke. They were
few in numbers, uneducated, inexperienced in affairs of state,
and had opposed to them all the wealth and the legal
astuteness in every chamber where they held seats. But they
were determined, united, and, with rare exceptions,
self-sacrificing. They were mutually bound not to take office
except with the consent of their fellow-laborites, so that
they were labeled from the first as ‘Not for sale.’ And from
their point of view the plan has succeeded.
{371}
"Friend and foe alike pay tribute to the magnificent
organization and discipline of the movement, and to the
personal disinterestedness of the leaders. A great economy of
effort is assured by having a platform and organization
practically identical for the Federal, State and municipal
elections, and for general propaganda work, and consequently
being able to utilize the same bodies—the local political
labor leagues—and the same workers for what seems to them
social righteousness, whether in national, State, or municipal
concerns. The Labor party was born of trades-unionism, and its
whole administration has been based on trades union methods.
The political labor leagues were at first composed of
trades-unionists, and are still closely in touch with trades
unions. These are the bodies who vote for the selection of
candidates for all elections and for delegates to the annual
and triennial State and Federal conferences of the party. The
Labor party in Parliament may be the controlling force, but no
other party in Australia has to carry out the behests of its
constituents as does this.
"We now come to the pledge and the caucus. The pledge, which
was first drafted by the New South Wales Labor Conference in
1895, reads as follows: ‘I hereby pledge myself not to oppose
the candidate selected by the recognized political Labour
organisation, and, if elected, to do my utmost to carry out
the principles—embodied in the Federal Labour Platform, and on
all questions affecting the Platform to vote as a majority of
the Parliamentary Party may decide at a duly constituted
caucus meeting.’
"As the pledge binds all members to carry out the general
principles of a platform decided for him by the united labor
vote of Australia, so each man has his vote in the legislature
decided for him beforehand on all details of that policy by
the caucus vote of his party in the legislature, before or
during the course of debate. The advocates of the system say
that this is the only way in which any consistent policy can
be carried out to a successful end. Opponents assert that in
it we have the germs of machine politics, and that labor may
by and by pay dearly for its present victory. The large amount
of direct representation in Australia, and the increasing
probabilities of the initiative and referendum being more
largely used, may check this tendency."
Alice Henry,
The Australian Labor Movement
(The Outlook, November 3, 1906).
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1905-1909.
Failures of the Compulsory Arbitration Law.
In this Volume, under the heading—AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1905-1906,—
an instance of failure in the operation of the compulsory
Arbitration Law to arrest a strike of coal miners in New South
Wales is recorded. The failure was repeated in the same field
in the fall of 1909, when 12,000 miners of the Newcastle and
Maitland collieries of New South Wales stopped work. "The
men," it was reported, "demand an open conference to deal with
the principal grievances, with resort, in the event of
failure, to the Federal Arbitration Court or a special
commission. The owners, on the other hand, insist on a
conference with closed doors and the settlement of undecided
questions under the State Industrial Act. They further want
work to be resumed simultaneously with the opening of the
conference. The men, however, refuse to hew coal until their
grievances have been settled, but offer to carry on during the
conference all work necessary to keep the mines in working
order."
The correspondent who reported this went on to say:
"The public seems to be without a remedy against the strikers,
since it is impossible to imprison the whole mass, and the
imprisonment of the leaders would mean a general strike. In
addition the only available labour for colliery purposes is
controlled by the trade unions."
Evidently, however, the law was vindicated in the end, since a
report from Sydney on the 29th of December, made known that 13
officials of the miners’ union had been fined £100 each, with
two months hard labor in default.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Austria: A. D. 1902.
During a strike of about 6500 men in various employments at
Trieste, in February, 1902, there were conflicts with the
military in which about 40 were killed and wounded. The demand
was for an eight hours day, and it was conceded in the end,
after an arbitration which decided in their favor. In the
following August serious labor disturbances occurred in
Galicia, where the peasants claimed better wages, and troops
had to be sent to the region to restore order.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Belgium: A. D. 1902.
General Strike of Workmen as Protest against
the Plural Suffrage.
See (in this Volume)
BELGIUM: A. D. 1902.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1903.
Compensation for Injuries to Workmen.
After months of debate an Act prescribing compensation for
accidents injurious to workmen was passed, attempts to attach
to it the principle of compulsory insurance having failed.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Canada: A. D. 1907-1908.
The Act known as "The Industrial Disputes
Investigation Act."
Its main provisions.
Its object, not Compulsory Arbitration, but the
Compulsory Attempting of Arbitration.
General success of the Act.
Failure to prevent Canadian Pacific Railway Strike.
In the judgment of many who give thought and study to labor
questions, the most promising experiment yet made in
legislation for dealing with disputes between employers and
workmen is the Canadian Act of March, 1907, entitled "An Act
to aid in the Prevention and Settlement of Strikes and
Lockouts in Mines and Industries connected with Public
Utilities." The essence of the Act is in its 56th to 61st
sections, which read as follows:
"56.
It shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a
lockout, or for any employee to go on strike, on account of
any dispute prior to or during a reference of such dispute to
a Board of Conciliation and Investigation under the provisions
of this Act, or prior to or during a reference under the
provisions concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and
Labour Act: Provided that nothing in this Act shall prohibit
the suspension or discontinuance of any industry or of the
working of any persons therein for any cause not constituting
a lockout or strike: Provided also that, except where the
parties have entered into an agreement under section 62 of
this Act, nothing in this Act shall be held to restrain any
employer from declaring a lockout, or any employee from going
on strike in respect of any dispute which has been duly
referred to a Board and which has been dealt with under
section 24 or 25 of this Act, or in respect of any dispute
which has been the subject of a reference under the provisions
concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and Labour
Act.
{372}
"57.
Employers and employees shall give at least thirty days’
notice of an intended change affecting conditions of
employment with respect to wages or hours; and in every case
where a dispute has been referred to a Board, until the
dispute has been finally dealt with by the Board, neither of
the parties nor the employees affected shall alter the
conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours, or on
account of the dispute do or be concerned in doing, directly
or indirectly, anything in the nature of a lockout or strike,
or a suspension or discontinuance of employment or work, but
the relationship of employer and employee shall continue
uninterrupted by the dispute, or anything arising out of the
dispute; but if, in the opinion of the Board, either party
uses this or any other provision of this Act for the purpose
of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through
delay, and the Board so reports to the Minister, such party
shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to the same
penalties as are imposed for a violation of the next preceding
section.
"58.
Any employer declaring or causing a lockout contrary to the
provisions of this Act, shall be liable to a fine of not less
than one hundred dollars, nor more than one thousand dollars,
for each day or part of a day that such lockout exists.
"59.
Any employee who goes on strike contrary to the provisions of
this Act shall be liable to a fine of not less than ten
dollars, nor more than fifty dollars, for each day or part of
a day that such employee is on strike.
"60.
Any person who incites, encourages or aids in any manner any
employer to declare or continue a lockout, or any employee to
go or continue on strike contrary to the provisions of this
Act, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not
less than fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.
"61.
The procedure for enforcing penalties imposed or authorized to
be imposed by this Act shall be that prescribed by Part XV. of
the Criminal Code relating to summary convictions."
A sufficient understanding of the practical operation of the
Act may be derived from the following prescriptive sections:
"5.
Wherever any dispute exists between an employer and any of his
employees, and the parties thereto are unable to adjust it,
either of the parties to the dispute may make application to
the Minister for the appointment of a Board of Conciliation and
Investigation, to which Board the dispute maybe referred under
the provisions of this Act: Provided, however, that, in the
case of a dispute between a railway company and its employees,
such dispute may be referred, for the purpose of conciliation
and investigation, under the provisions concerning railway
disputes in the Conciliation and Labour Act.
"6.
Whenever, under this Act, an application is made in due form
for the appointment of a Board of Conciliation and
Investigation, and such application does not relate to a
dispute which is the subject of a reference under the
provisions concerning railway disputes in the Conciliation and
Labour Act, the Minister, whose decision for such purpose
shall be final, shall, within fifteen days from the date at
which the application is received, establish such Board under
his hand and seal of office, if satisfied that the provisions
of this Act apply.
"7.
Every Board shall consist of three members who shall be
appointed by the Minister. Of the three members of the Board
one shall be appointed on the recommendation of the employer
and one on the recommendation of the employees (the parties to
the dispute), and the third on the recommendation of the
members so chosen."
"11.
No person shall act as a member of the Board who has any
direct pecuniary interest in the issue of a dispute referred
to such Board."
"23.
In every case where a dispute is duly referred to a Board it
shall be the duty of the Board to endeavour to bring about a
settlement of the dispute, and to this end the Board shall, in
such manner as it thinks fit, expeditiously and carefully
inquire into the dispute and all matters affecting the merits
thereof and the right settlement thereof. In the course of
such inquiry the Board may make all such suggestions and do
all such things as it deems right and proper for inducing the
parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the
dispute, and may adjourn the proceedings for any period the
Board thinks reasonable to allow the parties to agree upon
terms of settlement.
"24.
If a settlement of the dispute is arrived at by the parties
during the course of its reference to the Board, a memorandum
of the settlement shall be drawn up by the Board and signed by
the parties, and shall, if the parties so agree, be binding as
if made a recommendation by the Board under section 62 of this
Act, and a copy thereof with a report upon the proceedings
shall be forwarded to the Minister.
