← catalogue

The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 21

by unknown · English · Gutenberg #10341 · 911,884 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 21
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Great Events by Famous Historians, Volume 21

Editor: Charles F. Horne


        
Release date: November 1, 2003 [eBook #10341]
                Most recently updated: October 28, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10341

Credits: Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Gwidon Naskrent and PG Distributed Proofreaders


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GREAT EVENTS BY FAMOUS HISTORIANS, VOLUME 21 ***

THE GREAT EVENTS

BY

FAMOUS HISTORIANS

A COMPREHENSIVE AND READABLE ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD'S HISTORY,
EMPHASIZING THE MORE IMPORTANT EVENTS, AND PRESENTING THESE AS COMPLETE
NARRATIVES IN THE MASTER-WORDS OF THE MOST EMINENT HISTORIANS

NON-SECTARIAN NON-PARTISAN NON-SECTIONAL

ON THE PLAN EVOLVED FROM A CONSENSUS OF OPINIONS GATHERED FROM THE MOST
DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS OF AMERICA AND EUROPE, INCLUDING BRIEF
INTRODUCTIONS BY SPECIALISTS TO CONNECT AND EXPLAIN THE CELEBRATED
NARRATIVES. ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY. WITH THOROUGH INDICES.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES, CHRONOLOGIES, AND COURSES OF READING


EDITED BY

CHARLES F. HORNE, Ph.D.

_Aided by a staff of specialists_


CONTENTS


VOLUME XXI

_An Outline Narrative of the Great Events_
  CHARLES F. HORNE

_The United States House of Governors_ (_A.D. 1910_)
  WILLIAM S. JORDAN
  THE GOVERNORS

_Union of South Africa_ (_A.D. 1910_)
  PROF. STEPHEN LEACOCK

_Portugal Becomes a Republic_ (_A.D. 1910_)
  WILLIAM ARCHER

_The Crushing of Finland_ (_A.D. 1910_)
  JOHN JACKOL
  BARON SERGIUS WITTE
  BARON VON PLEHVE
  J.H. REUTER

_Man's Fastest Mile_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  C.F. CARTER
  ISAAC MARCOSSON

_The Fall of Diaz_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  MRS. E.A. TWEEDIE
  DOLORES BUTTERFIELD

_Fall of the English House of Lords_ (_A.D. 1911)
  ARTHUR PONSONBY
  SYDNEY BROOKS
  CAPTAIN GEORGE SWINTON

_The Turkish-Italian War_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  WILLIAM T. ELLIS
  THE WAR CORRESPONDENTS

_Woman Suffrage_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  IDA HUSTED HARPER
  ISRAEL ZANGWILL
  JANE ADDAMS
  DAVID LLOYD-GEORGE
  ELBERT HUBBARD

_Militarism_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  NORMAN ANGELL
  SIR MAX WAECHTER

_Persia's Loss of Liberty_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  W. MORGAN SHUSTER

_Discovery of the South Pole_ (_A.D. 1911_)
  ROALD AMUNDSEN

_The Chinese Revolution_ (_A.D. 1912_)
  ROBERT MACHRAY
  R.F. JOHNSTON
  TAI-CHI QUO

_A Step Toward World Peace_ (_A.D. 1912_)
  HON. WILLIAM H. TAFT

_Tragedy of the "Titanic"_ (_A.D. 1912_)
  W.A. INGLIS

_Our Progressing Knowledge of Life Surgery_ (_A.D. 1912_)
  GENEVIEVE GRANDCOURT
  PROFESSOR R. LEGENDRE

_Overthrow of Turkey by the Balkan States_ (_A.D. 1912_)
  J. ELLIS BARKER
  FREDERICK PALMER
  PROF. STEPHEN P. DUGGAN

_Mexico Plunged Into Anarchy_ (_A.D. 1913_)
  EDWIN EMERSON
  WILLIAM CAROL

_The New Democracy_ (_A.D. 1913_)
  PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON

_The Income Tax in America_ (_A.D. 1913_)
  JOSEPH A. HILL

_The Second Balkan War_ (_A.D. 1913_)
  PROF. STEPHEN P. DUGGAN
  CAPT. A.H. TRAPMANN

_Opening of the Panama Canal_ (_A.D. 1914_)
  COL. GEORGE W. GOETHALS
  BAMPFYLDE FULLER

_Universal Chronology_ (_1910-1914_)




AN OUTLINE NARRATIVE

TRACING BRIEFLY THE CAUSES, CONNECTIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES OF

THE GREAT EVENTS


THE RECENT DAYS (1910-1914)


CHARLES F. HORNE

The awful, soul-searing tragedy of Europe's great war of 1914 came to
most men unexpectedly. The real progress of the world during the five
years preceding the war had been remarkable. All thinkers saw that the
course of human civilization was being changed deeply, radically; but
the changes were being accomplished so successfully that men hoped that
the old brutal ages of military destruction were at an end, and that we
were to progress henceforth by the peaceful methods of evolution rather
than the hysterical excitements and volcanic upheavals of revolution.

Yet even in the peaceful progress of the half-decade just before 1914
there were signs of approaching disaster, symptoms of hysteria. This
period displayed the astonishing spectacle of an English parliament,
once the high example for dignity and the model for self-control among
governing bodies, turned suddenly into a howling, shrieking mob. It
beheld the Japanese, supposedly the most extravagantly loyal among
devotees of monarchy, unearthing among themselves a conspiracy of
anarchists so wide-spread, so dangerous, that the government held their
trials in secret and has never dared reveal all that was discovered. It
beheld the women of Persia bursting from the secrecy of their harems
and with modern revolvers forcing their own democratic leaders to stand
firm in patriotic resistance to Russian tyranny. It beheld the English
suffragettes.

Yet the movement toward universal Democracy which lay behind all these
extravagances was upon the whole a movement borne along by calm
conviction, not by burning hatreds or ecstatic devotions. A profound
sense of the inevitable trend of the world's evolution seemed to have
taken possession of the minds of the masses of men. They felt the
uselessness of opposition to this universal progress, and they showed
themselves ready, sometimes eager, to aid and direct its trend as best
they might.

If, then, we seek to give a name to this particular five years, let us
call it the period of humanitarianism, of man's really awakened
kindliness toward his brothers of other nationalities. The universal
peace movement, which was a child in 1910, had by 1914 become a
far-reaching force to be reckoned with seriously in world politics. Any
observer who studied the attitude of the great American people in 1898
on the eve of their war with Spain, and again in 1914 during the
trouble with Mexico, must have clearly recognized the change. There was
so much deeper sense of the tragedy of war, so much clearer
appreciation of the gap between aggressive assault and necessary
self-defense, so definite a recognition of the fact that murder remains
murder, even though it be misnamed glory and committed by wholesale,
and that any one who does not strive to stop it becomes a party to the
crime.

While the sense of brotherhood was thus being deepened among the people
of all the world, the associated cause of Democracy also advanced. The
earlier years of the century had seen the awakening of this mighty
force in the East; these later years saw its sudden decisive renewal of
advance in the West. The center of world-progress once more shifted
back from Asia to America and to England. The center of resistance to
that progress continued, as it had been before, in eastern Europe.

PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

Let us note first the forward movement in the United States. The
Conservation of Natural Resources, that striking step in the new
patriotism, which had been begun in the preceding decade, was carried
forward during these years with increasing knowledge. A new idea
developed from it, that of establishing a closer harmony among the
States by means of a new piece of governmental machinery, the House of
Governors.[1] This was formed in 1910.

[Footnote 1: See _The United States House of Governors_, page 1.]

To a nation bred as the Americans have been in an almost superstitious
reverence for a particular form of government, this change or any
change whatever becomes a matter of great moment. It is their final
recognition that the present can not be molded to fit the machinery of
the past. The nearer a Constitution comes to perfection in fitting the
needs of one century, the more wholly it is likely to fail in fitting
the needs of the next. The United States Government was not at its
beginning a genuine Democracy, though approaching it more nearly than
did any other great nation of the day. Putting aside the obvious point
that the American Constitution deliberately protected slavery, which is
the primal foe of all Democracy, the broader fact remains that the
entire trend of the Constitution was intended to keep the educated and
aristocratic classes in control and to protect them from the dangers of
ignorance and rascally demagoguery.

The weapons of self-defense thus reserved by the thoughtful leaders
were, in the course of generations, seized upon as the readiest tools
of a shrewd plutocracy, which entrenched itself in power. Rebellion
against that plutocracy long seemed almost hopeless; but at last, in
the year 1912, the fight was carried to a successful issue. In both the
great political parties, the progressive spirit dominated. The old
party lines were violently disrupted, and President Wilson was elected
as the leader of a new era seeking new ideals of universal equality.[2]

[Footnote 2: See _The New Democracy_, page 323.]

Nor must we give to the President's party alone the credit of having
recognized the new spirit of the people. Even before his election, his
predecessor, Mr. Taft, had led the Republican party in its effort to
make two amendments to the Constitution, one allowing an Income Tax,
the other commanding the election of Senators by direct vote of the
people. Both of these were assaults upon entrenched "Privilege." The
Constitution had not been amended by peaceful means for over a century;
yet both of these amendments were now put through easily.[1] This
revolt against two of the most undemocratic of the features of the
ancient and honored Constitution was almost like a second declaration
of American independence.

[Footnote 1: See _The Income Tax in America_, page 338.]

Perhaps, too, the change in the Senate may prove a help to the cause of
universal peace. The governments of both Taft and Wilson were
persistent in their efforts to establish arbitration treaties with
other nations, and the Senate, jealous of its own treaty-making
authority, had been a frequent stumbling-block in their path. Yet,
despite the Senate's conservatism, arbitration treaties of
ever-increasing importance have been made year after year. A war
between the United States and England or France, or indeed almost any
self-ruling nation, has become practically impossible.[2]

[Footnote 2: See _A Step Toward World Peace_, page 259.]

In her dealing with her Spanish-American neighbors, the United States
has been less fortunate. She has, indeed, achieved a labor of
world-wide value by completing the "big ditch" between the Oceans.[3]
Yet her method of acquiring the Panama territory from Colombia had been
arbitrary and had made all her southern neighbors jealous of her power
and suspicious of her purposes. Into the midst of this era of
unfriendliness was injected the Mexican trouble. Diaz, who had ruled
Mexico with an iron hand for a generation, was overthrown.[4] President
Madero, who conquered him, was supported by the United States; and
Spanish America began to suspect the "Western Colossus" of planning a
protectorate over Mexico.

[Footnote 3: See _Opening of the Panama Canal_, page 374.]

[Footnote 4: See _The Fall of Diaz_, page 96.]

Then came a counter-revolution. Madero was betrayed and slain, and the
savage and bloody Indian general, Huerta, seized the power.[1] The
antagonism of the United States Government against Huerta was so marked
that at length the anxious South American Powers urged that they be
allowed to mediate between the two; and the United States readily
accepted this happy method of proving her real devotion to arbitration
and of reestablishing the harmony of the Americas.

[Footnote 1: See _Mexico Plunged into Anarchy_, page 300.]

In itself the entire Mexican movement may be regarded as another great,
though confused, step in the world-wide progress of Democracy. The
upheaval has been repeatedly compared to the French Revolution. The
rule of Diaz was really like that of King Louis XVI in France, a
government by a narrow and wealthy aristocracy who had reduced the
ignorant Mexican peasants or "peons" to a state of slavery. The bloody
battles of all the recent warfare have been fought by these peons in a
blind groping for freedom. They have disgraced their cause by excesses
as barbarous as those perpetrated by the French peasantry; but they
have also fought for their ideal with a heroism unsurpassed by that of
any French revolutionist.

DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD

Equally notable as forming part of this unceasing march of Democracy
was the progress of both Socialism and Woman Suffrage. But with these
two movements we must look beyond America; for their advance was not
limited to any single country. It became world-wide. When Woman
Suffrage was first established in New Zealand and Australia, the fact
made little impression upon the rest of the globe; but when northern
Europe accepted the idea, and Finland and Norway granted women full
suffrage and Sweden and Denmark gave them almost as much, the movement
was everywhere recognized as important. In Asia women took an active
and heroic part in the struggles for liberty both in Persia and in
China. In England the "militant" suffragists have forced Parliament to
deal with their problem seriously, amid much embarrassment. In the
United States, the movement, regarded rather humorously at first,
became a matter of national weight and seriousness when in 1910 the
great State of California enfranchised its women, half a million of
them. Woman Suffrage now dominates the Western States of America and is
slowly moving eastward.[1]

[Footnote 1: See _Woman Suffrage_, page 156.]

Socialism, also, though some may call it a mistaken and confused dream,
is yet a manifestation of Democracy and as such will have its voice
along with other forms of the great world-spirit. It has made
considerable advance in America, where there have recently been
Socialist mayors in some cities, and even Socialist Congressmen. But
its main progress has been in Europe. There it can no longer be
discussed as an economic theory; it has become a stupendous and
unevadable fact. It is the laboring man's protest against the tyranny
of that militarism which terrorizes Europe.[2] And since military
tyranny is heaviest in Germany, Socialism has there risen to its
greatest strength. The increase of the Socialist vote in German
elections became perhaps the most impressive political phenomenon of
the past twenty years. In 1912 this vote was more than one-third of the
total vote of the Empire, and the Socialists were the largest single
party in Germany. The Socialists of France are almost equally strong;
and so are those in Italy. When war recently threatened Europe over the
Morocco dispute, the Socialists in each of these countries made solemn
protest to the world, declaring that laboring men were brothers
everywhere and had no will to fight over any governmental problem. Many
extremists among the brotherhood even went so far as to defy their
governments openly, declaring that if forced to take up arms they would
turn them against their tyrannous oppressors rather than against their
helpless brothers of another nation. Thus the burden of militarism did
by its own oppressive weight rouse the opposing force of Socialism to
curb it.

[Footnote 2: See _Militarism_, page 186.]

In Italy the Socialists were growing so powerful politically that it
was largely as a political move against them that the government in
1911 suddenly declared war against Turkey.

Thus was started the series of outbreaks which recently convulsed
southeastern Europe.[1] Seldom has a war been so unjustifiable, so
obviously forced upon a weaker nation for the sake of aggrandizement,
as that of Italy against the "Young Turks" who were struggling to
reform their land. The Italians seized the last of Turkey's African
possessions, with scarce a shadow of excuse. This increase of territory
appealed to the pride and so-called "patriotism" of the Italian people.
The easy victories in Africa gratified their love of display; and many
of the ignorant poor who had been childish in their attachment to the
romantic ideals of Socialism now turned with equal childishness to
applaud and support their "glorious" government. Yet even here
Democracy made its gain; for under shelter of this popularity the
government granted a demand it had long withheld. Male suffrage,
previously very limited in Italy, was made universal.

[Footnote 1: See _The Turkish-Italian War_, page 140.]

The humiliation of Turkey in this Italian war led to another and far
larger contest, and to that practical elimination of Turkey from
European affairs which had been anticipated for over a century. The
Balkan peoples, half freed from Turkey in 1876, took advantage of her
weakness to form a sudden alliance and attack her all together.[2]
This, also, was a Democratic movement, a people's war against their
oppressors. The Bulgars, most recently freed of the victims of Turkish
tyranny, hated their opponents with almost a madman's frenzy. The
Servians wished to free their brother Serbs and to strengthen
themselves against the persistent encroachments of Austria. The Greeks,
defeated by the Turks in 1897, were eager for revenge, hopeful of
drawing all their race into a single united State. Never was a war
conducted with greater dash and desperation or more complete success.
The Turks were swept out of all their European possessions except for
Constantinople itself; and they yielded to a peace which left them
nothing of Europe except the mere shore line where the continents come
together.

[Footnote 2: See _The Overthrow of Turkey_, page 282.]

But then there followed what most of the watchers had expected, a
division among the victorious allies. Most of these were still half
savage, victims of centuries of barbarity. In their moment of triumph
they turned upon one another, snarling like wild beasts over the spoil.
Bulgaria, the largest, fiercest, and most savage of the little States,
tried to fight Greece and Servia together. She failed, in a strife
quite as bloody as that against Turkey. The neighboring State of
Roumania also took part against the Bulgars. So did the Turks, who,
seeing the helplessness of their late tigerish opponent, began
snatching back the land they had ceded to Bulgaria.[1] The exhausted
Bulgars, defeated upon every side, yielded to their many foes.

[Footnote 1: See _The Second Balkan War_, page 350.]

Thus we face to-day a new Balkan Peninsula, consisting of half a dozen
little independent nations, all thoroughly democratic, except Turkey.
And even Turkey, we should remember, has made a long stride toward
Democracy by substituting for the autocracy of the Sultan the
constitutional rule of the "Young Turks," These still retain their
political control, though sorely shaken in power by the calamities
their country has undergone under their brief régime.

From this semi-barbarity of southeastern Europe, let us turn to note
the more peaceful progress which seemed promising the West. Little
Portugal suddenly declared herself a Republic in 1910.[2] She had been
having much anarchistic trouble before, killing of kings and hurling of
bombs. Now there was a brief, almost bloodless, uprising; and the young
new king fled. Prophets freely predicted that the unpractical and
unpractised Republic could not last. But instead of destroying itself
in petty quarrels, the new government has seemed to grow more able and
assured with each passing year.

[Footnote 2: See _Portugal Becomes a Republic_, page 28.]

In Spain also, the party favoring a Republic grew so strong that its
leaders declared openly that they could overturn the monarchy any time
they wished. But they said the time was not ripe, they must wait until
the people had become more educated politically, and had learned more
about self-government, before they ventured to attempt it. Here,
therefore, we have Democracy taking a new and important step. To man's
claim of the right of self-government was subjoined the recognition of
the fact that until he reaches a certain level of intelligence he is
unfit to exercise that right, and with it he is likely to bring himself
more harm than happiness.

Perhaps even more impressive was the struggle toward Democracy in
England. Here, from the year 1905 onward, a "Liberal" government in
nominal power was opposed at every turn persistently, desperately,
sometimes hysterically, by a "Conservative" opposition. The Liberals,
after years of worsted effort, saw that they could make no possible
progress unless they broke the power of the always Conservative House
of Lords. They accomplished this in 1911 amid the weeping and wailing
of all Britain's aristocracy, who are thoroughly committed to the
doctrine of the mighty teacher, Carlyle, that men should find out their
great leaders and then follow these with reverent obedience. Of course
the doctrine has in the minds of the British aristocracy the very
natural addendum that _they_ are the great leaders.[1]

[Footnote 1: See _Fall of the English House of Lords_, page 133.]

With the power of the nobles thus swept aside, the British Liberals
went on to that long-demanded extension of Democracy, the granting of
Home Rule to Ireland. Here, too, England's Conservatives fought the
Liberals desperately. And here there was a subtler issue to give the
Conservatives justification. The great majority of Irish are of the
Roman Catholic faith, and so would naturally set up a Catholic
government; but a part of northern Ireland is Protestant and bitterly
opposed to Catholic domination. These Protestants, or "Ulsterites,"
demanded that if the rest of Ireland got home rule, they must get it
also, and be allowed to rule themselves by a separate Parliament of
their own. The Conservatives accepted this democratic demand as an ally
of their conservative clinging to the "good old laws." They encouraged
the Ulsterites even to the point of open rebellion. But despite every
obstacle, the Liberals continued their efforts until the Home Rule bill
was assured in 1914.

Let us look now beyond Europe. England deserves credit for the big
forward step taken by her colonies in South Africa. All of these joined
in 1910 in a union intended to be as indissoluble as that of the United
States. Thus to the mighty English-speaking nations developing in a
united Australia and a united Canada, there was now added a third, the
nation of South Africa.[1]

[Footnote 1: See _Union of South Africa_, page 17.]

In Asia, too, there was a most surprising and notable democratic step.
China declared itself a Republic. Considerable fighting preceded this
change, warfare of a character rather vague and purposeless; for China
is so huge that a harmony of understanding among her hundreds of
millions is not easily attained. Yet, on the whole, with surprisingly
little conflict and confusion the change was made. The oldest nation in
the world joined hands with the youngest in adopting this modern form
of "government by the people."[2] The world is still watching, however,
to see whether the Chinese have passed the level of political wisdom
awaited by the Spanish republicans, and can successfully exercise the
dangerous right they have assumed.

[Footnote 2: See _The Chinese Revolution_, page 238.]

Turn back, for a moment, to review all the wonderful advance in popular
government these brief five years accomplished: in the United States, a
political revolution with changes of the Constitution and of the
machinery of government; in Britain, similar changes of government even
more radical in the direction of Democracy; two wholly new Republics
added to the list, one being China, the oldest and most populous
country in the world, the other little Portugal, long accounted the
most spiritless and unprogressive nation in Europe; a shift from
autocratic British rule toward democratic home rule through all the
vast region of South Africa; a similar shift in much-troubled Ireland;
Socialism reaching out toward power through all central Europe; Woman
Suffrage taking possession of northern Europe and western America and
striding on from country to country, from state to state; a bloody and
desperate people's revolution in Mexico; and a similar one of the
Balkan peoples against Turkey! Individuals may possibly feel that some
one or other of these steps was reckless, even perhaps that some may
ultimately have to be retraced in the world's progress. But of their
general glorious trend no man can doubt.

Were there no reactionary movements to warn us of the terrible
reassertion of autocratic power so soon to deluge earth with horror?
Yes, though there were few democratic defeats to measure against the
splendid record of advance. Russia stood, as she has so long stood, the
dragon of repression. In the days of danger from her own people which
had followed the disastrous Japanese war, Russia had courted her
subject nations by granting them every species of favor. Now with her
returning strength she recommenced her unyielding purpose of
"Russianizing" them. Finland was deprived of the last spark of
independence; so that her own chief champions said of her sadly in
1910, "So ends Finland."[1]

[Footnote 1: See _The Crushing of Finland_, page 47.]

In southern Russia the persecutions of the Jews were recommenced, with
charges of "ritual murder" and other incitements of the ignorant
peasantry to massacre. In Asia, Russia reached out beyond her actual
territory to strangle the new-found voice of liberty in Persia. Russia
coveted the Persian territory; Persia had established a constitutional
government a few years before; this government, with American help,
seemed likely to grow strong and assured in its independence. So
Russia, in the old medieval lawlessness of power, reached out and
crushed the Persian government.[2] At this open exertion of tyranny the
world looked on, disapproving, but not resisting. England, in
particular, was almost forced into an attitude of partnership with
Russia's crime. But she submitted sooner than precipitate that
universal war the menace of which came so grimly close during the
strain of the outbreaks around Turkey. The millennium of universal
peace and brotherhood was obviously still far away. Not yet could the
burden of fleets and armaments be cast aside; though every crisis thus
overpassed without the "world war" increased our hopes of ultimately
evading its unspeakable horror.

[Footnote 2: See _Persia's Loss of Liberty_, page 199.]

MAN'S ADVANCE IN KNOWLEDGE

Meanwhile, in the calm, enduring realm of scientific knowledge, there
was progress, as there is always progress.

No matter what man's cruelty to his fellows, he has still his
curiosity. Hence he continues forever gathering more and more facts
explaining his environment. He continues also molding that environment
to his desires. Imagination makes him a magician.

Most surprising of his recent steps in this exploration of his
surroundings was the attainment of the South Pole in 1911.[1] This came
so swiftly upon the conquest of the North Pole, that it caught the
world unprepared; it was an unexpected triumph. Yet it marks the
closing of an era. Earth's surface has no more secrets concealed from
man. For half a century past, the only remaining spaces of complete
mystery, of utter blankness on our maps, were the two Poles. And now
both have been attained. The gaze of man's insatiable wonderment must
hereafter be turned upon the distant stars.

[Footnote 1: See _Discovery of the South Pole_, page 218.]

But man does not merely explore his environment; he alters it. Most
widespread and important of our recent remodelings of our surroundings
has been the universal adoption of the automobile. This machine has so
increased in popularity and in practical utility that we may well call
ours the "Automobile Age." The change is not merely that one form of
vehicle is superseding another on our roads and in our streets. We face
an impressive theme for meditation in the fact that up to the present
generation man was still, as regarded his individual personal transit,
in the same position as the Romans of two thousand years ago, dependent
upon the horse as his swiftest mode of progress. With the automobile we
have suddenly doubled, quadrupled the size of our "neighborhood," the
space which a man may cover alone at will for a ramble or a call. As
for speed, we seem to have succumbed to an actual mania for
ever-increasing motion. The automobile is at present the champion
speed-maker, the fastest means of propelling himself man has yet
invented. But the aeroplane and the hydroplane are not far behind, and
even the electric locomotive has a thrill of promise for the speed
maniac.[2]

[Footnote 2: See _Man's Fastest Mile_, page 73.]

In thus developing his mastery over Nature man sometimes forgets his
danger, oversteps the narrow margin of safety he has left between
himself and the baffled forces of his ancient tyrants, Fire and Water,
Earth and Air. Then indeed, in his moments of weakness, the primordial
forces turn upon him and he becomes subject to tragic and terrific
punishment. Of such character was the most prominent disaster of these
years, the sinking of the ocean steamer _Titanic_. The best talent of
England and America had united to produce this monster ship, which was
hailed as the last, the biggest, the most perfect thing man could do in
shipbuilding. It was pronounced "unsinkable." Its captain was reckless
in his confidence; and Nature reached down in menace from the regions
of northern ice; and the ship perished.[1] Since then another great
ship has sunk, under almost similar conditions, and with almost equal
loss of life.

[Footnote 1: See _Tragedy of the Titanic_, page 265.]

Oddly enough at the very moment when we have thus had reimpressed upon
us the uncertainty of our outward mechanical defenses against the
elements, we have been making a curious addition to our knowledge of
inner means of defense. The science of medicine has taken several
impressive strides in recent years, but none more suggestive of future
possibilities of prolonging human life than the recent work done in
preserving man's internal organs and tissues to a life of their own
outside the body.[2] Already it is possible to transfer healthy tissues
thus preserved, or even some of the simpler organs, from one body to
another. Men begin to talk of the probability of rejuvenating the
entire physical form. Thus science may yet bring us to encounter as
actual fact the deep philosophic thought of old, the thought that
regards man as merely a will and a brain, and the body as but the
outward clothing of these, mere drapery, capable of being changed as
the spirit wills. There is no visible limit to this wondrous drama in
which man's patient mastering of his immediate environment is gradually
teaching him to mold to his purpose all the potent forces of the
universe.

[Footnote 2: See _Our Progressing Knowledge of Life Surgery_, page
273.]

In this assurance of ultimate success, let us find such consolation as
we may. Though world-war may continue its devastation, though its
increasing horrors may shake our civilization to the deepest depths,
though its wanton destruction may rob us of the hoarded wealth of
generations and the art treasures of all the past, though its beastlike
massacres may reduce the number of men fitted to bear onward the torch
of progress until of their millions only a mere pitiable handful
survive, yet the steps which science has already won cannot be lost.
Knowledge survives; and a happier generation than ours standing some
day secure against the monster of militarism shall continue to uplift
man's understanding till he dwells habitually on heights as yet
undreamed.




THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF GOVERNORS

A NEW MACHINERY ADDED TO THE FEDERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

A.D. 1910

WILLIAM G. JORDAN

THE GOVERNORS

The formal establishment of the "House of Governors," which took place
in January of 1910, marked the climax of a definite movement which has
swept onward through the entire history of the United States.

When in 1775 the thirteen American colonies made their first effort
toward united action, they were in truth thirteen different nations,
each possessed of differing traditions and a separate history, and each
suspicious and jealous of all the others. Their widely diverging
interests made concerted action almost impossible during the
Revolutionary War. And when necessity ultimately drove them to join in
the close bond of the present United States, their constitution was
planned less for union than for the protection of each suspicious State
against the aggressions of the others.

Gradually the spread of intercourse among the States has worn away
their more marked differential points of character and purpose. Step by
step the course of history has forced our people into closer harmony
and union. To-day the forty-eight States look to one another in true
brotherhood. And as the final bond of that brotherhood they have
established a new organization, the House of Governors. This
constitutes the only definite change made in the United States
machinery of government since the beginning.

The House of Governors sprang first from the suggestion of William
George Jordan, who was afterward appropriately selected as its
permanent secretary. Hence we give here Mr. Jordan's own account of the
movement, as being its clearest possible elucidation. Then we give a
series of brief estimates of the importance of the new step from the
pens of those Governors who themselves took part in the gathering. In
their ringing utterances you hear the voice of North and South,
Illinois and Florida, of East and West, Massachusetts and Oregon, and
of the great central Mississippi Valley, all announcing the
fraternizing influence of the new step.

Governor Willson, of Kentucky, chairman of the committee which arranged
the gathering, in an earnest speech to its members declared that, "If
this conference of Governors had been in existence as an institution in
1860, there would never have been a war between the States. The issues
of the day would have been settled by argument, adjustment, and
compromise." It would be hard to find stronger words for measuring the
possible importance of the new institution.

WILLIAM G. JORDAN

The conference of the Governors at Washington this month marks the
beginning of a new epoch in the political history of the nation. It is
the first meeting ever held of the State Executives as a body seeking,
by their united influence, to secure uniform laws on vital subjects for
the welfare of the entire country. It should not be confused with the
Roosevelt conferences of May and December, 1908. It is in no sense a
continuation of them. It is essentially different in aim, method, and
basis, and is larger, broader, and more far-reaching in its
possibilities.

The nation to-day is facing a grave crisis in its history. Vital
problems affecting the welfare of the whole country, remaining unsolved
through the years, have at last reached an acute stage where they
_demand_ solution. This solution must come now in some form--either in
harmony with the Constitution or in defiance of it. The Federal
Government has been and still is absolutely powerless to act because of
constitutional limitation; the State governments have the sole power,
but heretofore no way has been provided for them to exercise that
power.

Senator Elihu Root points out fairly, squarely, and relentlessly the
two great dangers confronting the Republic: the danger of the National
Government breaking down in its effective machinery through the burdens
that threaten to be cast upon it; and the danger that the local
self-government of the States may, through disuse, become inefficient.
The House of Governors plan seems to have in it possibilities of
mastering both of these evils at one stroke.

There are three basic weaknesses in the American system of government
as we know it to-day. There are three insidious evils that are creeping
like a blood-poison through the body politic, threatening the very life
of the Republic. They are killing the soul of self-government, though
perhaps not its form; destroying its essence, though perhaps not its
name.

These three evils, so intertwined as to be practically one, are: the
growing centralization at Washington, the shifting, undignified,
uncertain status of State rights, and the lack of uniform laws.

It was to propose a possible cure for these three evils that the writer
sent in February, 1907, to President Roosevelt and to the Governors of
the country a pamphlet on a new idea in American politics. It was the
institution of a new House, a new representation of the people and of
the States to secure uniform legislation on those questions wherein the
Federal Governments could not act because of Constitutional limitation.
The plan proposed, so simple that it would require no Constitutional
amendment to put it into effect, was the organization of the House of
Governors.

More than thirty Governors responded in cordial approval of the plan.
Eight months later, October, 1907, President Roosevelt invited the
State Executives to a conference at Washington in May, 1908. The writer
pointed out at that time what seemed an intrinsic weakness of the
convention, that it could have little practical result, because it
would be, after all, only a conference, where the Federal Government,
by its limitations, was powerless to carry the findings of the
conference into effect, and the Governors, acting not as a co-operative
body, but as individuals, would be equally powerless in effecting
uniform legislation. It was a conference of conflicting powers.

The Governors were then urged to meet upon their own initiative, as a
body of peers, working out by united State action those problems where
United States action had for more than a century proved powerless. At
the close of the Roosevelt conference the Governors, at an adjourned
meeting, appointed a committee to arrange time and place for a session
of the Governors in a body of their own, independently of the
President. This movement differentiated the proposed meeting absolutely
from that with the President in every fundamental. It essentially
became more than a conference; it meant a deliberative body of the
Governors uniting to initiate, to inspire, and to influence uniform
laws. The committee then named, consisting of three members, later
increased to five, set the dates January 18, 19, and 20, 1910, for the
first session of the Governors as a separate body.