"25.
If a settlement of the dispute is not arrived at during the
course of its reference to the Board, the Board shall make a
full report, thereon to the Minister, which report shall set
forth the various proceedings and steps taken by the Board for
the purpose of fully and carefully ascertaining all the facts
and circumstances, and shall also set forth such facts and
circumstances, and its findings therefrom, including the cause
of the dispute and the Board’s recommendation for the
settlement of the dispute according to the merits and
substantial justice of the case.
"26.
The Board’s recommendation shall deal with each item of the
dispute and shall state in plain terms, and avoiding as far as
possible all technicalities, what in the Board’s opinion ought
or ought not to be done by the respective parties concerned.
Wherever it appears to the Board expedient so to do, its
recommendation shall also state the period during which the
proposed settlement should continue in force, and the date
from which it should commence."
"28.
Upon receipt of the Board’s report the Minister shall
forthwith cause the report to be filed in the office of the
Registrar and a copy thereof to be sent free of charge to the
parties to the dispute and to the representative of any
newspaper published in Canada who applies therefor, and the
Minister may distribute copies of the report, and of any
minority report, in such manner as to him seems most desirable
as a means of securing compliance with the Board’s
recommendation."
{373}
The fundamental object of the law, as will be seen, is not to
compel arbitration, but to compel an attempt at arbitration,
before any strike or lockout is permitted, and to give
authentic and full publicity to all the circumstances which
can justify or condemn a strike or lockout, if one occurs. So
far in the experience of Canada with this wise enactment it
has generally been successful in bringing about a peaceful
settlement of labor disputes. It failed in the case of a
disagreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and
its mechanical employés, which arose in April, 1908, when the
Company served notice of a reduction of wages to one class of
boiler-makers, and of an increase in the proportion of
apprentices to be employed in its shops, together with some
changes of rules concerning machine tools, etc. The men
applied for the appointment of a Conciliation Board, in
accordance with the law, but were not satisfied with the
conclusions reported by a majority of the Board, and struck,
as the law then permitted them to do. The strike was weakened
by the unfavorable public opinion which the investigation
produced.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: England: A. D. 1892-1901.
A Statistical Study of Ten Years of Trade Disputes.
The following is the concluding summary of an elaborate
statistical study of Strikes and Lockouts in England during
the ten years from 1892 to 1901, made by an eminent
statistician, Mr. J. H. Schooling:
"To sum up the chief practical points that seem to have come
out of this examination of trade disputes during 1892-1901,
these are:
"(a)
An improvement during 1897-1901 as compared with 1892-1896.
"(b)
An altogether undue predominance of the Mining and Quarrying
Trades in trade disputes, not only actually, but also
relatively to the industrial population of each group of
trades compared. This is a most unsatisfactory feature, for
the reason that so many other trades depend upon
non-interruption of coal mining for their successful working.
Therefore, efforts to prevent disputes should be specially
directed to the Mining and Quarrying Trades.
"(c)
Nearly two-thirds of all trade disputes are caused by disputes
about wages, and nearly one-half of all trade disputes are
caused by a demand by workpeople for ‘an increase of wages.’
Only 6 per cent. of all disputes are caused by resistance
‘against decrease of wages.’ …
"(d)
Trade Unionism is not so productive of strikes as it is
commonly supposed to be.
"(e)
Conciliation Boards, etc., do not cause the settlement of many
disputes after the dispute has commenced. Their work is in the
direction of preventing strikes and lock-outs. That this work
is effective and that it should be zealously promoted is
evidenced by the fact that in 1901, 75 per cent. of all
changes in wages and in hours of labour were arranged by
sliding scales, wages boards, or by other peaceful methods,
while only 2 per cent. of these changes followed upon strikes
or lock-outs.
"(f)
The respective chances of success by workpeople or by
employers when a trade dispute is entered upon are, in round
numbers:
150 chances for the employers; and
100 chances for the workpeople.
"In addition to this relatively small chance of success by
workpeople when they strike, the cost to them and to their
trade organisations is relatively greater than the cost to
employers."
J. H. Schooling,
Strikes and Lock-outs, 1892-1901
(Fortnightly Review, May, 1904).
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1900-1906.
The Taff Vale Decision.
Trades Unions made liable for Damages.
Resulting amendment of the English Law.
In the summer of 1900 a strike of employés of the Taff Vale
Railway Company occurred, which lasted only a fortnight or
thereabouts, but had large and important consequences. During
the strike the Company applied for an injunction to restrain
two officers of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
from interfering as such with the affairs of the road. The
Society opposed the application, on the ground that it was not
a corporation or an individual and could not be sued. Justice
Farwell, before whom the case came, held that a trade union
was a corporate body, responsible for illegal acts committed
by its officers. This decision was a serious menace to the
unions generally, and they cooperated extensively with the
Amalgamated Society in carrying an appeal to the higher
courts. The case was argued in the Court of Appeals in
November, 1900, and the justices of that court reversed the
decision of Justice Farwell. The plaintiff in the suit, the
Railway Company, then carried it to the tribunal of last
resort, the House of Lords, and there, in July, 1902, the
judgment of the Court of Appeals was set aside and that of
Justice Farwell was sustained, making it the law of Great
Britain, that a trade union is a legal entity, capable of
suing and being sued. On this decision the Taff Vale Railway
Company brought suit against the Amalgamated Society for
damages, and obtained a verdict on the 20th of December which
awarded the Company £28,000.
A strenuous endeavor to overcome the effect of the decision
rendered by the House of Lords, through amendatory
legislation, was begun by the Labor Party, with strong
sympathy among the Liberals, and it had success. An Act (which
became law on the 21st of December, 1906) "to provide for the
regulation of Trades Unions and Trade Disputes," added the
following "as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of
section three of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property
Act, 1875":
"An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by
two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the
act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would
be actionable."
Further provisions of the new Act were as follows:
"2.
It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their
own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual
employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person
resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if
they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining
or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any
person to work or abstain from working. …
{374}
"3.
An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a
trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that
it induces some other person to break a contract of employment
or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or
employment of some other person, or with the right of some
other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he
wills.
"4.
(1) An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or
masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf
of themselves and all other members of the trade union in
respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by
or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by
any court.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the
trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided
for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, section nine, except in
respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the
union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1903.
Political effect of the Taff Vale Decision of the
House of Lords, stimulating the growth of the Labor Party.
The Taff Vale Decision rendered by the House of Lords gave an
immediate great impetus to the growth and the independence of
the Labor Party, pledged by a resolution adopted at a "Labor
Representation Conference" held in February, 1903, to insist
that Labor candidates and Labor Members of Parliament when
elected should "strictly abstain from identifying themselves
with the interests of any section of the Liberal or
Conservative parties," holding themselves free to act solely
for the purpose of "securing the social and economic
requirements of the industrial classes." The same conference
took action for the creation of a fund for the payment of
Labor Members of Parliament and for assisting in the payment
of election expenses. The effects of the movement were soon
felt in Parliamentary elections.
See (in this Volume),
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1906 (March).
Report of Royal Commission on Labor Disputes.
A Royal Commission on Labor Disputes, appointed in England in
1903, submitted its report in March, 1906. The trades unions
had declined to take part in its investigations, though their
interests were represented on the Commission by one of the
ablest and staunchest champions of the rights of labor, Sidney
Webb. Coal mine owners were represented by one member; the
remaining three members were Lord Dunedin, President of the
Court of Session, Sir Godfrey Lushington, formerly of the Home
Office, and an eminent lawyer of Liberal politics, Arthur
Cohen. The most important recommendation of the Commission was
that "an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do
or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance
of a trade dispute shall not be the ground of a civil action,
unless the agreement or combination is indictable as a
conspiracy, notwithstanding the terms of the ‘Conspiracy and
Protection of Property Act of 1875.’" The Act of 1875 had so
modified the old conspiracy law that no combination to do what
would not be punishable by imprisonment if done by a single
person could be made the subject of a criminal proceeding. The
Commission now advised an extension of the same rule to civil
actions. But, by unanimous agreement the Commission approved
the decision rendered by the House of Lords in the Taff Vale
case (see above), which took away from trades unions in Great
Britain the immunity from being sued which they had formerly
enjoyed. As to the right of "picketing," in the prosecution of
a labor strike, the Commission would have it limited only to
prevent coercion by menace or intimidation in the performance.
It recommended punishment for a workman who "acts in such a
manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
any person that violence will be used to him or to his wife or
family, or damage be done to his property."
In the judgment of the Commission the incorporation of trades
unions is much to be desired. These are the main conclusions
to which it was led by its long study of the subject of
industrial disputes.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1907-1909.
Excellent Settlement of a threatened Railway Strike.
Adopted System of Conciliation and Arbitration Boards.
A general railway strike in Great Britain was threatened very
seriously in the autumn of 1907, when the Amalgamated Society
of Railway Servants, ably led by its Secretary, Mr. Richard
Bell, who is a Member of Parliament, presented demands to the
companies which the latter would not yield to. Mr. David
Lloyd-George, the then President of the Board of Trade—which
is a department of the National Government—undertook to
negotiate a peaceable settlement of the dispute, and
accomplished it with remarkable success. The outcome of his
skilful diplomacy was the acceptance, November 6, 1907, by
both companies and men of a comprehensive scheme for
conciliation and arbitration, which provided for the formation
of boards for each railway, consisting of representatives of
the company and of the men, to consider thereafter any
question relating to rates of wages and hours of duty. The
scheme further provided that questions which these boards were
unable to settle were to be referred to a single arbitrator.
The London and North-Western was the first railway company to
complete its arrangements in connection with the scheme, and
demands from most of the grades concerned in the working of
traffic, numbering about 39,000 men, were considered by the
newly-formed conciliation boards. The principal grades
concerned were: Engine drivers, firemen and cleaners;
signalmen; brakesmen and shunters; passenger guards and
platform porters; carriage cleaners, wagon examiners and
greasers; permanent way men; goods staff; cartage staff.
As agreement in the London and North-Western case was found
impossible, reference was made to arbitration, and Sir Edward
Fry was chosen to be arbitrator. He gave hearings on the
questions in controversy in December, 1908, and his award was
announced in the February following. He decided that the
railway company had made good its contention that it could not
pay an "all round advance" in wages of two shillings per week,
which had been the demand for all grades in the service.
{375}
He allowed, in fact, few increases in wages; but awarded, on
the contrary, some reductions in wage which the company
claimed. On other points, concerning the pay for overtime,
etc., his award was to the satisfaction of the railway
employés. On the whole, it seems to have ended the dispute
with considerable satisfaction all round. On this first
decision under the new arrangement for settling disputes, Mr.
Bell expressed himself as "very pleased to find that a great
many of the concessions asked for have been embodied by the
arbitrator in his award. We have got," said he, "rate and a
quarter for overtime for all classes uniformly. We have got
rate and a quarter for Sunday duty for signal men, as well as
other grades who have hitherto not been paid extra rates. We
have got payment for Sunday labour for the passenger staff
—men who were formerly not paid for Sunday duty; we have
established the principle that men doing the work of a higher
grade for more than one day shall be paid at the rate of the
higher grade. That is the principle we have been fighting for
for several years, and it will mean many shillings per week to
thousands of men. A very important item of the award is the
decision that no alteration shall be made in the shape of
increased hours or reduced wages in regard to men whose claims
were submitted to the arbitrator, but whose conditions have
not been altered by the award. We have always, hitherto, had
to complain about companies ‘cutting,’ but the London and
North-Western cannot do it here."
Mr. Bell mentioned that several other similar claims against
other companies were going to arbitration, but while he
thought that Sir Edward Fry’s decisions might have some
influence upon future conferences, he pointed out that other
arbitrators will possibly refuse to accept any lead, but
decide matters entirely upon their own views after dealing
with the particular cases.
A general report to the Board of Trade, on the working of the
Railway Conciliation Boards, under the agreement of November
6, 1907, was published in March, 1909, as a Blue Book, from
which the following is taken:
"The agreement was signed initially on behalf of 11 of the
principal railway companies, but adhesion to its terms was
afterwards signified, subject in the case of the Scottish
companies to modifications of certain clauses upon matters of
detail, by 35 other companies, making a total of 46 railway
companies that have adopted the arrangements proposed by the
Department for avoiding the serious results that would attend
a cessation of labour on railways. The assenting companies
include nearly all those having as many as 200 employés in their service, and in fact the only companies that have not
adopted the scheme are small companies for which the formation
of conciliation boards was not thought to be required, and a
few of the larger companies to whose lines the provisions of
the agreement were for special reasons unsuitable. …
"For the 46 railways dealt with under the scheme, the number
of boards to be formed, apart from the central conciliation
boards, was 169, and the total number of representatives to be
elected on such boards was 877. On 44 of the railways there
was provision for a central board in addition to the sectional
boards, thus making a total of 213 conciliation boards to be
formed altogether under the scheme. … Eight hundred and fifty
representatives of employés were to be elected in these
416 elections, and for these places the total number of
candidates nominated was 1,608.
"The total number of employés eligible to vote upon the
various railways coming within the scheme is estimated at a
little over 270,000. After allowing for cases where the
representatives were returned unopposed, it is found that
where voting papers have actually been issued, over 77 per
cent. of the employés eligible have availed themselves
of the franchise."
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1908.
"A Notable Labor Treaty."
The Shipbuilding Agreement between Employers and
Trade Unions to avert Strikes and Lockouts.
In the early part of 1908 the woodworkers in the shipbuilding
yards of the north of England went on strike against a
reduction in wages, which was equivalent to one that the
ironworkers in all the British shipyards and the woodworkers
in the Scotch yards had accepted. The Federation of
Shipbuilding Employers then notified a national lockout unless
the strikers resumed work pending the adjustment of the
dispute by conference. For some time past there had been
negotiations on foot between the federated employers and
certain of the other shipbuilding labor unions, aiming at the
conclusion of a permanent working agreement for the prevention
of strikes. The woodworkers were now brought into this
negotiation, and after a long threshing out of disputes, in a
joint committee of representatives from twenty-six trade
unions and from the employers’ federation a "Memorandum of
Agreement" was produced which all signed on the 16th of
December, 1908, and which the London Times, making it
public on the 11th of January, characterised rightly as "A
Notable Labor Treaty." The provisions of this industrial
agreement seem to be of so much historical importance that we
give the important sections entire:
"I.—GENERAL FLUCTUATIONS IN WAGES.
"(1) Changes in wages due to the general conditions of the
shipbuilding industry shall be termed general fluctuations.
Such general fluctuations in wages shall apply to all the
trades comprised in this agreement and in every federated firm
at the same time and to the same extent. Differences in rates
of wages in any trade in different districts can be dealt with
as heretofore under clause II., section 3.
"(2) In the case of all such general fluctuations the
following provisions and procedure shall apply, viz.:
(a) No step toward an alteration in wages can be
taken until after the lapse of six calendar months from the
date of the previous general fluctuation.
(b) Before an application for an alteration can be
made, there shall be a preliminary conference between the
federation and the unions, in order to discuss the position
generally. Such conference shall be held within 14 days of
the request for the same,
(c) No application for an alteration shall be
competent until the foregoing preliminary conference has
been held, and no alteration shall take effect within six
weeks of the date of the applications.
(d) The application fora proposed alteration shall
be made as follows: The federation to the unions parties to
this agreement; or the said unions to the federations,
(e) Within 14 days after the receipt of an
application the parties shall meet in conference.
(f) The conference may be adjourned by mutual
agreement, such adjourned conference to be held within 14
days thereafter.
(g) Any general fluctuation in trademen’s rates
shall be of the following fixed amount, viz.:—Piecework
rates, 5%; and Time rates 1 /- per week [sic], or ¼d. per
hour where payment is made by the hour.
{376}
"II.
QUESTIONS OTHER THAN GENERAL FLUCTUATIONS IN WAGES.
"(1) When any question is raised by or on behalf of either an
employer or employers, or of a workman or workmen, the
following procedure shall be observed, viz.:—
(a) A workman or deputation of workmen shall be
received by their employers in the yard or at the place
where a question has arisen, by appointment, for the mutual
discussion of any question in the settlement of which both
parties are directly concerned; and failing arrangement, a
further endeavour may, if desired, be then made to
negotiate a settlement by a meeting between the employer,
with or without an official of the local association, on
the one hand, and the official delegate, or other official
of the workmen concerned, with or without the workman or
workmen directly concerned, as deemed necessary.
( b ) Failing settlement the question shall be
referred to a joint committee consisting of three employers
and three representatives of the union or of each of the
unions directly concerned, none of whom shall be connected
with the yard or dock where the dispute has arisen,
(c) Failing settlement under subsection (b),
the question shall be brought before the employers’ local
association and the responsible local representatives of
the union or unions directly concerned in local conference.
(d) Failing settlement at local conference, it shall
be competent for either party to refer the question to a
central conference to be held between the executive board
of the federation and representatives of the union or
unions directly concerned, such representatives to have
executive power.
"(2) If the question is in its nature a general one affecting
more than yard or dock, it shall be competent to raise it
direct in local conference, or if it is general and affecting
the federated firms or workmen in more than one district, it
shall be competent to raise it direct in central conference
without in either case going through the prior procedure above
provided for.
"(3) The questions hereby covered shall extend to all
questions relating to wages, including district alterations in
wages and other matters in the shipbuilding and ship repairing
trade, which may give rise to disputes.
"III.—GRAND CONFERENCE.
"In the event of failure to settle any question in central
conference under clause II., section 1, subsection (d),
either party desirous to have such question further considered
shall prior to any stoppage of work refer same for final
settlement to a grand conference to be held between the
federation and all the unions parties to this agreement. A
conference may by mutual agreement be adjourned. On any
occasion when a settlement has not been reached, the
conference must be adjourned to a date not earlier than 14
days nor later than one month from the date of such
conference. …
"VI.—GENERAL PROVISIONS.
"At all meetings and conferences the representatives of both
sides shall have full powers to settle, but it shall be in
their discretion whether or not they conclude a settlement.
"In the event of any stoppage of work occurring in any
federated yard or federated district either in contravention
of the foregoing or after the procedure laid down has been
exhausted, entire freedom of action is hereby reserved to the
federation, and any federated association, and to the unions
concerned, notwithstanding the provisions of this agreement.
The suspension of the agreement shall be limited to such
particular stoppage, and the agreement in all other respects
shall continue in force.