WILLIAM G. JORDAN[1]

[Footnote 1: Reproduced from _The Craftsman_ of October, 1910, by
permission of Gustav Stickley.]

When a new idea or a new institution confronts the world it must answer
all challenges, show its credentials, specify its claims for
usefulness, and prove its promise by its performance. As an idea the
House of Governors has won the cordial approval of the American press
and public; as an institution it must now justify this confidence. To
grasp fully its powers and possibilities requires a clear, definite
understanding of its spirit, scope, plan, and purpose, and its attitude
toward the Federal Government.

The House of Governors is a union of the Governors of all the States,
meeting annually in conference as a deliberative body (with no
lawmaking power) for initiative, influence, and inspiration toward a
better, higher, and more unified Statehood. Its organization will be
simple and practical, avoiding red-tape, unnecessary formality, and
elaborate rules and regulations. It will adopt the few fundamental
expressions of its principles of action and the least number of rules
that are absolutely essential to enunciate its plan and scope, to
transmute its united wisdom into united action and to guarantee the
coherence, continuity, and permanence of the organization despite the
frequent changes in its membership due to the short terms of the
Executives in many of the States.

With the House of Governors rests the power of securing through the
cooperative action of the State legislatures uniform laws on vital
questions demanded by the whole country almost since the dawn of our
history, but heretofore impossible of enactment. The Federal Government
is powerless to pass these laws. For many decades, tight held by the
cramping bonds of Constitutional limitation, it has strained and
struggled, like Samson in the temple, to find some weak spot at which
it could free itself, and endangered the very supporting columns of the
edifice of the Republic. It was bound in its lawmaking powers to the
limitation of eighteen specific phrases, beyond which all power
remained with the States and the people. In the matter of enacting
uniform laws the States have been equally powerless, for, though their
Constitutional right to make them was absolute and unquestioned, no way
had been provided by which they could exercise that right. The States
as individuals, passing their own laws, without considering their
relation or harmony with the laws of other States, brought about a
condition of confusion and conflict. Laws that from their very nature
should be common to all of the States, in the best interests of all,
are now divergent, different, and antagonistic. We have to-day the
strange anomaly of forty-six States united in a union as integral parts
of a single nation, yet having many laws of fundamental importance as
different as though the States were forty-six distinct countries or
nationalities.

Facing the duality of incapacity--that of the Government because it was
not permitted to act and the States because they did not know how to
exercise the power they possessed--the Federal Government sought new
power for new needs through Constitutional amendments. This effort
proved fruitless and despairing, for with more than two thousand
attempts made in over a century only three amendments were secured, and
these were merely to wind up the Civil War. The whole fifteen
amendments taken together have not added the weight of a hair of
permanent new power to the Federal Government. The people and the
States often sleep serenely on their rights, but they never willingly
surrender them, yet the surrender of a right is often the brave
recognition of a higher duty, the fine assumption of a higher
privilege. In many phases the need grew urgent, something had to be
done. By ingeniously tapping the Constitution to find a weak place and
hammering it thin by decisions, by interpretations, by liberal
readings, by technical evasions and other methods, needed laws were
passed in the interests of the people and the States. Many of these
laws would not stand the rigid scrutiny of the Supreme Court; to many
of them the Government's title may now be valid by a kind of
"squatter's sovereignty" in legislation,--merely so many years of
undisputed possession.

This was not the work of one administration; it ran with intermittent
ebb and flow through many administrations. Then the slumbering States,
turning restlessly in their complacency, at last awoke and raised a
mighty cry of "Centralization." They claimed that the Government was
taking away their rights, which may be correct in essence but hardly
just in form; they had lost their rights, primarily, not through
usurpation but through abrogation; the Government had acted because of
the default of the States, it had practically been forced to exercise
powers limited to the States because the States lapsed through neglect
and inaction. Then the Government discovered the vulnerable spot in our
great charter, the Achilles heel of the Constitution. It was just six
innocent-looking words in section eight empowering Congress to
"regulate commerce between the several States." It was a rubber phrase,
capable of infinite stretching. It was drawn out so as to cover
antitrust legislation, control and taxation of corporations,
water-power, railroad rates, etc., pure-food law, white-slave traffic,
and a host of others. But even with the most generous extension of this
phrase, which, though it may be necessary, was surely not the original
intent of the Constitution, the greatest number of the big problems
affecting the welfare of the people are still outside the province of
the Government and are up to the States for solution.

It was to meet this situation, wherein the Government and the States as
individuals could not act, that the simple, self-evident plan of the
House of Governors was proposed. It required no Constitutional
amendment or a single new law passed in any State to create it or to
continue it. It can not make laws; it would be unwise for it to make
them even were it possible. Its sole power is as a mighty moral
influence, as a focusing point for public opinion and as a body equal
to its opportunity of transforming public opinion into public sentiment
and inspiring legislatures to crystallize this sentiment into needed
laws. It will live only as it represents the people, as it has their
sympathy, support, and cooperation, as it seeks to make the will of the
people prevail. But this means a longer, stronger, finer life than any
mere legal authority could give it.

The House of Governors has the dignity of simplicity. It means merely
the conference of the State Executives, the highest officers and truest
representatives of the States, on problems that are State and
Interstate, and concerted action in recommendations to their
legislatures. The fullest freedom would prevail at all meetings; no
majority vote would control the minority; there would have to be a
quorum decided upon as the number requisite for an initial impulse
toward uniform legislation. If the number approving fell below the
quorum the subject would be shown as not yet ripe for action and be
shelved. Members would be absolutely free to accept or reject, to do
exactly as they please, so no unwilling legislation could be forced on
any State. But if a sufficient number agreed these Governors would
recommend the passage of the desired law to their legislatures in their
next messages. The united effort would give it a greater importance, a
larger dynamic force, and a stronger moral influence with each. It
would be backed by the influence of the Governors, the power of public
sentiment, the leverage of the press, so that the passage of the law
should come easily and naturally. With a few States passing it, others
would fall in line; it would be kept a live issue and followed up and
in a few years we would have legislation national in scope, but not in
genesis.

The House of Governors, in its attitude toward the Federal Government,
is one of right and dignified non-interference. It will not use its
influence with the Government, memorialize Congress, or pass
resolutions on national matters. What the Governors do or say
individually is, of course, their right and privilege, but as a body it
took its stand squarely and positively at its first conference which
met in Washington in January of this year as one of "securing greater
uniformity of State action and better State Government." Governor
Hughes expressed it in these words: "We are here in our own right as
State Executives; we are not here to accelerate or to develop opinion
with regard to matters which have been committed to Federal power." The
States in their relation to the Federal Government have all needed
representation in their Senators and Congressmen.

The attitude of the Governors in their conferences is one of
concentration on State and Interstate problems which are outside of the
domain and Constitutional rights of the Federal Government to solve.
There can be no interference when each confines itself to its own
duties. In keeping the time of the nation the Federal Government
represents the hour-hand, the States, united, the minute-hand. There
will be correct time only as each hand confines itself strictly to its
own business, neither attempting to jog the other, but working in
accord with the natural harmony wrapped up in the mechanism.

We need to-day to draw the sharpest clear-cut line of demarcation
between Federal and State powers. This is in no spirit of antagonism,
but in the truest harmony for the best interests of both. It means an
illumination which will show that the "twilight zone," so called, does
not exist. This dark continent of legislation belongs absolutely to the
States and to the people in the unmistakable terms of the Tenth
Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution or prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
States, respectively, and to the people." This buffer territory of
legislation, the domain of needed uniform laws, belongs to the States
and through the House of Governors they may enter in and possess their
own. The Federal Government and the States are parts of one great
organization, each having its specific duties, powers, and
responsibilities, and between them should be no conflict, no inharmony.

Let the Federal Government, through Congress, make laws up to the very
maximum of its rights and duties under the Constitution; let the
States, taking up their neglected duties and privileges, relieve the
Government of those cares and responsibilities forced upon it by the
inactivity of the States and which it should never have had to assume.
With the burden thus equitably readjusted, with the dignity of the two
powers of Government working out their individual problems in the
harmony of a fuller understanding, let us face the results. If it then
seem, in the light of changed conditions from those of the time of the
writing of the Constitution, that certain control now held by the
States can not properly be exercised by them, that in final decision of
the best wisdom of the people this power should be vested in the
Federal Government, let the States not churlishly hold on to the casket
of a dead right, but surrender the living body of a responsibility and
a duty to the power best able to be its guardian. There are few, if
any, of their neglected powers of legislation that the States and the
people acting in cooperation, through the House of Governors, will not
be able to handle.

Some of the subjects upon which free discussion tending toward uniform
laws seems desirable are: marriage and divorce, rights of married
women, corporations and trusts, insurance, child labor, capital
punishment, direct primaries, convict labor and labor in general,
prison reforms, automobile regulations, contracts, banking,
conveyancing, inheritance tax, income tax, mortgages, initiative,
referendum and recall, election reforms, tax adjustment, and similar
topics. In great questions, like Conservation, the Federal Government
has distinct problems it must carry out alone; there are some problems
that must be solved by the States alone, some that may require to be
worked out in cooperation. But the greatest part of the needed
conservation is that which belongs to the States, and which they can
manage better, more thoroughly, more judiciously, with stronger appeal
to State pride, upbuilding, and prosperity, with less conflict and
clearer recognition of local needs and conditions and harmony with them
than can the Federal Government. Four-fifths of the timber standing in
the country to-day is owned, not by the States or the Government, but
by private interests.

The House of Governors will not seek uniformity merely for the sake of
uniformity. There are many questions whereon uniform laws would be
unnecessary, and others where it would be not only unwise, but
inconceivably foolish. Many States have purely individual problems that
do not concern the other States and do not come in conflict with them,
but even in these the Governors may gain an occasional incidental
sidelight of illumination from the informal discussion in a conference
that may make thinking clearer and action wiser. The spirit that should
inspire the States is the fullest freedom in purely State problems and
the largest unity in laws that affect important questions in Interstate
relations.

While uniform law is an important element in the thought of the
Conference it is far from being the only one. The frank, easy
interchange of view, opinion, and experience brings the Governors
closely together in the fine fellowship of a common purpose and a
common ideal. They are broadened, stimulated, and inspired to a keener,
clearer vision on a wider outlook. The most significant, vital, and
inspiring phases of these conferences, those which really count for
most, and are the strongest guaranties of the permanence and power of
this movement, must, however, remain intangible. This fact was manifest
in every moment of that first Conference last January.

The fading of sectional prejudice in the glow of sympathetic
understanding was clearly evident. Some of the Western Governors in
their speeches said that their people of the West had felt that they
were isolated, misrepresented, misunderstood, and misjudged; but now
these Governors could go back to their States and their people with
messages of good will and tell them of the identity of interest, the
communion of purpose, the kinship of common citizenship, and the closer
knowledge that bound them more firmly to the East, to the South, and to
the North. Other Governors spoke of the facilitating of official
business between the States because of these meetings. They would no
longer, in correspondence, write to a State Executive as a mere name
without personality, but their letters would carry with them the
memories of close contact and cordial association with those whom they
had learned to know. There was no faintest tinge of State jealousies or
rivalry. The Governors talked frankly, freely, earnestly of their
States and for them, but it was ever with the honest pride of
trusteeship, never the petty vanity of proprietorship.

Patriotism seemed to throw down the walls of political party and
partizanship and in the three days' session the words Republican or
Democrat were never once spoken. The Governors showed themselves an
able body of men keenly alive to the importance of their work and with
a firm grasp on the essential issues. The meeting added a new dignity
to Statehood and furnished a new revelation of the power, prestige, and
possibilities of the Governor's office. The atmosphere of the session
was that of States' rights, but it was a new States' rights, a
purified, finer, higher recognition by the States of their individual
right and duty of self-government within their Constitutional
limitations. It meant no lessening of interest in the Federal
Government or of respect and honor of it. It was as a family of sons
growing closer together, strengthened as individuals and working to
solve those problems they have in common, and to make their own way
rather than to depend in weakness on the father of the household to
manage all their affairs and do their thinking for them. To him should
be left the watchfulness of the family as a whole, not the dictation of
their individual living.

President Taft had no part in the Conference, but in an address of
welcome to the Governors at the White House showed his realization of
the vital possibility of the meeting in these words:

"I regard this movement as of the utmost importance. The Federal
Constitution has stood the test of more than one hundred years in
supplying the powers that have been needed to make the central
Government as strong as it ought to be, and with this movement toward
uniform legislation and agreement between the States I do not see why
the Constitution may not serve our purpose always."

AUGUSTUS E. WILLSON[1]

Governor of Kentucky

[Footnote 1: The following letters are reprinted by permission from a
collection of such commentaries from _Cottier's Weekly_.]

President Roosevelt held two conferences of Governors, and as a member
of a committee chosen to do so, I have invited the Governors of all of
the States and Territories to meet at the White House in Washington,
January 18th, 19th, and 20th.

The conference has no legal authority of any kind. At the previous
conferences, the conservation subject was the one chiefly thought of,
and it will be brought up in the next conference. The question of what
the Governors will recommend on the income-tax constitutional amendment
may come up. The matter of handling extradition papers is important.
Uniform State laws on matters of universal interest, school laws, road
laws, tax laws, commercial paper, warehouse receipts, bills of lading,
etc.; the control of corporations, of which taxation is one branch, the
action of the States in regard to water-powers within the States;
marriage, divorce, wills, schools, roads, are all within the range of
this conference, and the agreement of all of the Governors on some of
these subjects, and by many of them on any, would be of useful
influence.

The meeting has further interest and importance in being for two days
in touch with the National Civic Federation, which will afford all of
the Governors a chance to learn what that association of many of the
most prominent men of this country is doing, and get the benefit of its
discussions and the pleasure of being acquainted with many leaders of
thought and action in the country, who will attend its sessions.

I am sure that I speak the sentiment of all of the Governors that they
do not wish any legal power or any authority except that of the weight
of their opinion as chosen State officers. They only wish the benefit
of discussion of important subjects interesting to all of the States,
and to establish kindly and mutually helpful relations between the
Governors and the Governments of the States.

EBEN S. DRAPER

Governor of Massachusetts

I believe that a meeting of Governors may accomplish much good for
every section of the country. They naturally can not legislate, nor
should they attempt to. They can discuss and can learn many things
which are now controlled by law in different States and which would be
improvements to the laws of their own States; and they can recommend to
the legislatures of their own States the enactment of laws which will
bring about these improvements.

These Governors will be the forty-six [now forty-eight] representative
units of the States of this great nation. By coming together they will
be more than ever convinced that they are integral parts of one nation,
and I believe their meeting will tend to remove all notions of
sectionalism and will help the patriotism and solidarity of the
country.

CHARLES S. DENEEN

Governor of Illinois

The conservation of natural resources often necessitates the
cooperation of neighboring States. In such cases, the discussion of
proposed conservation work by the representatives of the States
concerned is of great importance. It brings to the consideration of
these subjects the views and opinions of those most interested and best
informed in regard to the questions involved.

The same is true in relation to many subjects of State legislation in
which uniformity is desirable. This is especially the case with regard
to industrial legislation. The great volume of domestic business is
interstate, and the industrial legislation of one State frequently
affects, and sometimes fixes, industrial conditions elsewhere. An
example of the advantage of cooperation of States in the amendment and
revision of laws affecting industry is seen in the agreement by the
commissions recently appointed by New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to
investigate the subjects of employers' liability and workmen's
compensation to meet for the joint discussion of these matters. The
General Assembly of Illinois is now convened in extraordinary session,
and has under consideration the appointment of a similar commission in
order that it may meet and cooperate with the commissions of the States
named.

Along these and other similar lines it seems to me that the House of
Governors will be of practical advantage in the beneficial influence it
will exert in the promotion of joint action where that is necessary to
secure desired ends.

FRANK W. BENSON Governor of Oregon

President Roosevelt rendered the American people a great service when
he invited the Governors of the various States to a conference at the
White House in 1908. The subject of conservation of our natural
resources received such attention from the assembled Governors that the
conservation movement has spread to all parts of the country, and has
gained such headway that it will be of lasting benefit to our people.
This one circumstance alone proves the wisdom of the conference of
Governors, and it is my earnest hope that the organization be made
permanent, with annual meetings at our national capital.