"Pending settlement of any question other than questions of
wages, hours, and piece prices (the last-named of which is
provided for above), two or three employers not connected with
the yard where the question has arisen shall give a temporary
decision, but such decision shall be without prejudice to
either party, and shall not be adduced in evidence in the
ultimate settlement of the question.
"The expression ‘employer’ throughout this agreement shall
include an employer’s accredited representative.
"Until the whole procedure of this agreement applying to the
question at issue has been carried through there shall be no
stoppage or interruption of work either of a partial or of a
general character.
"VII.—DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
"This agreement shall continue in force for three years, and
shall thereafter be subject to six months’ notice in writing
on either side, said notice not to be competent until the
three years have elapsed."
Signed by the President of the Shipbuilding Employers
Federation and by seven representatives of the Trades Unions.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1909.
Educational Demands of the Trade Unions.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1909.
Trade Unions forbidden to pay Members of Parliament.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (JULY-DECEMBER).
LABOR ORGANIZATION: France: A. D. 1884-1909.
Organized Labor in the French Republic.
The Syndicats and Syndicalism.
A Trade Union version of Socialism.
The Confédération Générale du Travail,
and the idea of a general strike.
Its revolutionary implication.
The strike of government employés in the French telegraph and
postal service, begun in March, 1909, and which was recognized
instantly as a most alarmingly revolutionary movement, roused
inquiry everywhere concerning the form and character that
labor organization in France has taken on. The London
Times gave elaborate satisfaction to this inquiry by a
series of five articles, published in April, by a writer whose
evident knowledge of the subject was complete. The statements
here following are condensed from that source:
{377}
The organization of labor in France differs in important
respects from that in Great Britain and the United States.
"The French term for trade unions is syndicats, or, more
correctly, syndicats professionnels; but the two terms
are not equivalent or synonymous. For, whereas the word 'trade
union’ is applied only to combinations of persons employed,
the syndicats include also combinations of employers and of
both together." The employers’ associations are called
syndicats patronaux. "A trade union is a combination of
persons engaged in the same trade without any reference to
locality; they may be and generally are widely distributed in
many places; the bond is the trade, not the locality; hence
the use of the singular number. There is another kind of
combination formed by several trades in the same locality and
called a trades council; the bond is the locality, not the
trade. Both forms of organization exist in France; the trade
union is called syndicat ouvrier, and the trades
council bourse du travail. … Both play a part in the
movement, and, though in the aggregate they are composed of
the same individuals, their policy and interests are not
always or necessarily identical. Both are further combined
into federations.
"The effective development of trade unionism in France only
dates from 1884, when the law authorizing the formation of
syndicats professionels was passed." Unions had existed
before, but under difficulties, without sanction of law. "The
peculiarity of the struggle for the right of combination in
France was that the necessity remained under numerous changes
and diverse forms of government … and that the democratic
State was not less but rather more oppressive than the others.
… It was the National Assembly, travailing with the
Revolution, which, in the sacred name of liberty and the
rights of man, forbade the citizens to form trade
organizations by the law of 1791; and for nearly 100 years
this ban remained through all the subsequent changes,
sometimes fortified, sometimes relaxed, but never removed."
The law of 1791 was relaxed under Napoleon III., but the
severity of it was renewed by the Government of the Third
Republic, down to 1884. In that year, according to official
returns, there existed but 68 regularly constituted unions in
France. By 1890 the number had increased to 1006, with a
membership of 139,692. In 1908 the reported number of unions
was 5524, and their membership 957,102. "The aggregate is as
yet comparatively small, and, numerically, trade unionism is
still relatively weak in France; but the example of Germany
shows how rapidly this movement may increase in strength.
According to the occupational census of 1901 the number of
persons in France who might be enrolled in trade unions was
approximately 9,000,000; and the numbers would not be
substantially higher now, so that the official returns show
roughly about 10 per cent. organized. … With regard to
organization by industries the largest number of trade
unionists belonged in 1907 to the following groups:
Transport, 260,869;
metal industries, 103,835;
textiles, 78,854;
building trades, 66,678;
miners, 64,194;
agriculture and forestry, 51,407;
food and drink, 48,353.
But trade union strength depends, for economic purposes, more
upon the proportion of workers organized in a given trade than
upon the actual number. From this point of view the strongest
groups are, with the percentage of workers organized, as
follows:
Miners, 35 per cent;
chemical industries, 31.2;
transport, 23.4;
paper and printing, 20.9;
leather, 20.0;
metal workers, 18.7.
These figures have an important bearing on the situation,
because of the division, which will be discussed in a
subsequent article, of the unions into revolutionary and
moderate groups. As for geographical distribution, Paris is
the great centre, and the north of France is much stronger
than the south."
"The term bourse du travail means literally 'labour
exchange,' and that was the original function of these
organizations; it still is one of them, but is overshadowed by
the all-devouring political aims which in France seem to seize
hold of all things, one after another, and swallow them up.
The bourses were started in 1886, two years after trade
unionism received its charter. … But instead of being used for
their original purpose, strictly as labour exchanges, they
soon became a form of labour organization corresponding as
nearly as possible to our trade councils, though supported by
municipal or departmental subventions. … According to M.

Mermeix, to whose brilliant work on ‘Le Syndicalisme contre le
Socialisme’ I am indebted for much information, the syndicats
were promptly seized upon by the Guesdist or Social Democratic
party as soon as they began to develop freely after 1884, and
the other Socialist bodies, who were then in violent
antagonism, responded by cultivating the bourses du
travail. The inevitable result was a strong political turn
given to both sets of organizations; but it was not the turn
intended by the Socialists. For presently the syndicats and the bourses, which really represent ‘Labour’ turned
against the politicians called Socialists, who do not
represent ‘Labour,’ and made common cause against them."
"The most obvious feature of the movement in recent years has
been a great increase of industrial restlessness. We need not
put it all down to the trade unions, but they have had a good
deal to do with it, and have undoubtedly been devoting their
energies in an increasing measure to strikes." This "began in
1899 and has continued, with fluctuations, ever since. It
reached its high-water mark in 1906, and then somewhat
subsided, but recent events show that the same spirit is still
active. And besides increasing in number, extent, and
duration, the strikes have frequently been marked by acts of
violence and attended in several cases by loss of life. All
this, in spite of a system of conciliation and arbitration and
strong organization on the part of employers. What is the
cause? There has been nothing in the economic situation to
account for industrial disorder continued over a series of
years. …
"Syndicalisme is the distinctive mark of the present
labour movement in France. … Perhaps the essential character
of Syndicalisme is best expressed by saying that it is
a purely trade union version of Socialism, definitely and even
violently opposed to Collectivism and more nearly allied to
anarchism, yet distinct from it. … The object of Syndicalisme
is revolution, sudden and complete, in which the State, with
all the apparatus of government, is to disappear, and the
possession and control of material means—which alone count—is
to pass from the hands of its present owners, whether private
or public, into those of organized labour. This original idea
is Socialistic or Collectivist in so far as it is directed
against capitalism; it is anarchistic in so far as it
contemplates the disappearance of the State; but, above all,
it is trade unionist, for the syndicat is posited as
the unit or cell of the future social organism. …
{378}
To complete this brief outline of the idea of
Syndicalisme it is only necessary to add that the means
whereby the revolution is to be accomplished is the general
strike, and that, pending that consummation, ordinary strikes
are systematically encouraged as good practice, in which, as
by skirmishes or manoeuvres, the labour forces are trained and
prepared for the great encounter."
The idea of a general strike was put forward in 1888 by an
anarchist Parisian carpenter named Tortelier, and the militant
forces of organized labor rallied to it. It brought together
the two sets into which labor organization had split—the
Guesdist party, controlling the Syndicats, and their
opponents in possession of the bourses du travail. It
"caused the rout and withdrawal of the Social Democrats, and
so led to the birth of Syndicalisme. The turning point
was reached in 1894 at a joint congress held at Nantes, when
after a set debate the general strike was adopted by 65 votes
against 37, with nine abstinents. In the following year the
Confédération Genérale du Travail was formed as a new and
united federation of trade unions, purged of politics, or, at
least, of Parliamentary politics; and thenceforward the two
sets of organizations—trade unions and trades councils—drew
the labour car together; but at first and for some years they
by no means pulled together." In 1902 they were harmonized,
"mainly by the efforts of M. Niel," who has been called the
real creator of the Confédération Générale, to the head
of which, as general secretary, "which means president," he
was elected in February, 1909. "The word ‘president’ is
eschewed, as savoring of the bourgeois state." M. Niel
is a compositor. "He is of the best type of trade unionist; a
calm, capable, level-headed man, devoted to trade unionism,
but no crazy theorist or violent fanatic."
"The numerical strength of the Confederation or its want of
strength is a point on which its enemies are never tired of
insisting. In October last the official figures presented to
the congress at Marseilles were: First section, 2,586
syndicats, with an aggregate membership of 294,398;
second section, 154 bourses du travail, representing
2,014 syndicats. The figures must not be added
together, because the two sections represent the same or
almost the same forces, differently organized. The returns of
the first section show the effective membership, and we may
call it 300,000. Now the official statistics of the
Ministère du Travail give the total membership of
syndicate ouvriers at the beginning of 1908 as 957,102.
The Confederation, therefore, embraces less than one-third of
the organized labour in France. But that calculation is open
to some criticisms; the Government returns are said to be too
high, those of the Confederation too low. There is probably
some truth in both statements."