Such meetings can not help but have a broadening effect upon our State
Executives, for, by interchanging ideas and by learning how the
governments of other States are conducted, our Governors will gain
experience which ought to prove of great benefit, not only to
themselves, but to the commonwealths which they represent. Matters
pertaining to interstate relations, taxation, education, conservation,
irrigation, waterways, uniform legislation, and the management of State
institutions are among the subjects that the conference of Governors
will do well to discuss; and such discussions will prove of inestimable
value, not only to the people of our different States, but to our
country as a whole.

The West is in the front rank of all progressive movements and welcomes
the conference of Governors as a step in the right direction.

ALBERT W. GILCHRIST

Governor of Florida

I can only estimate the significance and importance of this conference
of Governors by my experience from such a conference in the past. It
was my good fortune to be for a week last October on the steamer
excursion down the Mississippi River. The Governors held daily
conferences. Several elucidated the manner in which some particular
governmental problems were solved in their respective States, all of
which was more or less interesting. Of the several Federal matters
discussed, it was specially interesting to me to hear the various
Republican Governors discussing State rights, disputing the right of
interference of the General Government on such lines. It "kinder" made
me smile. In formal discussions of such matters in public, in
Washington, it is probable that such expressions would not be made.

The result of this conference made me feel as if I knew the Governors
and the people of the various States therein represented far better
than I had before. Such discussions, with the attending personal
intercourse, naturally tend to give those participating in them a
broader nationality.

The House of Governors will convene; there will be many pleasant social
functions and many pleasant associations will be formed. Some of the
Governors will speak; all of them will resolute. They will behold
evidences of the greatness of our common country and the evidence of
the greatness of our public men, as displayed in the rollicking debates
in the House, and the "knot on the log" discussions of the Senate.
Everything will be as lovely as a Christmas tree. The House will then
adjourn.

HERBERT S. HADLEY

Governor of Missouri

During recent years, the development of the National idea has carried
with it a marked tendency on the part of the people to look to the
National Government for the correction of all evils and abuses existing
in commercial, industrial, and political affairs. The importance of the
State Governments in the solution of such questions has been minimized,
and, in some cases, entirely overlooked, although Congress has been
behind, rather than in advance of, public sentiment upon many questions
of national importance. The Congressmen are elected by the people of
the different Congressional Districts, and regard their most important
duty as looking after the interests of their respective districts. The
United States Senators are elected by the legislatures of the several
States, and do not feel that sense of responsibility to the people that
is incident to an election by the people. The Governors of the various
States are elected by all of the people of the State, and they are more
directly "tribunes of the people" than any other officials, either in
our National or State Governments. These officers will thus give a
correct expression of the sentiment of the people of the States upon
public questions.

While these expressions of opinion will naturally vary according to the
sentiments and opinions of the people of the various States
represented, yet, on the whole, they will represent more of progress
and more of actual contact with present-day problems than could be
secured from any similar number of public officials. And the addresses
and discussions will also tend to mold the opinions of the people and
have a marked influence not only upon State, but also upon National
legislation.




UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA A.D. 1910

PROF. STEPHEN LEACOCK

Few historical events have been so impressive as the sudden and
complete union of the South-African States. Seldom have men's minds
progressed so rapidly, their life purposes changed so completely. In
1902 England, with the aid of her African colonists in Cape Colony and
Natal, was ending a bitter war, almost of extermination, against the
Dutch "Boers" of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In that year
the ablest and most dreaded of England's enemies in Africa was the
Dutch General, Louis Botha, leader of the fiercest and most
irreconcilable Boers, who still waged a hopeless guerrilla warfare
against all the might of the British Empire. As one English paper
dramatically phrases it: "One used to see pictures of Botha in the
illustrated papers in those days, a gaunt, bearded, formidable figure,
with rifle and bandoliers--the most dangerous of our foes. To-day he is
the chief servant of the King in the Federation, the loyal head of the
Administration under the Crown, one of the half-dozen Prime Ministers
of the Empire, the responsible representative and virtual ruler of all
races, classes, and sects in South Africa, acclaimed by the men he led
in the battle and the rout no less than by the men who faced him across
the muzzles of the Mausers ten years ago. Was ever so strange a
transformation, so swift an oblivion of old enmities and rancors, so
rapid a growth of union and concord out of hatred and strife!"

Necessity has in a way compelled this harmony. The old issue of Boer
independence being dead, new and equally vital issues confronted the
South-Africans. The whites there are scarcely more than a million in
number, and they dwell amid many times their number of savage blacks.
They must unite or perish. Moreover, the folly and expense of
maintaining four separate governments for so small a population were
obvious. So was the need of uniform tariffs in a land where all
sea-coast towns found their prosperity in forwarding supplies to the
rich central mining regions of Kimberley and Johannesburg. Hence all
earnest men of whatever previous opinion came to see the need of union.
And when this union had been accomplished, Lord Gladstone, the British
viceroy over South Africa, wisely selected as the fittest man for the
land's first Prime Minister, General Botha. Botha has sought to unite
all interests in the cabinet which he gathered around him.

The clear analysis of the new nation and its situation which follows is
reproduced by permission from the _American Political Science Review_,
and is from the pen of Professor Stephen Leacock, head of the
department of Political Economy of McGill University in Montreal,
Canada. A distinguished citizen of one great British federation may
well be accepted as the ablest commentator on the foundation of
another.

On May 31, 1910, the Union of South Africa became an accomplished fact.
The four provinces of Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange Free State (which
bears again its old-time name), and the Transvaal are henceforth
joined, one might almost say amalgamated, under a single government.
They will bear to the central government of the British Empire the same
relation as the other self-governing colonies--Canada, Newfoundland,
Australia, and New Zealand. The Empire will thus assume the appearance
of a central nucleus with four outlying parts corresponding to
geographical and racial divisions, and forming in all a ground-plan
that seems to invite a renewal of the efforts of the Imperial
Federationist. To the scientific student of government the Union of
South Africa is chiefly of interest for the sharp contrast it offers to
the federal structure of the American, Canadian, and other systems of
similar historical ground. It represents a reversion from the idea of
State rights, and balanced indestructible powers and an attempt at
organic union by which the constituent parts are to be more and more
merged in the consolidated political unit which they combine to form.

But the Union and its making are of great interest also for the general
student of politics and history, concerned rather with the development
of a nationality than with the niceties of constitutional law. From
this point of view the Union comes as the close of a century of strife,
as the aftermath of a great war, and indicates the consummation, for
the first time in history, of what appears as a solid basis of harmony
between the two races in South Africa. In one shape or other union has
always been the goal of South-African aspiration. It was "Union" which
the "prancing proconsuls" of an earlier time--the Freres, the
Shepstones, and the Lanyons--tried to force upon the Dutch. A united
Africa was at once the dream of a Rhodes and (perhaps) the ambition of
a Kruger. It is necessary to appreciate the strength of this desire for
union on the part of both races and the intense South-African
patriotism in which it rests in order to understand how the different
sections and races of a country so recently locked in the
death-struggle of a three years' war could be brought so rapidly into
harmonious concert.

The point is well illustrated by looking at the composition of the
convention, which, in its sessions at Durban, Cape Town, and
Bloemfontein, put together the present constitution. South Africa, from
its troubled history, has proved itself a land of strong men. But it
was reserved for the recent convention to bring together within the
compass of a single council-room the surviving leaders of the period of
conflict to work together for the making of a united state. In looking
over the list of them and reflecting on the part that they played
toward one another in the past, one realizes that we have here a grim
irony of history. Among them is General Louis Botha, Prime Minister at
the moment of the Transvaal, and now the first prime minister of South
Africa. Botha, in the days of Generals Buller and the Dugela, was the
hardest fighter of the Boer Republic. Beside him in the convention was
Dr. Jameson, whom Botha wanted to hang after the raid in 1896. Another
member is Sir George Farrar, who was sentenced to death for complicity
in the raid, and still another, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, once the
secretary of the Reform League at Johannesburg and well known as the
author of the "Transvaal from Within." One may mention in contrast
General Jan Smuts, an ex-leader of the Boer forces, and since the war
the organizing brain of the Het Volk party. There is also Mr. Merriman,
a leader of the British party of opposition to the war in 1899 and
since then a bitter enemy of Lord Milner and the new regime.

Yet strangely enough after some four months of session the convention
accomplished the impossible by framing a constitution that met the
approval of the united delegates. Of its proceedings no official
journal was kept. The convention met first at Durban, October 12, 1908,
where it remained throughout that month; after a fortnight's interval
it met again at Capetown, and with a three weeks' interruption at
Christmas continued and completed its work at the end of the first week
of February. The constitution was then laid before the different
colonial parliaments. In the Transvaal its acceptance was a matter of
course, as the delegates of both parties had reached an agreement on
its terms. The Cape Parliament passed amendments which involved giving
up the scheme of proportional representation as adopted by the
convention. Similar amendments were offered by the Orange River Colony
in which the Dutch leader sympathized with the leader of the
Afrikanderbond at the Cape in desiring to swamp out, rather than
represent, minorities. In Natal, which as an ultra-British and
ultra-loyal colony, was generally supposed to be in fear of union, many
amendments were offered. The convention then met again at Bloemfontein,
made certain changes in the draft of the constitution, and again
submitted the document to the colonies. This time it was accepted. Only
in Natal was it thought necessary to take a popular vote, and here,
contrary to expectation, the people voted heavily in favor of union.
The logic of the situation compelled it. In the history of the movement
Natal was cast for the same role as Rhode Island in the making of the
Federal Union of the United States of America. The other colonies, once
brought together into a single system, with power to adopt arrangements
in their own interests in regard to customs duties and transportation
rates, sheer economic pressure would have compelled the adhesion of
Natal. In the constitution now put in force in South Africa the central
point of importance is that it established what is practically a
unitary and not a federal government. The underlying reason for this is
found in the economic circumstances of the country and in the situation
in which the provinces found themselves during the years after the war.
Till that event the discord of South Africa was generally thought of
rather as a matter of racial rivalry and conflicting sovereignties than
of simple questions of economic and material interests.

But after the conclusion of the compact of Vereiniging in 1902 it was
found that many of the jealousies and difficulties of the respective
communities had survived the war, and rested rather upon economic
considerations than racial rivalries.

To begin with, there was the question of customs relations. The
colonies were separate units, each jealous of its own industrial
prosperity. Each had the right to make its own tariff, and yet the
division of the country, with four different tariff areas, was
obviously to its general disadvantage. Since 1903 the provinces had
been held together under the Customs Union of South Africa--made by the
governments of the Cape and Natal and the Crown Colony governments of
the conquered provinces. This was but a makeshift arrangement, with a
common tariff made by treaty, and hence rigidly unalterable, and with a
pro-rata division of the proceeds.

Worse still was the railroad problem, which has been in South Africa a
bone of contention ever since the opening of the mines of the Rand
offered a rich prize to any port and railway that could capture the
transit trade.

The essence of the situation is simple. The center of the wealth of
South Africa is the Johannesburg mines. This may not be forever the
case, but in the present undeveloped state of agriculture and
industrial life, Johannesburg is the dominating factor of the country.

Now, Johannesburg can not feed and supply itself. It is too busy. Its
one export is gold. Its quarter of a million people must be supplied
from the outside. But the Transvaal is an inland country dependent on
the seaports of other communities. In position Johannesburg is like the
hub of a wheel from which the railways radiate as spokes to the
seaports along the rim. The line from Cape Town to Johannesburg, a
distance of over 700 miles, was the first completed, and until 1894 the
Cape enjoyed a monopoly of carrying the whole trade of Johannesburg.
But with the completion of the tunnel through the mountains at Laing's
Nek the Natal government railway was able to connect with Johannesburg
and the port of Durban entered into competition with the Cape Ports of
Cape Town and East London over a line only 485 miles long.

Finally, the opening of the Delagoa Bay Railway in 1894 supplied
Johannesburg with an access to the sea over a line 396 miles long, of
which 341 was in the Transvaal itself. This last line, it should be
noticed, led to a Portuguese seaport, and at the time of its building
traversed nowhere British territory. Hence it came about that in the
all-important matter of railroad communication the interests of the
Transvaal and of the seaboard colonies were diametrically opposed.

To earn as large a revenue as possible it naturally adjusted the rates
on its lines so as to penalize the freight from the colonies and favor
the Delagoa Bay road. When the colonies tried in 1895 to haul freight
by ox-team from their rail-head at the frontier to Johannesburg
President Kruger "closed the drifts" and almost precipitated a conflict
in arms. Since the war the same situation has persisted, aggravated by
the completion of the harbor works and docks at Lorenzo Marques, which
favors more than ever the Delagoa route. The Portuguese seaport at
present receives some 67 per cent, of the traffic from the Rand, while
the Cape ports, which in 1894 had 80 per cent, of the freight, now
receive only n per cent.

Under Lord Milner's government the unification of the railways of the
Transvaal and the Orange River colony with the Central South-African
Railways amalgamated the interests of the inland colonies, but left
them still opposed to those of the seaboard. The impossibility of
harmonizing the situation under existing political conditions has been
one of the most potent forces in creating a united government which
alone could deal with the question.

An equally important factor has been the standing problem of the native
races, which forms the background of South-African politics. In no
civilized country is this question of such urgency. South Africa, with
a white population of only 1,133,000 people, contains nearly 7,000,000
native and colored inhabitants, many of them, such as the Zulus and the
Basutos, fierce, warlike tribes scarcely affected by European
civilization, and wanting only arms and organization to offer a grave
menace to the welfare of the white population. The Zulus, numbering a
million, inhabiting a country of swamp and jungle impenetrable to
European troops, have not forgotten the prowess of a Cetewayo and the
victory of Isandhwana.

It may well be that some day they will try the fortune of one more
general revolt before accepting the permanent over-lordship of their
conquerors. Natal lives in apprehension of such a day. Throughout all
South Africa, among both British and Dutch, there is a feeling that
Great Britain knows nothing of the native question.

The British people see the native through the softly tinted spectacles
of Exeter Hall. When they have given him a Bible and a breech-cloth
they fondly fancy that he has become one of themselves, and urge that
he shall enter upon his political rights. They do not know that to a
savage, or a half-civilized black, a ballot-box and a voting-paper are
about as comprehensible as a telescope or a pocket camera--it is just a
part of the white man's magic, containing some particular kind of devil
of its own. The South-Africans think that they understand the native.
And the first tenet of their gospel is that he must be kept in his
place. They have seen the hideous tortures and mutilations inflicted in
every native war. If the native revolts they mean to shoot him into
marmalade with machine guns. Such is their simple creed. And in this
matter they want nothing of what Mr. Merriman recently called the
"damnable interference" of the mother country. But to handle the native
question there had to be created a single South-African Government
competent to deal with it.

The constitution creates for South Africa a union entirely different
from that of the provinces of Canada or the States of the American
Republic. The government is not federal, but unitary. The provinces
become areas of local governments, with local elected councils to
administer them, but the South-African Parliament reigns supreme. It is
to know nothing of the nice division of jurisdiction set up by the
American constitution and by the British North America Act. There are,
of course, limits to its power. In the strict sense of legal theory,
the omnipotence of the British Parliament, as in the case of Canada,
remains unimpaired. Nor can it alter certain things,--for example, the
native franchise of the Cape, and the equal status of the two
languages,--without a special majority vote. But in all the ordinary
conduct of trade, industry, and economic life, its power is unhampered
by constitutional limitations.

The constitution sets up as the government of South Africa a
legislature of two houses--a Senate and a House of Assembly--and with
it an executive of ministers on the customary tenure of cabinet
government. This government, strangely enough, is to inhabit two
capitals: Pretoria as the seat of the Executive Government and Cape
Town as the meeting-place of the Parliament. The experiment is a novel
one. The case of Simla and Calcutta, in each of which the Indian
Government does its business, and on the strength of which Lord Curzon
has defended the South-African plan, offers no real parallel. The truth
is that in South Africa, as in Australia, it proved impossible to
decide between the claims of rival cities. Cape Town is the mother city
of South Africa. Pretoria may boast the memories of the fallen
republic, and its old-time position as the capital of an independent
state. Bloemfontein has the advantage of a central position, and even
garish Johannesburg might claim the privilege of the money power. The
present arrangement stands as a temporary compromise to be altered
later at the will of the parliament.

The making of the Senate demanded the gravest thought. It was desired
to avoid if possible the drowsy nullity of the Canadian Upper House and
the preponderating "bossiness" of the American. Nor did the example of
Australia, where the Senate, elected on a "general ticket" over huge
provincial areas, becomes thereby a sort of National Labor Convention,
give any assistance in a positive direction. The plan adopted is to
cause each present provincial parliament, and later each provincial
council, to elect eight senators. The plan of election is by
proportional representation, into the arithmetical juggle of which it
is impossible here to enter. Eight more senators will be appointed by
the Governor, making forty in all. Proportional representation was
applied also in the first draft of the constitution to the election of
the Assembly.

It was thought that such a plan would allow for the representation of
minorities, so that both Dutch and British delegates would be returned
from all parts of the country. Unhappily, the Afrikanderbond--the
powerful political organization supporting Mr. Merriman, and holding
the bulk of the Dutch vote at the Cape--took fright at the proposal.
Even Merriman and his colleagues had to vote it down.

Without this they could not have saved the principle of "equal rights,"
which means the more or less equal (proportionate) representation of
town and country. The towns are British and the country Dutch, so the
bearing of equal rights is obvious. Proportional representation and
equal rights were in the end squared off against one another.

South Africa will retain duality of language, both Dutch and British
being in official use. There was no other method open. The Dutch
language is probably doomed to extinction within three or four
generations. It is, in truth, not one linguistic form, but several: the
Taal, or kitchen Dutch of daily speech, the "lingua franca" of South
Africa; the School Taal, a modified form of it, and the High Dutch of
the Scriptural translations brought with the Boers from Holland. Behind
this there is no national literature, and the current Dutch of Holland
and its books varies some from all of them. English is already the
language of commerce and convenience. The only way to keep Dutch alive
is to oppose its use. Already the bitterness of the war has had this
effect, and language societies are doing their best to uphold and
extend the use of the ancestral language. It is with a full knowledge
of this that the leaders of the British parties acquiesced in the
principle of duality.

The native franchise was another difficult question. At present neither
natives nor "colored men" (the South-African term for men of mixed
blood) can vote in the Transvaal, the Orange River, and Natal. Nor is
there the faintest possibility of the suffrage being extended to them,
both the Dutch and the British being convinced that such a policy is a
mistake. In the Cape natives and colored men, if possessed of the
necessary property and able to write their names, are allowed to vote.
The name writing is said to be a farce, the native drawing a picture of
his name under guidance of his political boss. Some 20,000 natives and
colored people thus vote at the Cape, and neither the Progressives nor
the Bond party dared to oppose the continuance of the franchise, lest
the native vote should be thrown solid against them. As a result each
province will retain its own suffrage, at least until the South-African
Parliament by a special majority of two-thirds in a joint session shall
decide otherwise.

The future conformation of parties under the union is difficult to
forecast. At present the Dutch parties--they may be called so for lack
of a better word--have large majorities everywhere except in Natal. In
the Transvaal General Botha's party--Het Volk, the Party of the
People--is greatly in the ascendant. But it must be remembered that Het
Volk numbers many British adherents. For instance, Mr. Hull, Botha's
treasurer in the outgoing Government, is an old Johannesburg
"reformer," of the Uitlander days, and fought against the Boers in the
war. In the Orange Free State the party called the Unie (or United
party) has a large majority, while at the Cape Dr. Jameson's party of
progressives can make no stand against Mr. Merriman, Mr. Malan, Mr.
Sauer, and the powerful organization of the Afrikanderbond.

How the new Government will be formed it is impossible to say. Botha
and Merriman will, of course, constitute its leading factors. But
whether they will attempt a coalition by taking in with them such men
as Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and Dr. Jameson, or will prefer a more united
and less universal support is still a matter of conjecture. From the
outsider's point of view, a coalition of British and Dutch leaders,
working together for the future welfare of a common country, would seem
an auspicious opening for the new era. But it must be remembered that
General Botha is under no necessity whatever to form such a coalition.
If he so wishes he can easily rule the country without it as far as a
parliamentary majority goes. Not long since an illustrious
South-African, a visitor to Montreal, voiced the opinion that Botha's
party will rule South Africa for twenty years undisturbed. But it is
impossible to do more than conjecture what will happen. _Ex Africa
semper quid novi_.

Most important of all is the altered relation in which South Africa
will now stand to the British Empire.

The Imperial Government may now be said to evacuate South Africa, and
to leave it to the control of its own people. It is true that for the
time being the Imperial Government will continue to control the native
protectorates of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland. But the
Constitution provides for the future transfer of these to the
administration of a commission appointed by the colonial Government.
Provision is also made for the future inclusion of Rhodesia within the
Union. South Africa will therefore find itself on practically the same
footing as Canada or Australia within the British Empire. What its
future fate there will be no man can yet foretell. In South Africa, as
in the other Dominions, an intense feeling of local patriotism and
"colonial nationalism" will be matched against the historic force and
the practical advantages of the Imperial connection. Even in Canada,
there is no use in denying it, there are powerful forces which, if
unchecked, would carry us to an ultimate independence. Still more is
this the case in South Africa.

It is a land of bitter memories. The little people that fought for
their republics against a world in arms have not so soon forgotten. It
is idle for us in the other parts of the Empire to suppose that the
bitter memory of the conflict has yet passed, that the Dutch have
forgotten the independence for which they fought, the Vier Klur flag
that is hidden in their garrets still, and the twenty thousand women
and children that lie buried in South Africa as the harvest of the
conqueror. If South Africa is to stay in the Empire it will have to be
because the Empire will be made such that neither South Africa nor any
other of the dominions would wish to leave it. For this, much has
already been done. The liberation of the Transvaal and Orange River
from the thraldom of their Crown Colony Government, and the frank
acceptance of the Union Constitution by the British Government are the
first steps in this direction. Meantime that future of South Africa, as
of all the Empire, lies behind a veil.




PORTUGAL BECOMES A REPUBLIC A.D. 1910

WILLIAM ARCHER

The wave of democratic revolt which had swept over Europe during the
first decade of the twentieth century was continued in 1910 by the
revolution in Portugal. This, as the result of long secret planning,
burst forth suddenly before dawn on the morning of October 4th. Before
nightfall the revolution was accomplished and the young king, Manuel,
was a fugitive from his country.

The change had been long foreseen. The selfishness and blindness of the
Portuguese monarchs and their supporters had been such as to make
rebellion inevitable, and its ultimate success certain. Mr. William
Archer, the noted English journalist, who was sent post-haste to watch
the progress of the revolution, could not reach the scene before the
brief tumult was at an end; but he here gives a picture of the joyous
celebration of freedom that followed, and then traces with power and
historic accuracy the causes and conduct of the dramatic scene which
has added Portugal to the ever-growing list of Republics.

When the poet Wordsworth and his friend Jones landed at Calais in 1790
they found

   "France standing on the top of golden years
   And human nature seeming born again."

Not once, but fifty times, in Portugal these lines came back to my
mind. The parallel, it may be said, is an ominous one, in view of
subsequent manifestations of the reborn French human nature. But there
is a world of difference between Portugal and France, between the House
of Braganza and the House of Bourbon.

It was nearly one in the morning when my train from Badajoz drew into
the Rocio station at Lisbon; yet I had no sooner passed the barrier
than I heard a band in the great hall of the station strike up an
unfamiliar but not unpleasing air, the rhythm of which plainly
announced it to be a national anthem--a conjecture confirmed by a wild
burst of cheering at the close. The reason of this midnight
demonstration I never ascertained; but, indeed, no one in Lisbon asks
for a reason for striking up "A Portugueza," the new patriotic song.
Before twenty-four hours had passed I was perfectly familiar with its
rather plaintive than martial strains, suited, no doubt, to the
sentimental character of the people. An American friend, who arrived a
day or two after me, made acquaintance with "A Portugueza" even more
immediately than I did. Soon after passing the frontier he fell into
conversation with a Portuguese fellow traveler, who, in the course of
ten minutes or so, asked him whether he would like to hear the new
national anthem, and then and there sang it to him, amid great applause
from the other occupants of the compartment. In the cafés and theaters
of Lisbon "A Portugueza" may break out at any moment, without any
apparent provocation, and you must, of course, stand up and uncover;
but there is in some quarters a movement of protest against these
observances as savoring of monarchical flunkyism. When I left Lisbon at
half-past seven A.M. there was no demonstration such as had greeted my
arrival; but at the first halting-place a man stepped out from a little
crowd on the platform and shouted "Viva Machado dos Santos! Viva a
Republica Portugueza!"--and I found that the compartment adjoining my
own was illumined by the presence of the bright particular star of the
revolt. At the next station--Torres Vedras of historic fame--the
platform was crowded and scores of red and green flags were waving. As
the train steamed in, two bands struck up "A Portugueza," and as one
had about two minutes' start of the other, the effect was more
patriotic than harmonious. The hero had no sooner alighted than he was
lifted shoulder-high by the crowd, and carried in triumph from the
station, amid the blaring of the bands and the crackling of innumerable
little detonators, which here enter freely into the ritual of
rejoicing. Next morning I read in the papers a full account of the
"Apoteose" of Machado dos Santos, which seems to have kept Torres
Vedras busy and happy all day long.

One can not but smile at such simple-minded ebullitions of feeling; yet
I would by no means be understood to laugh at them. On the contrary,
they are so manifestly spontaneous and sincere as to be really
touching. Whatever may be the future of the Portuguese Republic, it has
given the nation some weeks of unalloyed happiness. And amid all the
shouting and waving of flags, all the manifold "homages" to this hero
and to that, there was not the slightest trace of rowdyism or of
"mafficking." I could not think without some humiliation of the
contrast between a Lisbon and a London crowd. It really seemed as
though happiness had ennobled the man in the street. I am assured that
on the day of the public funeral of Dr. Bombarda and Admiral dos Reis,
though the crowd was enormous and the police had retired into private
life, there was not the smallest approach to disorder. The
police--formerly the sworn enemies of the populace--had been reinstated
at the time of my visit, without their swords and pistols; but they
seemed to have little to do. That Lisbon had become a strictly virtuous
city it would be too much to affirm, but I believe that crime actually
diminished after the revolution. It seemed as though the nation had
awakened from a nightmare to a sunrise of health and hope.

And the nightmare took the form of a poor bewildered boy, guilty only
of having been thrust, without a spark of genius, into a situation
which only genius could have saved. In that surface aspect of the case
there is an almost ludicrous disproportion between cause and effect.
But it is not what the young King was that matters--it is what he stood
for. Let us look a little below the surface--even, if we can, into the
soul of the people.

Portugal is a small nation with a great history; and the pride of a
small nation which has anything to be proud of is apt to amount to a
passion. It is all the more sensitive because it can not swell and
harden into arrogance. It is all the more alert because the great
nations, in their arrogance, are apt to ignore it.

What are the main sources of Portugal's pride? They are two: her
national independence and her achievements in discovery and
colonization.

A small country, with no very clear natural frontier, she has
maintained her independence under the very shadow of a far larger and
at one time an enormously preponderant Power. Portugal was Portugal
long before Spain was Spain. It had its Alfred the Great in Alfonso
Henriques (born 1111--a memorable date in two senses), who drove back
the Moors as Alfred drove back the Danes. He founded a dynasty of able
and energetic kings, which, however, degenerated, as dynasties will,
until a vain weakling, Ferdinand the Handsome, did his best to wreck
the fortunes of the country. On his death in 1383, Portugal was within
an ace of falling into the clutches of Castile, but the Cortes
conferred the kingship on a bastard of the royal house, John, Master of
the Knights of Aviz; and he, aided by five hundred English archers,
inflicted a crushing defeat on the Spaniards at Aljubarrota, the
Portuguese Bannockburn. John of Aviz, known as the Great, married
Philippa of Lancaster, daughter of John of Gaunt; and from this union
sprang a line of princes and kings under whom Portugal became one of
the leading nations of Europe. Prince Henry the Navigator, son of John
the Great, devoted his life to the furthering of maritime adventure and
discovery. Like England's First Lords of the Admiralty, he was a
navigator who did not navigate; but it was unquestionably owing to the
impulse he gave to Portuguese enterprise that Vasco da Gama discovered
the sea route to India and Pedro Alvarez Cabral secured for his country
the giant colony of Brazil. Angola, Mozambique, Diu, Goa, Macao--these
names mean as much for Portugal as Havana, Cartagena, Mexico, and Lima,
for Spain. The sixteenth century was the "heroic" age of Portuguese
history, and the "heroes"--notably the Viceroys of Portuguese
India--were, in fact, a race of fine soldiers and administrators. No
nation, moreover, possesses more conspicuous and splendid memorials of
its golden age. It was literally "golden," for Emmanuel the Fortunate,
who reaped the harvest sown by Henry the Navigator, was the wealthiest
monarch in Europe, and gave his name to the "Emmanueline" style of
architecture, a florid Gothic which achieves miracles of ostentation
and sometimes of beauty. As the glorious pile of Batalha commemorates
the victory of Aljubarrota, so the splendid church and monastery of
Belem mark the spot where Vasco da Gama spent the night before he
sailed on his epoch-making voyage. But it was not gold that raised the
noblest memorial to Portugal's greatness: it was the genius of Luis de
Camoens. If Spenser, instead of losing himself in mazes of allegoric
romance, had sung of Crécy and Agincourt, of Drake, Frobisher, and
Raleigh, he might have given us a national epic in the same sense in
which the term applies to _The Lusiads_. With such a history, so
written in stone and song, what wonder if pride of race is one of the
mainsprings of Portuguese character!

But the House of Aviz, like the legitimate line of Affonso Henriques,
dwindled into debility. It flickered out in Dom Sebastian, who dragged
his country into a mad invasion of Morocco and vanished from human ken
on the disastrous battlefield of Alcazar-Khebir. Then, for sixty years,
not by conquest, but by intrigue, Portugal passed under the sway of
Spain, and lost to the enemies of Spain--that is to say, to England and
Holland--a large part of her colonial empire. At last, in 1640, a
well-planned and daring revolution expelled the Spanish intruders, and
placed on the throne John, Duke of Braganza. As the house of Aviz was
an illegitimate branch of the stock of Affonso Henriques, so the
Braganzas were an illegitimate branch of the House of Aviz, with none
of the Plantagenet blood in them. Only one prince of the line, Pedro
II., can be said to have attained anything like greatness. Another,
Joseph, had the sense to give a free hand to an able, if despotic,
minister, the Marquis of Pombal. But, on the whole, the history of the
Braganza rule was one of steady decadence, until the second half of the
nineteenth century found the country one of the most backward in
Europe.

Nor was there any comfort to be found in the economic aspect of the
case. A country of glorious fertility and ideal climatic conditions,
inhabited by an industrious peasantry, Portugal was nevertheless so
poor that much of its remaining strength was year by year being drained
away by emigration. The public debt was almost as heavy per head of
population as that of England. Taxation was crushing. The barest
necessaries of life were subject to heavy imposts. Protection
protected, not industries, but monopolies and vested interests.

In short, the material condition of the country was as distressing as
its spiritual state to any one with the smallest sense of enlightened
patriotism.

King Charles I.--name of evil omen!--ascended the throne in 1889. His
situation was not wholly unlike that of the English Charles I.,
inasmuch as--though he had not the insight to perceive it--his lot was
cast in times when Portugal was outgrowing the traditions and methods
of his family. Representative government, as it had shaped itself since
1852, was a fraud and a farce. To every municipality a Government
administrator was attached (at an annual cost to the country of
something like £70,000), whose business it was to "work" the elections
in concert with the local _caciques_ or bosses. Thus, except in the
great towns, the Government candidate was always returned. The efficacy
of the system may be judged from the fact that in a country which was
at heart Republican, as events have amply shown, the Republican party
never had more than fourteen representatives in a chamber of about 150.
For the rest, the Monarchical parties, "Regeneradores" and
"Progresistas," arranged between them a fair partition of the loaves
and fishes. This "rotative" system, as it is called, is in effect that
which prevails, or has prevailed, in Spain; but it was perfected in
Portugal by a device which enabled Ministers, in stepping out of office
under the crown, to step into well-paid posts in financial
institutions, more or less associated with the State. Anything like
real progress was manifestly impossible under so rotten a system; and
with this system the Monarchy was identified.