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1902.
Extensive Strike of Coal Miners.
Strikes at Marseilles.
On the 8th of October, 1902, the National Committee of French
Miners, meeting at Paris, voted to declare a general strike,
and issued a manifesto to their comrades in Europe, America,
and Australia, appealing for aid and stating their cause, in
these words; "We are pushed to the last extremity in fighting
to obtain a slight improvement in our miserable condition—more
equitable remuneration, with the regulation of our work for
the present, and legislation sheltering us against the strict
needs of old age. We are sure you understand your duty. We
leave to you the initiative in such measures as are most
convenient to you in aiding us in this struggle." The strike
had actually begun in part before this order was given and it
was estimated that some 42,000 men had left work in the
northern coal fields. The whole number of French miners was
calculated by the Temps to be 162,000 men, of whom,
however, only 60,000 belonged to the federation. The mine
owners refused to discuss the matter, declaring that the
strike began before any warning had been given them and
without any sufficient motives, and also that the chief points
in dispute were already before parliamentary committees.
Troops were sent to the mining districts, and some conflicts
occurred. The Government attempted arbitration, and late in
October an agreement was reached which brought the strike to
an end.
At the same time troublesome strikes of dock-laborers,
stokers, and sailors were going on at Marseilles, for some
weeks.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1906.
Serious Strikes and Labor Disturbances.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1909 (March-May).
Serious Strike of Government Employés in the Telegraph
and Postal Service.
Overcome by the firmness of the Government.
Disciplinary proceedings.
Court decision against Trade Unions among
Employés of the State.
The organizations involved in the strike of government
employés in the telegraph and postal service of France, which
began on the 13th of March, 1909, are outside of the Labor
Syndicats embraced in the Confédération Genérale du
Travail described above; but in part they have been
brought into close connection with that combination and have
striven for identification with it. As explained by the Paris
correspondent of the London Times, "the associations of
French Civil servants include two quite separate groups—one
in favour of Parliamentary action, the other sympathizing with
the General Confederation of Labour and desiring to be allowed
to combine freely and, when it suits them, to strike. The
former group is represented by a Comité d’Études so-called,
and includes a large number of primary school teachers and
Lycée professors, the association of the Law Courts
clerks, sub-employés at the Post Office,
employés of the Roads and Inland Communications
Department of the Ministry of Public Works, and so forth.
These various associations, forming the first group, are
convinced that their lot can be quite adequately improved if
Parliament will only vote a satisfactory Bill on the
status of functionaries. The second group has no
confidence whatever in such a measure. It does not count on
Parliament for a panacea. Under the title of ‘Central
Committee for the defence of the syndical rights of
wage-earners of the State, the departments, and the communes,’
it has always worked in unison with the revolutionary unions
of the General Confederation of Labour, and it was this group
which wrote two years ago to M. Clemenceau an open letter
stating their demands, among which the most important of all
was the right to strike.
{379}
In consequence of that manifestation, which was regarded as
illegal, a certain number of functionaries were dismissed,
notably, as readers of The Times will recall, a school
teacher by the name of Nègre, an official of the Ministry of
the Interior, M. Janvion, a postman named Simonnet, and an
electrician, M. Pataud."
These dismissed officials, M. Pataud especially, were the
leaders of the strike that was undertaken on the 13th of
March, when twelve hundred men employed in the central offices
of the Paris Telegraph Department stopped work at about 2
o’clock in the afternoon, "in order to express ‘sympathy’ with
three hundred men of the postal service who had invaded the
offices on the 12th, and had made a demonstration against M.
Simyan, the Under-Secretary of State for Posts and
Telegraphs." "The precise grievances of the strikers," said
The Times, "are probably known to their superiors; but,
so far as we have seen, they have not been placed before the
outside world in any form which renders it possible even
clearly to understand them."
On the other hand, a special correspondent of the New York
Evening Post wrote from Paris on the 25th of March:
"The strike of these government employees may have been a side
development of the general movement which threatens to
transform the Parliamentary French republic into a
république syndicale; but, in itself, it was something
far different. And, for another reason, it is a direct
object-lesson for the United States, where the trade unions
are not yet revolutionary. The entire strike has been a
spontaneous uprising of civil service in possession against
the invasion of a spoils system. The strike would not have
been possible if these civil service appointees—‘government
functionaries’—had not formed themselves into strongly
organized unions, just as private service employees have long
been doing; and in this they have been encouraged by
successive republican governments, unforeseeing perhaps such
strikes as the inevitable consequence. The spoils system in
the present case means the intervention of political influence
in civil service appointments and promotions." The strikers,
said this writer, want essentially two things, "First, that
politicians—and particularly Postmaster-General Simyan, who
was taken over from M. Combes into the present
government—should cease interfering with civil service
appointments and promotions and no longer use their power in
behalf of the favorite of some deputy with ‘influence.’"
The situation produced in Paris by the strike was thus
described by this correspondent of The Post: "We of
Paris were for eight days in the same condition as Frenchmen
were before Richelieu invented a State postal service for the
use of private persons. For example, my last letters were
sent—one to Havre by a special messenger who was carrying by
hand cable messages for several correspondents to be forwarded
from that port; one to London by another special messenger,
who posted it with many others in a channel boat; and a third
to Cherbourg by the kindness of the American Chamber of
Commerce of Paris, which organized a service of its own for
its members. … If there had been a sudden outbreak between
Servia and Austria last week, the French government would have
known little about it, and, in case of need, army mobilization
would have been impossible."
A system of public service in which such situations as this
are made possible could not exist long without destruction of
government and of all social order. No argument was needed to
demonstrate that it must not be paltered with; but the
Government of France was forced momentarily to yield so much
show of deference or respect to its rebellious servants, whose
demands were made with arrogance of spirit and insolence of
tone, that the arrogance and insolence appeared to have
triumphed in the encounter with national sovereignty and law.
The tenor of an interview given on the 22d by the Premier, M.
Clemenceau, and the Minister of Public Works, Posts, and
Telegraphs, M. Barthou, to a committee from the striking
employés of the State, was thus stated in a Press despatch at
the time:
"The two conditions which had been submitted to the Ministers
were, first, immunity from disciplinary penalties for all the
strikers; secondly, the resignation of M. Simyan, the
obnoxious Under-Secretary of State. The Ministers had agreed
to the first of these conditions for all strikers who should
have returned to work by Tuesday morning. The second condition
was refused by the Ministers on the ground that M. Simyan is
responsible to the Chamber of Deputies, but not to the postal
employés. M. Barthou had, however, made it plain that, in
accordance with the terms of his speech in the Chamber last
Friday, the Government contemplated appointing in place of M.
Simyan an official with the qualification of technical
knowledge. ‘When, on Friday,’ he said, ‘I discussed before the
Chamber the transformation of the Under-Secretaryship of Posts
and Telegraphs into a technical directorship, I was not
employing an empty phrase. I consider that the reform is of
practical interest and that it ought to be effected at an
early date.’ This was as near a promise to fulfil the
strikers’ demands as constitutional considerations would
permit." This brought about a return to duty of postal clerks
and operators of the telegraph and the telephone; but they
returned as victorious revolutionists, and the news from Paris
in the following weeks was filled with accounts of their
manifestations of contempt and defiance for the Government,
and the extensive insubordination among them that prevailed.
But the Government, on its side, supported strongly by a great
majority of votes in the Chamber of Deputies, and by resolute
expressions of public opinion from every part of France, was
now taking measures to prepare itself for defeating any future
attempt to paralyze the service of the posts and wires. The
engineer troops and other technical branches of the service
were warned to be ready for emergencies, carrier pigeons were
collected, and preliminary arrangements made for an elaborate
service of motor-cars. Chambers of commerce throughout the
country were called on to be prepared to coöperate with the
Government in organizing an auxiliary mail service. By such
measures it was soon rendered safe to begin applying
discipline to the insubordination that had become rife. Seven
flagrant offenders were tried by a Council of Discipline and
dismissed, on the 8th of May, and this precipitated an attempt
to renew the strike, and to make it introductory to the
long-threatened revolutionary strike of all labor in France.
{380}
A few anxious days followed, while the menace kept a serious
show, and then it vanished, like an emptied cloud. The firm
attitude of the Government and the hostility of national
opinion had daunted the revolutionary syndicats which
inclined to join fortunes with the revolutionists of the
public service, and the latter were left to confront official
authority alone. Their second strike came to nothing. A
despatch from Paris on the 16th of May stated that 548 postmen
who were prominent in the rebellion of the strike had been
expelled from the service, and that others were receiving less
severe punishments from the Disciplinary Court.
Ultimately, sixteen officials of the Post Office were
prosecuted by the Government for illegally forming a trade
union. They were brought to trial in July, with the result
announced on the 29th as follows: "The 16 officials who were
prosecuted by the Government have been condemned to a purely
nominal fine of 12s. 6d., and their union has been declared to
be contrary to the law. The Court argued that in the present
state of the law there was no doubt whatever that the
Waldeck-Rousseau Bill of 1884, permitting the organization of
trade unions, solely had application to the interests of
private individuals, and that the Chamber of Deputies had not
meant to extend the provisions of that law to Civil servants.