Then came the scandal of the _adeantamentos_, or illegal advances made
to the King, beyond the sums voted in the civil list. It is only fair
to remember that the king of a poor country is nowadays in a very
uncomfortable position, more especially if the poor country has once
been immensely rich. The expenses of royalty, like those of all other
professions, have enormously increased of late years; and a petty king
who is to rub shoulders with emperors is very much in the position of a
man with £2,000 a year in a club of millionaires. He has always the
resource, no doubt, of declining the society of emperors, and even
fixing his domestic budget more in accord with present exigencies than
with the sumptuous traditions, the palaces and pleasure-houses, of his
millionaire predecessors. It is said of Pedro II. that "he had the
wisdom and self-restraint not to increase the taxes, preferring to
reduce the expenses of his household to the lowest possible amount."
But Dom Carlos was not a man of this kidney. Easy-going and
self-indulgent, he had no notion of appearing _in forma pauperis_ among
the royalties of Europe, or sacrificing his pleasures to the needs of
his country. Even his father, Dom Luis, and his uncle, Dom Pedro, had
not lived within their income; and expenses had gone up since their
times. The king's income, under the civil list, was a "conto of reis" a
day, or something over £80,000 a year. Additional allowances to other
members of the royal family amounted to about half as much again; and
there was, I believe, an allowance for the upkeep of palaces. One would
suppose that a reasonably frugal royal family, with no house-rent to
pay, could subsist in tolerable comfort on some £2,250 a week; but as a
matter of fact, Dom Carlos made large additional drafts on the
treasury, which servile ministries honored without protest. He had
expensive fantasies, which he was not in the habit of stinting. The
total of his "anticipations" I do not know, but it is estimated in
millions of pounds.

These eccentricities, combined with other abuses of finance and
administration, rendered even the _cacique_-chosen Cortes unruly, and
our Charles I. looked about for a Strafford who should apply a
"thorough" remedy to what he called the parliamentary _gâchis_. He
found his man in João Franco. This somewhat enigmatic personage can not
as yet be estimated with any impartiality. No one accuses him of
personal corruption or of sordidly interested motives. His great
private wealth enabled him the other day to find bail, at a moment's
notice, to the amount of £40,000. On the other hand, his enemies
diagnose him after the manner of Lombroso, and find him to be a
degenerate and an epileptic, ungovernably irritable, vain, mendacious,
arrogant, sometimes quite irresponsible for his actions. A really
strong man he can scarcely be; scarcely a man of true political
insight, else he would not have tried to play the despot with no
plausible ideal to allege in defense of his usurpation. Be that as it
may, he agreed with the King that it was impossible to carry on the
work of government with a fractious Cortes in session, and that the
only way to keep things going was to try the experiment of a
dictatorship. Dom Carlos, in his genial fashion, overcame by help of an
anecdote any doubt his minister may have felt. "When the affairs of
Frederick the Great were at a low ebb," said the King, "he one day, on
the eve of a decisive battle, caught a grenadier in the act of making
off from the camp. 'What are you about?' asked Frederick. 'Your
Majesty, I am deserting,' stammered the soldier. 'Wait till to-morrow,'
replied Frederick calmly, 'and if the battle goes against us, we will
desert together.'" Thus lightly was the adventure plotted; and, in
fact, the minister did not desert until the King lay dead upon the
field of battle.

Franco dissolved the Cortes, and on May 10, 1907, published a decree
declaring the "administration to be a dictatorship." The Press was
strictly gagged, and all the traditional weapons of despotism were
polished up. In June, the dictator went to Oporto to defend his policy
at a public banquet, and on his return a popular tumult took place in
the Rocio, the central square of Lisbon, which was repressed with
serious bloodshed. This was made the excuse for still more galling
restrictions on personal and intellectual liberty, until it was hard to
distinguish between "administrative dictatorship" and autocracy. As
regards the _adeantamentos_, Franco's declared policy was to make a
clean slate of the past, and, for the future, to augment the civil
list. In the autumn of that year, a very able Spanish journalist and
deputy, Señor Luis Morote, visited most of the leading men in Portugal,
and found among the Republicans an absolute and serene confidence that
the Monarchy was in its last ditch and that a Republic was inevitable.
Seldom have political prophecies been more completely fulfilled than
those which Morote then recorded in the _Heraldo_ of Madrid. Said
Bernardino Machado:

"The Republic is the fatherland organized for its prosperity.... I
believe in the moral forces of Portugal, which are carrying us directly
toward the new order of things.... We shall triumph because the right
is on our side, and the moral idealism; peacefully if we can, and I
think it pretty sure that we can, since no public force can stop a
nation on the march."

Said Guerra Junqueiro, the leading poet of the day: "Within two years
there will be no Braganzas or there will be no Portugal....The
revolution, when it comes, will be a question of hours, and it will be
almost bloodless."

I could cite many other deliverances to the same effect, but one must
suffice. Theophilo Braga, the "grand old man" of Portugal, said: "To
stimulate the faith, conscience, will, and revolutionary energies of
the country, I have imposed on myself a plan of work, and a mandate not
to die until I see it accomplished."

The Paris _Temps_ of November 14, 1907, published an interview with Dom
Carlos which embittered feeling and alienated many of his supporters.
"Everything is quiet in Lisbon," declared the King, echoing another
historic phase: "Only the politicasters are agitating themselves.... It
was necessary that the _gâchis_--there is no other word for it--should
one day come to an end.... I required an undaunted will which should be
equal to the task of carrying my ideas to a happy conclusion.... I am
entirely satisfied with M. Franco. _Ça marche_. And it will continue;
it must continue for the good of the country.... In no country can you
make a revolution without the army. Well, the Portuguese Army is
faithful to its King, and I shall always have it at my side.... I have
no shadow of doubt of its fidelity." Poor Charles the First!

At the end of January, 1908, a revolutionary plot was discovered, and
was put down with severity. After signing some decrees to that end, at
one of his palaces beyond the Tagus, the King, with his whole family,
returned to Lisbon and the party drove in open carriages from the wharf
toward the Necessidades Palace. In the crowd at the corner of the great
riverside square, the Praça do Comercio, stood two men named Buiça and
Costa, with carbines concealed under their cloaks. They shot dead the
King and the Crown Prince, and slightly wounded Dom Manuel. Both the
assassins were killed on the spot.

It is said that there was no plot, and that these men acted entirely on
their own initiative and responsibility. At any rate, none of the
Republican leaders was in any way implicated in the affair. But on All
Saints' day of 1910, Buiça's grave shared to the full in the rain of
wreaths poured upon the tombs of the martyrs of the new Republic; and
relics of the regicides hold an honored place in the historical museum
which commemorates the revolution.

Franco vanished into space, and Dom Manuel, aged nineteen, ascended the
throne. Had he possessed strong intelligence and character, or had he
fallen into the hands of really able advisers, it is possible that the
revulsion of feeling following on so grim a tragedy might have
indefinitely prolonged the life of the Monarchy. But his mother was a
Bourbon, and what more need be said? The opinion in Lisbon, at any
rate, was that "under Dom Carlos the Jesuits entered the palace by the
back door, under Dom Manuel by the front door." The Republican
agitation in public, the revolutionary organization in secret, soon
recommenced with renewed vigor; and the discovery of new scandals in
connection with the tobacco monopoly and a financial institution, known
as the "Credito Predial," added fuel to the fire of indignation. The
Government, or rather a succession of Governments, were perfectly aware
that the foundations of the Monarchy were undermined; but they seemed
to be paralyzed by a sort of fatalistic despair. They persecuted,
indeed, just enough to make themselves doubly odious; but they always
laid hands on people who, if not quite innocent, were subordinate and
uninfluential. Not one of the real leaders of the revolution was
arrested.

The thoroughness with which the Republican party was organized says
much for the practical ability of its leaders. The moving spirits in
the central committee were Vice-Admiral Candido dos Reis, Affonso Costa
(now Minister of Justice), Joao Chagas, and Dr. Miguel Bombarda. Simoes
Raposo spoke in the name of the Freemasons; the Carbonaria Portugueza,
a powerful secret society, was represented by Machado dos Santos, an
officer in the navy. There was a separate finance committee, and funds
were ample. The arms bought were mostly Browning pistols, which were
smuggled over the Spanish frontier by Republican railway conductors.
Bombs also were prepared in large numbers, not for purposes of
assassination, but for use in open warfare, especially against cavalry.
Meanwhile an untiring secret propaganda was going on in the army, in
the navy, and among the peasantry. Almost every seaman in the navy, and
in many regiments almost all the non-commissioned officers and men,
were revolutionaries; while commissioned officers by the score were won
over. It is marvelous that so wide-spread a propaganda was only vaguely
known to the Government, and did not beget a crowd of informers. One
man, it is true, who showed a disposition to use his secret knowledge
for purposes of blackmail, was found dead in the streets of Cascaes. On
the whole, not only secrecy but discipline was marvelously maintained.

At last the propitious moment arrived. Three ships of war--the _Dom
Carlos_, the _Adamastor_, and the _San Raphael_--were in the Tagus to
do honor to the President-elect of Brazil, who was visiting King
Manuel; but the Government knew that their presence was dangerous, and
would certainly order them off again as soon as possible. The blow must
be struck before that occurred. At a meeting of the committee on
October 2, 1910, it was agreed that the signal should be given in the
early morning of October 4th. All the parts were cast, all the duties
were assigned: who should call this and that barrack to arms, who
should cut this and that railway line, who should take possession of
the central telegraph-office, and so forth. The whole scheme was laid
down in detail in a precious paper, in the keeping of Simôes Raposo.
"You had better give it to me," said Dr. Bombarda, "for I am less
likely than you to be arrested. Even if they should think of searching
at Rilhafolles [the asylum of which he was director], I can easily hide
it in one of the books of my library." His suggestion was accepted, the
paper on which their lives and that of the Republic depended was handed
to him, and the meeting broke up.

On the morning of Monday, October 3d, all was as quiet in Lisbon as
King Carlos himself could have desired. At about eleven o'clock Dr.
Bombarda sat in his office at the asylum, when a former patient, a
young lieutenant who had suffered from the persecution mania, was
announced to see him. Bombarda rose and asked him how he was. Without a
word the visitor produced a Browning pistol and fired point blank at
the physician, putting three bullets in his body. Bombarda had strength
enough to seize his assailant by the wrists and hand him over to the
attendants who rushed in. He then walked down-stairs unaided before he
realized how serious were his wounds. It soon appeared, however, that
he had not many hours to live; and when this became clear to him, he
took a paper from his pocketbook and insisted that it should be burned
before his eyes. What the paper was I need not say. At about six in the
evening he died.

Bombarda was a passionate anticlerical, and his murderer was a
fanatical Catholic. The citizens, with whom he was very popular, jumped
at the conclusion that the priests had inspired the deed. As soon as
his death was announced in the transparency outside the office of _O
Seculo_, there were demonstrations of anger among the crowd and some
conflicts with the police.

Meanwhile the Revolutionary Committee, to the number of fifty or
thereabouts, were sitting in the Rua da Esperança, discussing the
question, "To be or not to be." The military members counseled delay,
for the Government had ordered all officers to be at their quarters in
the various barracks which are scattered over the city. The intention
had been to choose a time when most of the officers were off duty and
the men could mutiny at their ease; but this plan had for the moment
been frustrated. The military view might have carried the day, but for
the determination shown by Candido dos Reis, who pointed out that it
would be madness to give the Government time to order the ships out of
the Tagus. Finally, he turned to the military group, saying, "If you
will not go out, I will go out alone with the sailors. I shall have the
honor of getting myself shot by my comrades of the army." His
insistence carried all before it, and it was decided that the signal
should be given, as previously arranged, at one o'clock in the morning.

That evening, at the Palace of Belem, some two miles down the Tagus
from the Necessidades Palace, Marshal Hermes da Fonseca,
President-elect of Brazil, was entertaining King Manuel at a State
dinner. There was an electrical sense of disquiet in the air. Several
official guests were absent, and every few minutes there came
telephone-calls for this or that minister or general, some of whom
reappeared, while some did not. At last the tension got so much on the
nerves of the young King that he scribbled on his menu-card a request
that the banquet might be shortened; and, in fact, one or two courses
were omitted. Then followed the dreary ritual of toasts; and at last,
at half-past eleven, Dom Manuel parted from his host and set off in his
automobile, escorted by a troop of cavalry. Two bands played the royal
anthem. Had he known, poor youth, that he was never to hear it again,
there might have been a crumb of consolation in the thought.

It would be impossible without a map to make clear the various phases
of the Battle of Lisbon. Nor would there be any great interest in so
doing. There was no particular strategy in the revolutionary plans, and
what strategy there was fell to pieces at an early point. It is not
clear that the signal was ever formally given, but about the appointed
hour mutinies broke out in several barracks. In some cases the Royalist
officers were put under arrest, in one case a colonel and two other
officers were shot. A mixed company of soldiers and civilians, with ten
or twelve guns, marched, as had been arranged, upon the Necessidades
Palace, to demand the abdication of the King; but they were met on the
heights behind the palace by a body of the "guardia municipal," and,
after a sharp skirmish, were forced to retire, leaving three of their
guns disabled behind them. They retreated to the general rallying-point
of the Republican forces, the Rotunda, at the upper end of the
mile-long Avenida da Liberdade. This avenue stands to the Rocio very
much in the relation of Charing Cross Road to Trafalgar Square: there
is a curve at their junction which prevents you from seeing--or
shooting--from the one into the other. On reaching the Rotunda, the
insurgents learned that the Rocio had been occupied by Royalist troops,
from the Citadel of St. George and another barrack, with one or two
machine guns, but no cannon.

There, then, the two forces lay, with a short mile of sloping ground
between them, awaiting the dawn. Under cover of darkness, a body of
mounted gendarmes attempted to charge the insurgent position, but they
were repulsed by bombs.

Meanwhile, what had become of the naval cooperation, on which so much
reliance had been placed? It had failed, through the tragic weakness of
one man. Candido dos Reis is one of the canonized saints of the
Republic; but I think it shows a good deal of generosity in the
Portuguese character that the Devil's Advocate has not made himself
heard in the case. Dos Reis had undertaken the command of the naval
side of the revolt; but oddly enough, he seems to have arranged no
method of conveyance to his post of duty. He found at the wharf a small
steamer, the captain of which agreed to take him off to the ships; but
there was some delay in getting up steam. During this pause, some one
as yet unidentified, but evidently a friend of Dos Reis, rushed down to
the wharf and shouted to him that the revolt was crushed and all was
lost. Dos Reis, who had assumed his naval uniform on board the steamer,
took it off again, and, in civilian attire, went ashore. He proceeded
to his sister's house, where he spent an hour; then he sallied forth
again, and was found next morning in a distant quarter of the city with
a bullet through his brain.

There is no doubt that he committed suicide. The theory of foul play is
quite abandoned. As it was he who had vetoed the proposed postponement
of the rising, one can understand that the sense of responsibility lay
heavy upon him; but that, without inquiry into the alleged disaster,
without the smallest attempt to retrieve it, he should have left his
comrades in the lurch and taken the easiest way of escape, is surely a
proof of almost criminal instability. The Republic lost in him an
ardent patriot, but scarcely a great leader.

The dawn of Tuesday, October 4th, showed the fortunes of the revolt at
rather a low ebb. The land forces were dismayed by the inaction of the
ships; the sailors imagined, from the non-appearance of their leader,
that some disaster must have occurred on land. It was in these hours of
despondency that the true heroes of the revolution showed their mettle.

In the bivouac at the Rotunda, as the morning wore on, the Republican
officers declared that the game was up, and that there was nothing for
it but to disperse and await the consequences. They themselves actually
made off; and it was then that Machado dos Santos came to the front,
taking command of the insurgent force and reviving their drooping
spirits. The position was not really a strong one. For one thing, it is
commanded by the heights of the Misericordia; and there was, in fact,
some long-range firing between the insurgents and the Guardia Municipal
stationed on that eminence. Again, the gentle slope of the Avenida, a
hundred yards wide, is clothed by no fewer than ten rows of low trees,
acacias, and the like, five rows on each side of the comparatively
narrow roadway, which is blocked at the lower end by a massive monument
to the liberators of 1640. Thus the insurgents could not see their
adversaries even when they ventured out of their sheltered position in
the Rocio; and the artillery fire from the Rotunda did much more damage
to the hotels that flanked the narrow neck of the Avenida than to the
Royalist forces. On the other hand, it would have been comparatively
easy for the Royalists, with a little resolution, to have crept up the
Avenida under cover of the trees, and driven the insurgents from their
position. Fortunately for the revolt, there was a total lack of
leadership on the Royalist side, excusable only on the ground that the
officers could not rely on their men.

While things were at a deadlock on the Avenida, critical events were
happening on the Tagus. On all three ships, the officers knew that the
men were only awaiting a signal to mutiny; but the signal did not come.
At this juncture, and while it seemed that the Republican cause was
lost, a piece of heroic bluff on the part of a single officer saved the
situation. Lieutenant Tito de Moraes put off in a small boat from the
naval barracks at Alcantara, rowed to the _San Raphael_, boarded it,
and calmly took possession of it in the name of the Republic! He gave
the officers a written guaranty that they had yielded to superior
force, and then sent them off under arrest to the naval barracks. He
now asked for orders from the Revolutionary Committee; and early in the
afternoon the _San Raphael_ weighed anchor and moved down the river in
the direction of the Necessidades Palace. In doing so she had to pass
the most powerful ship of the squadron, the _Dom Carlos_: would she get
past in safety? Yes; the _Dom Carlos_ made no sign. The officers were
almost all Royalists, but they knew they could do nothing with the
crew. As a matter of fact when the crew ultimately mutinied, the
captain and a lieutenant were severely wounded; but I can find no
evidence for the picturesque legend of a group of officers making a
last heroic stand on the quarter-deck, and ruthlessly mowed down by the
insurgents' fire. It is certain, at any rate, that no lives were lost.

In the Palace, on its bluff above the river, King Manuel was
practically alone. No minister, no general, was at his side. It is
said, on what seems to be good authority, that when he saw the _San
Raphael_ moving down-stream under the Republican colors, he telephoned
to the Prime Minister, Teixeira de Sousa, to ask whether there was not
a British destroyer in the river that could be got to sink the mutinous
vessel. Even if this scheme had been otherwise feasible, it would have
demanded an effort of which the minister was no longer capable. At
about two in the afternoon the _San Raphael_, cruising slowly up and
down, opened fire upon the Palace, and her second shot brought down the
royal standard from its roof. What could the poor boy do? To sit still
and be blown to pieces would have been heroic, but useless. Had he had
the stuff of a soldier in him, he might have made his way to the Rocio
and tried to put some energy into the officers, some spirit into the
troops. But he had no one to encourage and support him. Such counselors
as he had were all for flight. He stepped into his motor-car, set off
for Cintra and Mafra, and is henceforth out of the saga.

The flight of Dom Manuel meant the collapse of his cause. It is true
that the Royalists were reenforced by certain detachments of troops who
came in from the country, and, beaten off by the insurgents at the
Rotunda, made their way to the Rocio by a circuitous route. The Guardia
Municipal, too, were stanch, and showed fight at several points. It was
the total lack of spirited leadership that left the insurgents masters
of the field. Having done its work at the Necessidades, the _San
Raphael_ moved up stream again, and began dropping shells over the
intervening parallelogram of the "Low City" into the crowded Rocio.
They caused little loss of life, for they were skilfully timed to
explode in air; the object being, not to massacre, but to dismay. There
is nothing so trying to soldiers as to remain inactive under fire; and
as there had never been much fight in the garrison of the Rocio, the
little that was left speedily evaporated. At eleven in the morning of
Wednesday, October 5th, the Republic was proclaimed from the balcony of
the Town Hall, and before night fell all was once more quiet in Lisbon.

The first accounts of the fighting which appeared in the European Press
were, as was only natural, greatly exaggerated. A careful enumeration
places the number of the killed at sixty-one and of the wounded at 417.
Some of the latter, indeed, died of their wounds, but the whole
death-roll certainly did not exceed a hundred.

The Portuguese Monarchy was dead; and the causes of death, as disclosed
by the autopsy, were moral bankruptcy and intellectual inanition. It
could not point to a single service that it rendered to the country in
return for the burdens it imposed. Some of its defenders professed to
see in it a safeguard for the colonies, which would somehow fly off
into space in the event of a revolution. As yet there are no signs of
this prophecy coming true; but the prophets may cling, if they please,
to the hope of its fulfilment. For the rest, it was perfectly clear
that the monarchy had done nothing for the material or spiritual
advancement of the country, which remained as poverty-stricken and as
illiterate as it well could be. Dom Carlos had not even the common
prudence to affect, if he did not feel, a sympathy with the nation's
pride in its "heroes." The Monarchy could boast neither of good deeds
nor of good intentions. Its cynicism was not tempered by intelligence.
It drifted toward the abyss without making any reasonable effort to
save itself; for the dictatorship was scarcely an effort of reason.
"The dictatorship," said Bernardino Machado, the present Foreign
Minister, "left us only one liberty--that of hatred." And again, "The
monarchy had not even a party--it had only a _clientèle_." That one
word explains the disappearance of Royalism.

For it has simply disappeared. Even the Royalist Press is almost
extinct. Some papers have ceased to appear, some have become
Republican, the few who stick to their colors do so rather from
clerical than from specifically Royalist conviction. All the leading
papers of the country had long been Republican; and excellent papers
they are. Both in appearance and in matter, _O Mundo_ and _A Lucta_
("The Struggle") would do credit to the journalism of any country. In
size, in excellence of production, and in the well-considered weight of
their articles, they contrast strangely with the flimsy, ill-printed
sheets that content the Spanish public.

The Provisional Government has been sneered at as a clique of
"intellectuals"; but it is scarcely a reproach to the Republic that it
should command the adhesion of the whole intelligence of the country.
Nor is there any sign of lack of practical sense in the admirable
organization which not only insured the success of the revolution (in
spite of certain cross accidents) but secured its absolutely peaceful
acceptance throughout the country. There are no doubt visionary and
fantastic spirits in the Republican ranks, and ridiculous proposals
have already been mooted. For instance, it has been gravely suggested
that all streets bearing the names of saints--and there are hundreds
of them--should be renamed in commemoration of Republican heroes,
dates, exploits, etc. But the common sense of the people and Press is
already on the alert, and such whimsies are being laughed out of court.

Of the Provisional Government I saw only the President and the Foreign
Secretary. The President, an illustrious scholar, historian, and poet,
is a delightful old man of the simplest, most unassuming manners, and
eagerly communicative on the subjects which have been the study of his
life. When I asked him to explain to me the difference of national
character which made the Portuguese attitude toward the Church so
different from the Spanish, he took me right back to the Ligurians--far
out of my ethnological depth--and gave me a most interesting sketch of
the development of the two nations. But when we came to topics of more
immediate importance, he showed, if I may venture to say so, a clear
practical sense, quite remote from visionary idealism. The Foreign
Minister, Dr. Machado, is of more immediately impressive personality.
Younger than the President by at least ten years, yet little short, I
should guess, of sixty, he is extremely neat and dapper in person,
while his very handsome face has a birdlike keenness and alertness of
expression betokening not only great intelligence but high-strung
vitality. He is a copious, eloquent, and witty talker, and his
remarkable charm of manner accounts, in part at any rate, for his
immense popularity. Assuredly no monarchy could have more distinguished
representatives than this Republic.

The desire of the Republic to "play fair" was manifested in another
little trait that interested me a good deal. In the window of every
book-shop in Spain a translation from the Portuguese, entitled _Los
Escandalos de la Corte de Portugal_, is prominently displayed. It is a
ferocious lampoon upon the royal family and upon Franco; but in Lisbon
I looked for it in vain. On inquiry I learned that it had been
prohibited under the Monarchy, as it could not fail to be; but, had
there been any demand for it, no doubt it might have been reprinted
since the revolution. There was apparently no demand. The people to
whom I spoke of it evidently regarded it as "hitting below the belt."
"We do not fight with such weapons," said a leading journalist. In no
one, in fact, did I discover the slightest desire or willingness to
retail personal gossip with respect to the hated Braganzas.




THE CRUSHING OF FINLAND

A.D. 1910

JOHN JACKOL           BARON VON PLEHVE
BARON SERGIUS WITTE   J.N. REUTER

In the midst of progress comes reaction. The far northern European
country of Finland had for a century been progressing in advance of its
neighbors. It was a true democracy. It had even established, first of
European lands, the full suffrage for women; and numerous women sat in
its parliament. But Finland was tributary to Russia; and Russia, as far
back as 1898, began a deliberate policy of crushing Finland,
"nationalizing" it, was the Russian phrase, by which was meant
compelling it to abandon its independence, adopt the Russian language,
and become an integral part of the empire under Russian officials and
Russian autocracy.

Under pressure of this repressive policy, the Finns began leaving their
country as early as 1903, emigrating to America in despair of
successful resistance to Russia's tyranny. Many of them were exiled or
imprisoned by the Czar's Government. Then came the days of the Russian
Revolution; and the Czar and his advisers hurried to grant Finland
everything she had desired, under fear that her people would swell the
tide of revolution. But that danger once passed, the old policy of
oppression was soon renewed, and was carried onward until in November
of 1909 the Finnish Parliament was dismissed by imperial command. All
through 1910 repressive laws were passed, reducing Finland step by step
to a mere Russian province, so that before the close of that year the
Finlanders themselves surrendered the struggle. One of their leaders
wrote, "So ends Finland."

We give here first the despairing cry written in 1903 by a well-known
Finn who fled to America. Then follows the official Russian statement
by the "Minister of the Interior," Von Plehve, who held control of
Finland in the early stages of the struggle, and was later slain by
Russian revolutionists. Then we give the very different Russian view
expressed by the great liberal Prime Minister, Baron Sergius Witte, who
rescued Russia from her domestic disaster after the Japanese War. The
story is then carried to its close by a well-known Finnish sympathizer.


JOHN JACKOL

"Russia is the rock against which the sigh for freedom breaks," said
Kossuth, the great statesman and patriot of Hungary. Although fifty
years have passed, and sigh after sigh has broken against it, the rock
still stands like a colossal monument of bygone ages. It is pointing
toward the northern star, as if to remind one of the all-enduring
fixity. Other stars may go round as they will; there is one fixed in
its place, and under that star the shadow of despotism hopes to endure
forever.

While yet in Finland I used to fancy Russia as a giant devil-fish,
whose arms extended from the Baltic to the Pacific, from the Black Sea
to the Arctic Ocean. Then I would think of my native land as a
beautiful mermaid, about whom the giant's cold, chilly arms were slowly
creeping, and I feared that some day those arms would crush her. That
day has come. The helpless mermaid lies prostrate in the clutch of the
octopus. Not that the constitution of Finland has been annulled, as has
been so often erroneously stated, and quite generally believed. The
Russian Government has made only a few inroads upon it. The great
grievance of the Finns is not with what has been absolutely done in
opposition to their ancient rights and privileges, nor in the number of
their rights which have in reality been curtailed, but with the fact
that they have henceforth no security. The real grievance of the Finns
is that the welfare of their country no longer rests upon an inviolable
constitution, but upon the caprice of the ministers.

In 1898 the reactionists succeeded in getting one of their tools
appointed as Governor-General. No sooner had General Bobrikoff taken
his high office than he declared that the Finnish right to separate
political existence was an illusion; that there was no substantial
foundation for it in any of the acts or words of Alexander I. The
people were amazed, appalled. But this was not all. Pobiedonostseff,
the Procurator of the Holy Synod, and other men as reactionary as he,
discovered the fact, or gave birth to the idea, that the fundamental
rights of Finland could be interfered with if these fundamental rights
interfered with the welfare of the Russian Empire. In other words, they
discovered a loophole which they termed legal, on the principle that
the parts should suffer for the whole, and that this principle was an
integral part of the plan of Russian government.

The abrogation of maintenance of Finland's ancient rights would seem by
this decision to rest on the arbitrary interpretation on the part of
Russia as to whether or not they interfered with the welfare of the
empire. It is possible that, according to the individual opinions of
Russian autocrats, they might all interfere with the standard of
welfare which certain individuals have arbitrarily established to fit
the occasion.

In justice to the Russian Government it should be stated, however, that
the joy of persecution was not the motive which led to the arbitrary
acts. During the time that Finland was under Swedish control, the Finns
had learned to dislike everything Russian. These anti-Russian
tendencies were accentuated, after Finland became an appanage of the
Russian crown, by the restrictive and often reactionary policy of the
Imperial Government. Such a form of government was repugnant to the
Finns, who had learned to be governed by good laws well administered,
and by an enlightened public opinion. At the same time, owing to their
larger liberties, their higher culture, and their susceptibility to
western ideals, the Finns exerted an attractive influence over the
peoples of the Baltic provinces, and even of Russia proper. A Finn
would very seldom become Russianized, while many Russians became
Finnicized. Unlike his Russian brother, the Finn enjoyed the privileges
of free conscience, free speech, and free press.

To the average Russian such a life was enchanting, and many were so
fascinated that they became citizens of Finland. In order to do so,
however, they were obliged to go through the formality of changing
their nationality and becoming subjects of the Grand Duchy. Doubtless
this was distasteful to the Russians, but so many and so great were the
advantages accruing from such a change that not a few renounced their
nationality.

Such a state of affairs seemed unnatural and antagonistic to the
propaganda of the Panslavistic party. Instead of Russian ideals
pervading the province, provincial ideals, manners, and customs were
gradually spreading into the empire. But there seemed to be no
honorable way of checking the progress of the rapidly growing Finnish
nationality. The Finns maintained that their rights and privileges and
their laws rested upon an inviolable constitution, which could be
changed only by a vote of the four estates of the Landtag. That body
would never yield.

It was at this juncture that the Procurator of the Holy Synod conceived
the idea that the fundamental rights of the Finns can be curtailed in
so far as they interfere with those of the empire. Acting according to
this new idea the Imperial Government in 1899 took for its pretext the
army service of the Finns. Heretofore, according to a hereditary
privilege, the Finns had not been called upon to serve in the Russian
Army, and their army service had been only three years to the Russian's
five. The officers of the Finnish Army were to be Finns, and this army
could not be called upon to serve outside of the Grand Duchy. This was
the first fundamental right of the Finns to be attacked by the Russian
Government. In some mysterious way the very insignificant army of
Finland "interfered with the general welfare of the Russian Empire."

Immediately following the Czar's startling proposal for a disarmament
conference in 1899 came his call for a special session of the Finnish
Landtag to extend the laws of conscription and the time of regular
service from three to five years. Furthermore, the new law provided
that instead of serving in their own country, the Finnish soldiers were
to be scattered among the various troops of the empire. By this means
it was hoped to Russianize them.

The representatives of the people had no time to consider the measure
before the Czar's decree was issued, February 17, 1899, declaring that
thenceforth the laws governing the Grand Duchy be made in the same
manner as those of the empire.

It is not necessary to dwell upon the deep feeling of indignation and
grief that pervaded the country. It has found a freer expression
outside of the Grand Duchy than within its boundaries. Wherever the
human heart is beating in sympathetic harmony with universal progress,
the oppressed Finnish people have found moral support. In spite of
this, one by one the Finns have been deprived of their hereditary
rights and privileges. To the Finns this new order of things seems
appalling. It is like the drawing of the veil of the dark ages over
their beloved country. They have lost everything that is dear to the
human heart: their language, their religion, and their independence.
They can do nothing but mourn in silence and mortification, for a
strict Russian censorship prevents the expression of their just
indignation and grief.