The considerations of this important legal judgment
furthermore declare it to be utterly preposterous that State
employés should arrogate to themselves the right to
strike, since they are the employés of the nation, and
enjoy moreover such special privileges as servants of the
State that no comparison can be drawn between them and the
working classes, whose right to strike is not contested."
The judgment of the Paris Correctional Court, in the case of
the sixteen officials who were prosecuted for illegally
forming a trade union was followed, on the 7th of August, by a
kindred decision from the Conseil d'État, to which two
dismissed postmen had appealed. Their application to be
restored to the service was denied. The decree of the Conseil
expressly declared that a strike of civil servants is an
"illegal act," and added that a State official "has accepted
all the obligations arising from the necessities of the public
service and has renounced all privileges incompatible with the
essential continuity of the national life," that civil
servants who declare a strike place themselves collectively
outside the pale of the laws and regulations which guarantee
the exercise for them of the rights which they normally
possess as servants of the State.
Having thus vindicated its authority over the servants of the
State, the Government exercised a wise clemency at once. Two
days after the decision of the Conseil d’État, the new
Minister of Public Works authorized the publication of the
following note: "In consequence of the decision of the Conseil
d’État, M. Millerand has decided, while approving the
suspensions pronounced by their respective chiefs, that 30
officials of both sexes, five subaltern officials, and ten
Post Office workmen who have been dismissed should resume work
the day after tomorrow." Further reinstatements were announced
in the course of the following month.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1905.
Strikes.
Upwards of 100,000 miners in the coal fields of the Ruhr
district began a strike in January which did not end until the
middle of February, and which caused most of the iron works
and machine shops of Rhenish Prussia and Westphalia to be
closed. Low wages (of 4 marks or a little less than a dollar
per day) and inhuman and dishonest treatment were the chief
complaints in the miners. A bill to reform conditions in the
mines was passed soon afterwards. The cost of the strike to
all concerned was estimated to have been more than
$30,000,000. A very serious strike of about 40,000 men in
electrical industries occurred at Berlin in September and
October, resulting in a concession of six per cent. increase
of wages to the men. Statistics published in the next year
showed a startling increase of labor conflicts in 1904 and
1905. From 1899 to 1903 the yearly average of strikes had been
1242. In 1904 the number rose to 1870, and in 1905 to 2057.
Lockouts had averaged 42 in each of the previous five years,
but increased to 120 in 1904. Apparently the labor conditions
were no more peaceable in 1906.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1905-1906.
The Operation of Industrial Courts.
Desire for Voluntary Boards of Conciliation.
"In the event of actual dispute the official machinery of the
Industrial Courts is always at call, should the disputants be
willing to use it. The law requires the formation of these
Courts in all towns with over 20,000 inhabitants, but they may
be formed elsewhere at the option of the Government of the
State or on the joint requisition of a given number of
employers and workpeople, and they consist of equal numbers of
both. That the 406 Courts now in existence do not mediate
oftener would appear to be less the fault of the workpeople
than of the employers. During 1905 they acted as boards of
conciliation on 350 occasions: on 165 in response to
invitations from both sides, on 175 on the invitation of the
workpeople alone, and on ten only on the sole invitation of
the employers. Only in 128 cases was it possible to bring the
disputing parties together. …
"At the annual meeting of the German Society for Social
Reform, held in Berlin in December, 1906, resolutions were
adopted ‘affirming the meeting’s conviction that industrial
peace would best be promoted by the development of collective
arrangements between employers and work-people in the form of
(1) wages agreements,
(2) voluntary boards of conciliation and arbitration, and
(3) workmen’s committees for individual works’;
and it was urged that, ‘after the example of Great Britain,
conciliation boards suited to the various industries should be
generally formed, these to cooperate with higher tribunals and
to call in on occasion the help of prominent public men as
advisers and arbitrators.’"
William H. Dawson,
The Evolution of Modern Germany,
page 136
(Unwin, London; Scribners, New York., 1909).
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Spirit of the Struggle between Capitalists and Workmen.
Attitude of the Latter.
"The struggle between labour and capital in Germany is a
little less refined than in some other countries. …
Rhineland—Westphalia is its chosen battle ground. Here all the
conditions of economic warfare exist in a rare degree. It is a
striking fact that a large part of the natural resources,
industry, and wealth-production of that unresting workshop of
Germany is under the control of a dozen men of commanding
business genius—men of strong and masterful character, born
rulers of the sternest mould, without sentiment, not
insusceptible to justice, yet never going beyond it,
inflexible in decision, of inexhaustible will-power, and
impervious to all modern notions of political liberalism.
{381}
These men, who have so conspicuously helped to create modern
industrial Prussia, and who are a greater real power in the
land than Ministers and legislators put together, typify in
modern industry the feudalism which is slowly dying upon the
great estates of the East. Their attitude towards the unions
in which their workmen are organised to the number of hundreds
of thousands is frequently expressed in the maxim, ‘We intend
to be masters in our own house,’ and nothing is wanting in the
vigour with which this maxim is applied. On the occasion of
the Mannheim conference of the Association for Social Policy
in September, 1905, Herr Kirdorf, probably the best known
industrialist of Westphalia, and the head of the Coal and
Steel Syndicates, was invited to give an employer’s reply to
an indictment of the syndicates made by Professor Gustav
Schmoller. In the course of his statement occurred the
following observations on the question of labour
organisation:—
"‘It is regrettable that our workpeople are able to change
their positions at any time. An undertaking can only prosper
if it has a stationary band of workers. I do not ask that
legislation should come to our help, but we must reserve to
ourselves the right to take measures to check this frequent
change of employment. The proposal has been made that all
workpeople should be compelled to join organisations and that
employers should be required to negotiate with these
organisations. For myself I would remark that I refuse to
negotiate with any organisation whatever.’ …
"Public opinion naturally finds itself often in conflict with
the Westphalian industrialists’ attitude, which more than
anything else was responsible for the solid gain won by the
men in the great colliery strike of 1905. It was the same Herr
Kirdorf who declared during that strike, 'The movement can
only end by the men recognising that they can get nothing by a
strike and returning to the mines. We will negotiate with
every man singly, but we will not concede workmen’s
committees.’ It was this inflexible attitude, persisted in too
long, which turned first the public and then the Government
against the colliery owners. By refusing to meet the colliers’
‘Committee of Seven’ they created the impression that the men
were wishful for peace but were unable to gain an ear for
their overtures. In the end not only were workmen’s committees
granted by force of law, but the hours of labour were
curtailed, fines were abolished, and other concessions were
made which cost the colliery owners dearly, until the extra
burden could be transferred to the public."
William H. Dawson,
Evolution of Modern Germany,
pages 122-125
(Unwin, London; Scribners, New York, 1909).
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1909.
Extent of Trade Unionism.
The twentieth International Congress of Miners was held in
Berlin, and at its opening, on the 31st of May, 1909, Herr
Ritter, president of the Federation of Berlin Trade Unions, in
welcoming the Congress, said that there were now 223,000 trade
unionists in Berlin, as compared with 40,000 when the congress
held its last meeting there 15 years ago. Another German
speaker said that during the last 15 years the number of trade
unionists in the whole Empire had increased from 300,000 to
1,800,000.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Italy: A. D. 1901.
Changed Attitude of the Government toward Labor Unions.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1901.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Italy: A. D. 1909.
A Church Movement of Agricultural Labor Organization.
"An agitation among agricultural labourers in North Umbria
seems to have taken a new and very unusual form, since, from
all accounts, it is directly promoted and supported by the
clergy. The parish priests in the neighbourhood of Perugia are
said not only to have put themselves at the head of the
movement, but to have actually initiated it with a manifesto
denouncing the grievances of the labourers, and calling upon
them to organize themselves in order to extort more favourable
conditions from the landowners who employ them. The Church
seems to have satisfied itself that the mutual relations of
capital and labour were unfair to the labourer, and to have
determined to be beforehand with the Socialist agitator,
creating an organization which will call itself
democristiana, or Christian democrat, in anticipation
of what might have been a more revolutionary Socialist league.
The manifesto was issued last May, and contained much the same
demands as have been successfully made by labour in other
parts of Italy. … So far the landowners have proved absolutely
recalcitrant. A league of resistance has been formed on their
side, and an attempt was made at reprisals by boycotting
parish priests, stopping any payment of tithes to the Church,
dismissing any private chaplains who belonged to the secular
clergy, and employing the regular clergy instead of the
parochial in any cases where their services were required.
"The parish clergy were not to be intimidated by financial
loss, and the proprietors then appealed to the Archbishop of
Perugia to put his veto on their agitation. The Archbishop,
Monsignor Mattei-Gentile, could only inform them that he had
already given his sanction to the movement. The proprietors,
by the friendly mediation of a Cardinal, then appealed to the
Pope. After some consideration, Pius X. sent a certain Signor
Giovanni Passamonti, a lawyer who has had a good deal of
experience in Umbrian affairs, to make an inquiry, and attempt
some kind of compromise. Neither side, however, would listen
to suggestions of conciliation. … So the matter now stands.
The position is certainly an interesting one, as it is the
first time that the Church has actually taken the lead in a
labour movement."
Rome Correspondent, London Times,
July 21, 1909.
{382}
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Netherlands: A. D. 1903.
Laws against Railway Strikes.
Failure of Labor Strike to prevent their Passage.
Early in 1903 it was made known that the Government of the
Netherlands intended to bring forward in the States-General a
bill prohibiting strikes among railway employees, on the
ground that they were engaged in a public service which must
not suffer interruption. At once the railway men gave notice
that they would, if this measure were undertaken, appeal to
all workmen in the country for a general strike. The
Government then prepared itself for a struggle by summoning a
certain quota of the infantry and engineers of the Reserves to
arms, and, on the 25th of February, its proposed legislation
was introduced. It amended the penal code, in order to punish
strikes by persons in the public service as misdemeanors and
to attach penalties of more severity to all attacks on the
freedom of labor. It provided, further, for the organization
of a military railway brigade, to insure service on the lines
in case of a strike; and finally, it created a commission to
investigate the condition of the railway service and of its
employees. Pending the discussion of these measures the
threatened strike was undertaken, and was seen very soon to
have failed. Without any serious conflict with the authorities
it was given up, and, on the 11th of April, the bills became
Law.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: New Zealand: A. D. 1896-1908.
The Compulsory Arbitration Law.
Its working.
At the meeting of the National Civic Federation of the United
States, in December, 1908, Mr. Hugh H. Lusk, of New Zealand,
spoke of the compulsory arbitration law of that country.
See, in Volume VI. of this work.
NEW ZEALAND.
"In form," he said, "the law is not compulsory upon all men,
but only upon those who become amenable to it by registering
their associations under the law. Since associations, both of
workers and of employers, are generally registered, it is and
has been for twelve years now past absolutely compulsory
arbitration. About six years ago the law was extended to the
Commonwealth of Australia, where it is now in force. In New
Zealand compulsory arbitration has hitherto been a great
success, It has had the effect of preventing all strikes and
all lockouts for twelve years in that country until the other
day. The history of its extension to Australia has been the
greatest tribute that could be made to its success in New
Zealand. It has not been in all respects as great a success in
Australia as in New Zealand. New Zealand has a million white
inhabitants, Australia nearly five million; therefore, by the
extension of the law from New Zealand to Australia you have
got, as it were, a stepping stone from which you can easily
see how far it would be likely to be a success in a country as
much greater and as much more populous than Australia as is
this country.
"The law of New Zealand, and now of Australia, compels all
associated workers who are registered under the act to submit
to the law if they have causes of difference with their
employers. In the first place, they have to go to a member of
the Board of Conciliation, one of which exists in any
considerable district, and the Conciliation Board failing in
its object they can remove the cause into the Court of
Arbitration, which passes final judgment.
"For twelve years the law operated without serious breakdown
in New Zealand. It has been carried on for five years without
a serious breakdown in Australia. Now, what is wrong with the
Act and its operations? At first the workers were perfectly
satisfied with the court because, as a general rule, it was
with them. Later on, the court as a rule has been against
them. They have been inclined to the belief that the
constitution of the court is unfavorable, the court being
constituted of two representatives of labor and two
representatives of capital, together with one Judge of the
Supreme Court, sitting as president or chairman. They have
come to the conclusion that it is the fifth man who really
gives the decision. The difficulty in such a case as this is
that if the representative man who gives his decision has not
the confidence of both parties the court fails in its object.
It is believed that the decisions are, in general, those of a
man belonging to the capitalist class—since laborers do not
often find their way to the Supreme Court bench in any
country. This seems to be the bottom of the difficulty both in
New Zealand and in Australia. I do not think you could enact a
law either as a Federal law or as a State law, to-day, such as
the law in New Zealand and enforce it. The people are not
ready for it. The Canadian plan seems to me to be a step,
although perhaps rather a timid step in the right direction."
The exceptional strike to which Mr. Lusk referred, as
occurring "the other day," was in February, 1907. The strike
was of men in the freezing works of the frozen meat trade.
They stopped work as individuals, not as a union, each
claiming his right to take a rest from work; but the law was
applied to them, nevertheless, and they were fined £5 each.
Mr. Gompers, who spoke after Mr. Lusk, declared himself
emphatically against the New Zealand system, saying: "I would
not have employers do as they please; I would not want workmen
to do as they please; but I believe that by the organization
of industry and by the organization of labor we are gathering
forces conscious of their power, which, intelligently and
wisely wielded, bring forth a spirit of conciliation that no
court of arbitration ever yet was able to impose. There is in
the United States more genuine conciliation between organized
employers and organized workmen than exists in any other part
of the world."
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Russia: A. D. 1904-1905.
Revolutionary Strikes.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Scotland: A. D. 1904-1909.
Five Years of Peace in Coal Mining.
A threatened conflict averted.
In 1904 the coalmasters of Scotland made an agreement with
their men for regulating wages according to a fixed scale, to
be neither below 37½ per cent., nor over 100 per cent. above
what is called the basis of 1888, which was 4s. per day. In
effect the range was from 5s. 6d. to 8s. per day, and within
these limits the Coal Conciliation Board was empowered to
adjust questions of wages as they arose. Under this agreement
the Conciliation Board operated satisfactorily till the summer
of 1909, and under the constitution of the board there was
power to refer any question on which the representatives of
the masters and men could not agree to a neutral chairman,
whose decision was to be absolute.
{383}
During the first three years of the agreement trade was
prosperous and wages rose nearly to the maximum under which
the Conciliation Board could adjudicate. Then came the period
of general depression, and wages went down, along with prices
of coal, until, finally, the coalmasters applied for a further
reduction to the minimum of the agreement, 5s. 6d. per day.
The men's representatives on the Board refused to entertain
the proposal. The disagreement became acute in a few weeks,
and the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain threatened a
general strike in support of the contention of its Scottish
members. On a ballot taken in July, 518,361 of the coal miners
of the United Kingdom voted for a general stoppage of work, in
support of the demands of the Scottish miners against 62,980
who opposed the undertaking. But the efforts of the
Government, exerted through the Board of Trade, were
successful in averting the threatened catastrophe. Conferences
between delegates from the coal miners and the coal owners,
held at the offices of the Board of Trade and under
chairmanship of the President of the Board, Winston Churchill,
resulted in an agreement signed on the 30th of July, which is
to be in force until August 1st, 1912, and indefinitely
thereafter unless six months notice of a wish to terminate it
is served by one party to it on the other. The agreement
provides for the continuation of the former Conciliation Board
"with the provision that there shall be obligatory a neutral
chairman (whose decision in cases of difference shall be final
and binding) to be selected by such method as shall be
mutually agreed upon by the parties, and, failing agreement,
by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
On the point of wages, the opinion of the miners’ delegates
was reported to be that the agreement was "fair to all
parties, for it secured the owners against having to pay an
increased wage unless all the circumstances of the trade,
considered over a reasonable period, were taken into account
by a perfectly impartial arbitrator. The concession of the
principle of the 50 per cent. increase on the 1888 basis as a
minimum wage would, as far as could be foreseen,
obviate trouble in the future, and the safeguards which had
been introduced into the grant of the concession were, in the
opinion of all the delegates who were willing to express their
views, eminently fair to all the interests concerned."
LABOR ORGANIZATION: South Africa: A. D. 1903-1904.
The question of Asiatic Labor for the mines in the Transvaal.
Admission of Chinese Coolies.
The political side of the Opposition to White Labor.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903-1904.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Spain: A. D. 1902.
Great Strike at Barcelona.
Barcelona, the scene of frequent and much disturbance, both
political and industrial, produced, in the middle of February,
a general strike of 80,000 workmen, between whom and the
troops of General Weyler, the Minister of War, a week of
battle in the streets occurred, with martial law in force.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Spain: A. D. 1909.
Insurrection and Strike at Barcelona.
See (in this Volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1907-1909.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: Sweden: A. D. 1909.
The Lockout and the attempted General Strike of all
Labor in the Kingdom.
The labor conflicts of 1909 were marked most impressively by
two attempts, in two countries, to combine all unionized
labor, of all trades and employments, in the oft-threatened
"general strike," whereby an absolute paralysis of society
might be brought about. The first of these attempts was
planned in France, for the enforcement of the demands of the
postal and telegraphic employees of the Government, who
claimed the right to engage in conflict with the State by an
organized "strike." This came happily to naught; and, the
second, undertaken in Sweden, had the same result.
A dispute in the paper, woolen, and cotton industries of
Sweden led, first, to a lockout of about 13,000 workmen in
those factories, the employers acting in a compact
association, which seems to have embraced all important fields
of production. On the 26th of July the lockout was extended to
certain other allied trades, affecting about 40,000 employees
in all; and it was then announced that on the 2d of August, if
the men did not come to terms, the closing of works would be
carried into the iron trades, and further still. This
challenged the Allied Trade Unions to summon a "general
strike" of all their membership, and the call went out for an
universal dropping of work on August 4th. Exception, however,
was made in the call, of employees in the water-works,
lighting and sanitation departments of the public service, and
of those on whom hospitals, funerals and living animals were
dependent for care. Railway, postal, telegraph and telephone
employees were not included in the Labor Federation, and did
not strike. Between lockout and strike, however, the
suspension of industry was so extensive as to reduce
Stockholm, especially, to a very grave situation; but the
emergency was faced with remarkable energy and courage by both
Government and people.
Neither employers nor employees would listen to any mediation
between them by King or Ministers, and the measures of
Government were directed solely to the repression of disorder
and the checking of all that savored of revolutionary aims.
How the public of Stockholm saved itself from paralysis is
told by a correspondent who wrote from that city on the 28th
of August, when the strike was in its fourth week. "How is
it," he asked, "that the trams are running, cabs are plying
for hire in the streets, the steam ferries are working as
usual, streets and houses are lighted, and there seems no lack
of provisions or transport? The explanation is that these and
many other of the most important social services are being
performed by a brigade of volunteers, who have come forward in
the public interest and who devote their time and energies
gratuitously to supplying the most pressing needs of society
at large. …
"On July 31 plans were first formed for meeting the situation
by the organization of a band of voluntary helpers, and on
August 2 a meeting was held at which definite action was
determined upon. A ‘Public Security Brigade’ (Frivilliga
skyddskaren) was to be enrolled, and the following services,
amongst others, were to be undertaken: The protection of
banks, insurance officers, and similar institutions liable to
attack or plunder by the strikers; the working of trams and
steamboats, and of gas, water, and electric lighting
machinery; the driving of motor and other cabs; the conveyance
of the sick to the hospitals, and the rendering to the
hospital staff of any necessary help; the unloading and
transport of the necessities of life, such as food, coal,
wood, &c. The object of the organization was not to help
individual sufferers or to safeguard individual interests, but
in every way possible to maintain such services as should be
considered necessary for the security and welfare of the
community.
{384}
"The appeal for volunteers met with a generous and
enthusiastic response, and within a week of the first meeting
on August 2 the whole organization was in full working order.
All classes supplied their quota. Counts and barons,
military and naval officers, professional and business men,
engineers, clerks, students from the Universities and
technical schools, alike volunteered their services. The
importance of such a movement can hardly be overestimated. The
fact that the executive body has no connexion with the
Government or municipality and yet is working in constant
touch and in perfect harmony with both speaks Volumes for the
spirit in which the work has been undertaken and the
efficiency with which it is being carried out. It is an
object-lesson in the capacity of the upper and middle classes
to meet such an emergency. And lastly, if, as is thought
probable by some, the institution should become a permanent
one, Sweden will have one of the best guarantees for
industrial peace in the future."
When this was written, the struggle, so far as it involved an
attempted general strike, was near its end. On the 3d of
September the Labor Federation announced its willingness that
those organizations which were not connected with the original
dispute, but which had joined the strike to help make it
general, should return to work, if the Government would renew
its proffer of mediation in the primary dispute. This the
Government did willingly; but at the end of September it was
announced that the negotiations undertaken had broken down and
that 60,000 men were still without work.
The most serious feature of the conflict was the apparent
readiness with which many labor organizations broke agreements
and contracts, in order to take part in it, even when not
called on to do so by the general Federation. According to the
claim of the Employers’ Federation, moreover, it was
faithlessness to such contracts which had most to do with
bringing of the Lockout on. On the other hand, the workmen
maintain that it is the aim of the employers to break down
their unions, and that self-preservation justifies them in
breaking contracts when that course is necessary to defeat
such attempts. Where the very truth lies is questionable, here
as in most such conflicts.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: United States:
The Organization of Labor.
"Most of the national trade unions are affiliated to one great
federal organization, known as the American Federation of
Labor. The railway brotherhoods, so called, keep their
separate organizations, without affiliating to any other body.
There are some independent unions; while the Knights of Labor
are a body entirely distinct from all other organizations, and
have a different organic law. It is difficult to ascertain the
membership of unions. In Great Britain the law requiring
registration enables the Government to state with fair
accuracy the strength of unions in that country. According to
the latest reports available, the English trade unions had a
membership of 1,802,518, while in the United States,—with
double England’s population,—the estimated membership of labor
organizations on July 1 last was 1,400,000. It is estimated at
the present time that there are nearly 18,000,000 persons
(men, women, and children) in the United States working as
wage-earners. The percentage embraced in the labor unions is
not large, therefore, being not more than 8 per cent. of the
whole body. It must be remembered, however, that in many
trades the members are organized up to a large proportion,
—sometimes 90 per cent.—of the total number engaged. The
American Federation of Labor probably represents 850,000
members, and the Knights of Labor perhaps 200,000. The Order
of Railway Conductors of America,—whose head, Mr. E. E. Clark,
has been appointed on the Coal Commission,—has nearly 25,000
members; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, over
34,000; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, nearly 38,000;
the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, about 44,000; and there
are at least four other influential railroad organizations."
Carroll D. Wright,
Labor Organization in the United States
(Contemporary Review, October. 1902).
LABOR ORGANIZATION: United States:
The Trade Union as a factor in the Assimilation of the
Foreign-born Population, and in its Political Education.
"Whatever our judgment as to the legality or expediency of the
industrial policy of our American unions, no student of
contemporary conditions can deny that they are a mighty factor
in effecting the assimilation of our foreign-born population.
Schooling is primarily of importance, of course, but many of
our immigrants come here as adults. Education can affect only
the second generation. The churches, particularly the Catholic
hierarchy, may do much. Protestants seem to have little
influence in the industrial centres. On the other hand, the
newspapers, at least such as the masses see and read, and the
ballot under present conditions in American cities, have no
uplifting or educative power at all. The great source of
intellectual inspiration to a large percentage of our inchoate
Americans, in the industrial classes, remains in the
trade-union. It is a vast power for good or evil, according as
its affairs are administered. It cannot fail to teach the
English language. That in itself is much. Its benefit system,
as among the cigarmakers and printers, may inculcate thrift.
Its journals, the best of them, give a general knowledge of
trade conditions, impossible to the isolated workman. Its
democratic constitutions and its assemblies and conventions
partake of the primitive character of the Anglo-Saxon
folkmoot, so much lauded by Freeman, the historian, as a
factor in English political education and constitutional
development. Not the next gubernatorial or presidential
candidate; not the expansion of the currency, nor the reform
of the general staff of the army; not free-trade or
protection, or anti-imperialism, is the real living thing of
interest to the trade-union workman. His thoughts, interests,
and hopes are centred in the politics of his organization. It
is the forum and arena of his social and industrial world."
W. Z. Ripley,
Race Factors in Labor Unions
(Atlantic Monthly, March, 1904).
{385}
LABOR ORGANIZATION: United States: A. D. 1899-1907.
The Western Federation of Miners.
Its adoption of a Socialist Platform.
Its fierce Conflict with Mine Owners.
Alleged Criminal Instigations by its Leaders.
Orchard’s Confessions.
Trial and Acquittal of Secretary Haywood.
The Western Federation of Miners was organized in Butte,
Montana, in 1893. The domain of the organization was and is
mainly the metal mining fields west of the Mississippi River;
while that of the organization called the United Mine Workers
was and is the coal fields east of the Mississippi. The
strongly marked difference in character between these two
comprehensive unions of mining labor is indicated in an
article by William Hard, contributed to The Outlook of
May 19, 1906. "The United, Mine Workers," wrote Mr. Hard,
"accepts the present industrial system and regards the
employer as its partner. The Western Federation of Miners
denounces the present industrial system and regards the very
existence of the employer as an evil. The United Mine Workers
is interested mainly in the division of the proceeds of the
present industrial system between itself and its partner, the
employer. It wants to increase its own share of the proceeds
and it wants to reduce its partner’s share. The Western
Federation of Miners, on the other hand, is interested mainly
in the elimination of the employer. It wants more wages, of
course, but if it should succeed in establishing a scale of
even a hundred dollars a day it would still be bound by its
principles to spurn the relaxing comforts of prosperity and to
nerve itself to a continuation of the struggle.
"Edward Boyce, as President of the Federation, addressed its
annual Convention in 1902 as follows: ‘There are only two
classes of people in the world. One is composed of the men and
women who produce all. The other is composed of men and women
who produce nothing, but live in luxury upon the wealth
produced by others.’" The Convention, at the same session,
adopted the following declaration: "We, the tenth annual
Convention of the Western Federation of Miners, do declare for
a policy of independent political action, and do advise and
recommend the adoption of the platform of the Socialist Party
of America."
Says Mr. Hard, in comment on this Socialist pronouncement by
the Western Federation: "There is usually one of two reasons
for the presence of a large number of Socialists in any trade
union. One is the influence of Europeans; the other is a
particularly spectacular triumph of the machine over the man,
and a particularly cruel displacement of human beings by
superhuman tools. … The Western Federation of Miners,
however, has not been devoured by the machine, and it does not
contain more than a small percentage of Europeans. Whatever of
lawlessness there has been in the history of the Western
Federation has been American lawlessness. Whatever of
radicalism there has been in that history has been radicalism
cherished and propagated by Americans. That favorite National
scapegoat, ‘the foreigner,’ cannot be loaded with the sins of
the Western Federation. … The Western mines are full of
longlimbed, franked-eyed men who have adventured themselves
far and wide upon the face of the earth. There are Eastern
miners who were blacklisted after leading unsuccessful
strikes. There are cowboys who tired of the trail. There are
farmers who preferred prospecting to plowing. There are city
men who burst the bars of their cages to breathe the open air
of the West. These adventurous characters, going out into a
new country and plunging into the virgin, everlasting hills,
where it would seem that at last all men would stand on the
same footing, have suddenly discovered that amid these
primitive surroundings the modern industrial system is not
only found, but is found at its worst. No one would try to
find a parallel anywhere else on earth for the reckless
unscrupulous and maddening insolence of the corporations of
the Rocky Mountain States. And practical anarchism among
corporations is always a strong promoter of theoretical
Socialism among trade unions. …