The present condition of Finland is apathetic. Last fall the loss of
crops was almost complete, and pestilence and famine are devastating
the country, which has been drained of its vitality by an excessive
migration and military conscription. The young men of Finland are
forced to serve five years in the Russian Army, and the country is
suffering from a lack of men to till the soil. The credit of the
country has been mined, and panic is spreading rapidly. Wholesale
migration of the more thrifty has made the already difficult problem of
readjustment more complicated. Those who remain behind are literally
suffering from physical, intellectual, and moral starvation. There is
left nothing to refresh, fertilize, and energize the nation's vitality.
The Finns are utterly helpless. In this sad extremity of their people
the best men of Finland are exerting their utmost in the endeavor to
alleviate suffering and infuse hope and inspiration among the masses.
The young Finnish party has become exasperated by the humiliation that
has been heaped upon the long-suffering people of their native land,
and its leaders have advised active resistance. The old Finnish party
has adopted the policy of passive resistance and protest. But the
inroads upon the constitution of Finland, in the form of imperial
decrees, rules, and regulations by the Governor-General and his
subordinates, have been so many and so sweeping in their character that
even the most conservative are beginning to lose patience. As long as
the unconstitutional acts affected only the political life of the
people, many were able to bear it, but when the new rules attacked the
time-honored social institutions and customs, indignation could no
longer be suppressed. For instance, the order to open private mail
caused a general protest. The postal director and his secretary refused
to sign the order and resigned. No less obnoxious was the order
forbidding public meetings and directing the governors of the different
provinces of Finland to appoint only such men to fill municipal rural
offices as will be subservient to the Governor-General. The governor of
the province of Ulrasborg resigned, while several other provinces were
already governed by pliant tools of General Bobrikoff.

The long-suppressed anxiety of the people has changed into a
heartrending sigh of anguish. These words of a national poet express
the general sentiment, "Better far than servitude a death upon the
gallows." A vicious circle has been established. The high-handed
measures cause indignation, and the Governor-General is determined to
suppress its expression. There is no safety in Finland for honest and
patriotic men. The judiciary has been made subservient to General
Bobrikoff. Latest advices are ominous. April 24, 1903, was a black day
in the history of Finland. It witnessed the inauguration of a reign of
terror which, by the ordinance of April 2d and the rescript of April
9th, General Bobrikoff had been authorized to establish.

Bobrikoff returned to Finland with authority, if necessary, to close
hotels, stores, and factories, to forbid general meetings, to dissolve
clubs and societies, and to banish without legal process any one whose
presence in the country he considered objectionable.

For 700 years Finns have been free men; now they have become Russian
serfs, and it is well to make closer connections between the Finnish
railway system and the trans-Siberian road. Finns are long-suffering
and patient, but who could endure all this?

While the expression of indignation is suppressed in Finland, outside
of the Grand Duchy, especially in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, Russia's
relentless tyranny has made the highest officers of state as resentful
as the man in the street. Indeed entire Scandinavia is aflame with
indignation and apprehension. The leading journals are warning
Scandinavians "that the fate of Finland implies other tragedies of
similar character, unless Pan-Scandinavia becomes something more than a
political dream."


VON PLEHVE[1]

[Footnote 1: Reprinted by permission from the _American Review of
Reviews_.]

In criticizing Russian policy in Finland a distinction should be made
between its fundamental principles--_i.e.,_ the ends which it is meant
to attain, and its outward expression, which depends upon
circumstances.

The former,--_i.e.,_ the aims and principles, remain _unalterable_; the
latter,--_i.e.,_ the way in which this policy finds expression--is of
an incidental and temporary character, and does not always depend on
the Russian authority alone. This is what should be taken into
consideration by Russia's western friends when estimating the value of
the information which reaches them from Finland.

As to the program of the Russian Government in the Finland question, it
is substantially as follows:

The fundamental problem of every supreme authority--the happiness and
prosperity of the governed--can be solved only by the mutual
cooperation of the government and the people. The requirements
presented to the partners in this common task are, on the one hand,
that the people should recognize the unity of state principle and
policy and the binding character of its aims; and, on the other, that
the Government should acknowledge the benefit accruing to the state
from the public activity, along the lines of individual development, of
its component elements.

Such are the grounds on which the government and the people should
unite in the performance of their common task. The combination of
imperial unity with local autonomy, of autocracy with self-government,
forms the principle which must be taken into consideration in judging
the action of the Russian Government in the Grand Duchy of Finland. The
manifesto of February 3-15, 1899, is not a negation of such a peaceful
cooperation, but a confirmation of the aforesaid leading principle of
our Government in its full development. It decides that the issue of
imperial laws, common both to Russia and Finland, must not depend
altogether on the consent of the members of the Finland Diet, but is
the prerogative of the Imperial Council of State, with the
participation on such occasions of members of the Finland Senate. There
is nothing in this manifesto to shake the belief of Russia's friends in
the compatibility of the principles of autocracy with a large measure
of local self-government and civic liberty. The development of the
spiritual and material powers of the population by its gradual
introduction to participation in the conscious public life of
the state, as a healthy, conservative principle of government,
has always entered into the plans of the sovereign leaders of the life
of Russia as a state. These intentions were announced afresh from the
throne by the manifesto of February 26, 1903. In our country this
process takes place in accordance with the historical basis of the
empire, with the national peculiarities of its population.

The result is that in Russia we have the organization of local
institutions which give self-government in the narrow sense of the
word--_i.e.,_ the right of the people to see to the satisfaction of
their local economic needs. In Finland the idea of local autonomy was
developed far earlier and in a far wider manner. Its present scope,
which has grown and developed under Russian rule, embraces all sides,
not only of the economic, but of the civil, life of the land. Russian
autocracy has thus given irrefragable proof of its constructive powers
in the sphere of civic development. The historian of the future will
have to note its ethical importance in a far wider sphere as well: the
greatest of social problems have found a peaceable solution in Russia,
thanks to the conditions of its political organization.

For a full comprehension, however, of the manifesto of 1899, it must be
regarded as one of the phases in the development of Finland's relations
to Russia. It will then become evident that as a legacy of the past it
is the outcome of the natural course of events which sooner or later
must have led up to it. The initiation of Finland into the historical
destinies of the Russian Empire was bound to lead to the rise of
questions calling for a general solution common both to the empire and
to Finland. Naturally, in view of the subordinate status of the latter,
such questions could be solved only in the order appointed for imperial
legislation. At the same time, neither the fundamental laws of the
Swedish period of rule in Finland, which were completely incompatible
with its new status, nor the Statutes of the Diet, introduced by
Alexander II., and determining the order of issue of local laws,
touched, or could touch, the question of the issue of general imperial
laws. This question arose in the course of the legislative work
on the systematization of the fundamental laws of Finland. This task,
undertaken by order of the Emperor Alexander II. for the more precise
determination of the status of Finland as an indivisible part of our
state, was continued during the reign of his august successor, the
Emperor Alexander III., and led to the question of determining the
order of issue of general imperial laws. The rules drafted for this
purpose in 1893 formed the contents of the manifesto of 1899. Thus we
see that during six years they remained without application, there
being no practical necessity for their publication. When, however, this
necessity arose, owing to the lapse of the former military law, the
manifesto was issued. It was, therefore, the finishing touch to the
labor of many years at the determination of the manner in which the
principle of a united empire was to find expression within the limits
of Finland, and remained substantially true to the traditions which for
a century had reigned in the relations between Russia and Finland. It
presented a combination of the principle of autocracy with that of
local self-government without any serious limitations of the rights of
the latter. Moreover, while preserving the historical principle of
Russian empire-building, this law determined the form of the expression
of the autocratic power within the limits of the Grand Duchy in a
manner so much in accord with the conditions of life in Finland that it
did not touch the organization of a single one of the national local
institutions of the duchy.

This law, in its application to the new conscription regulations, has
alleviated the condition of the population of Finland. The military
burden laid on the population of the land has been decreased from 2,000
men to 500 per annum, and latterly to 280. As you will see, there is in
reality no opposition between the will of the Emperor of Russia as
announced to Finland in 1899 and his generous initiative at The Hague
Conference. But, you ask me, has not this confirmation of the ancient
principles of Russian state policy in Finland been bought at too dear a
price? I shall try to answer you. The hostility of public opinion
toward us in the West in connection with Finnish matters is much to be
regretted, but hopes may be entertained that under the influence of
better information on Finnish affairs this hostility may lose its
present bitterness. We are accustomed, moreover, to see that the West,
while welcoming the progressive development of Russia along the old
lines it, Europe, has followed itself, is not always as amicably
disposed toward the growth of the political and social
self-consciousness of Russia and toward the independent historical
process taking place in her in the shape of the concentration of her
forces for the fulfilment of her peaceful vocation in the history of
the human race.

The attitude of the population of Finland toward Russia is not at all
so inimical as would appear on reading the articles in the foreign
press proceeding from the pen of hostile journalists. To the honor of
the best elements of the Finnish population, it must be said that the
degree of prosperity attained by Finland during the past century under
the egis of the Russian throne is perfectly evident to them; they know
that it is the Russian Government which has resuscitated the Finnish
race, systematically crushed down as it had been in the days of Swedish
power. The more prudent among the Finlanders realize that now, as
before, the characteristic local organization of Finland remains
unaltered, that the laws which guarantee the provincial autonomy of
Finland are still preserved, and that now, as before, the institutions
are active which satisfy its social and economic needs on independent
lines.

They understand, likewise, the real causes of the increasing emigration
from Finland. If, along with them, political agitation has also played
a certain part, alarming the credulous peasantry with the specter of
military service on the distant borders of Russia, yet their emigration
was and remains an economic phenomenon. Having originated long before
the issue of the manifesto of 1899, it kept increasing under the
influence of bad harvests, industrial crises, and the demand for labor
in foreign lands. Such is also the case in Norway, where the percentage
of emigration is even greater than in Finland.

Having elucidated the substantially unalterable aims of Russian policy
in Finland, let us proceed to the causes which have led to its present
incidental and temporary form of expression. This, undoubtedly, is
distinguished by its severity, but such are the requirements of an
utilitarian policy. By the bye, the total of these severe measures
amounts to twenty-six Finlanders expelled from the country and a few
officials dismissed the service without the right to a pension. It was
scarcely possible, however, to retain officials in the service of the
state once they refused to obey their superiors. Nor was it possible to
bear with the existence of a conspiracy which attempted to draw the
peaceful and law-abiding population into a conflict with the
Government, and that, too, at a moment when the prudent members of the
population of the duchy took the side of lawful authority, thereby
calling forth against themselves persecution on the part of the secret
leaders of the agitation party. The upholders of the necessity for a
pacific policy toward Russia were subjected to moral and sometimes
physical outrage, and their opponents were not ashamed to institute
scandalous legal processes against them for the purpose of damaging
their reputations.

Very different is the attitude of the great mass of the population, as
the following incident shows: The president of the Abo Hofgericht,
declining to follow the instructions of the party hostile to Russia,
was, on his arrival in Helsingfors, subjected to a variety of insults
from the mob gathered at the railway station. On his return to Abo he
was, on the contrary, presented with an address from the peasantry and
local landowners, in which the following words occur: "We understand
very well that you have been led to your patriotic resolve to continue
your labors in obedience to the government by deep conviction, and do
not require gratitude either from us or from any others; but at the
important crisis our people is now experiencing it may be of some
relief to you to learn that the preponderating majority of the people,
and especially in broader classes, gratefully approve of the course you
have taken."

It will scarcely be known to any one in the West that when signatures
were being gathered for the great mass-address of protest dispatched to
St. Petersburg in 1899, those who refused their signatures numbered
martyrs among them. There are some who for their courage in refusing
their signatures suffered ruin and disgrace and were imprisoned on
trumped-up charges. Moreover, the agitators aimed at infecting the
lower classes of the population with their intolerance and their hatred
of Russians, but, it must be said, with scant success.

With regard to the essence of the question, I repeat that in matters of
government temporary phenomena should be distinguished from permanent
ones. The incidental expression of Russian policy, necessitated by an
open mutiny against the Government in Finland, will, undoubtedly, be
replaced by the former favor of the sovereign toward his Finnish
subjects as soon as peace is finally restored and the current of social
life in that country assumes its normal course. Then, certainly, all
repressive measures will be repealed. But the realization of the
fundamental aim which the Russian Government has set itself in
Finland--_i.e._, the confirming in that land of the principle of
imperial unity--must continue, and it would be best of all if this end
were attained with the trustful cooperation of local workers under the
guidance of the sovereign to whom Divine Providence has committed the
destinies of Russia and Finland.


SERGIUS WITTE

When we talk of the means requisite for assimilating Finland we can not
help reckoning, first and foremost, with this fact, that by the will of
Russian emperors that country has lived its own particular life for
nearly a century and governed itself in quite a special manner. Another
consideration that should be taken to heart is this: the administration
of the conquered country on lines which differed from the organization
of other territories forming part of the empire, and which gave to
Finland the semblance of a separate state, was shaped by serious
causes, and did good service in the political history of the Russian
Empire. One is hardly justified, therefore, in blaming this work of
Alexander I., as is now so often done.... The annexation of Finland,
poor by nature and at that time utterly ruined by protracted wars, was
of moment to Russia, not so much from an economic or financial as from
a strategical point of view. And what in those days was important was
not its Russification, but solely the military position which it
afforded. Besides, the incorporation of Finland took place at a
calamitous juncture--for Russia. On the political horizon of Europe the
clouds were growing denser and blacker, and there was a general
foreboding of the coming events of the year 1812. If, at that time,
Czar Alexander I. had applied to Finland the methods of administration
which are wont to be employed in conquered countries, Finland would
have become a millstone round Russia's neck during the critical period
of her struggle with Napoleon, which demanded the utmost tension of our
national forces. Fear of insurrections and risings would have compelled
Russia to maintain a large army there and to spend considerable sums in
administering the country. But Alexander I. struck out a different
course. His Majesty recognized the necessity of "bestowing upon the
people, by means of internal organization, incomparably more advantages
than it had had under the sway of Sweden." And the Emperor held that an
effective means of achieving this would be to give the nation such a
status "that it should be accounted not enthralled by Russia, but
attached to her in virtue of its own manifest interests." "This valiant
and trusty people," said Czar Alexander I., when winding up the Diet of
Borgo, "will bless Providence for establishing the present order of
things. And I shall garner in the best fruits of my solicitude when I
shall see this people tranquil from without, free within, devoting
itself to agriculture and industry under the protection of the laws and
their own good conduct, and by its very prosperity rendering justice in
my intentions and blessing its destiny."

Subsequent history justified the rosiest hopes of the Emperor. The
immediate consequence of the policy he adopted toward Finland was that
the country quickly became calmed and settled after the fierce war that
had been waged there, and that in this way Russia was enabled to
concentrate all her forces upon the contest with Napoleon. According to
the words of Alexander I. himself, the annexation of Finland "was of
the greatest advantage to Russia; without it, in 1812, we might not,
perhaps, have won success, because Napoleon had in Bernadotte his
steward, who, being within five days' march of our capital, would have
been inevitably compelled to join his forces with those of Napoleon.
Bernadotte himself told me so several times, and added that he had
Napoleon's order to declare war against Russia." And afterward, during
almost a century, Finland never occasioned any worries, political or
economic, to the Russian Government, and did not require special
sacrifices or special solicitude on its part.

If we may judge, not by the speeches and articles of particular
Separatists, but by overt acts, during that long period of time the
Finnish people never failed in their duty as loyal subjects of their
monarch or citizens of the common fatherland, Russia. The successors of
the conqueror of Finland spoke many times from the height of the throne
"of the numerous proofs of unalterable attachment and gratitude which
the citizens of this country have given their monarchs." And in effect,
neither general insurrections against Russia's dominions, nor political
plots, nor the tumults of an ignorant rabble--such as our cholera
riots, workmen's outbreaks, Jewish pogroms, and other like
disturbances--have ever occurred in Finland; and when disorders of that
kind broke out in other parts of the empire or alarming tidings from
abroad came in they never evoked the slightest dangerous echo there. It
is a most remarkable fact that during the trying time the Russian
Government had when the Polish insurrection was going on, and later, in
the equally difficult period through which we passed at the close of
the seventies, Finland remained perfectly calm; and in the long list of
political criminals sprung from the various nationalities of Russia, we
do not find a single Finlander.

In like manner fear of Finland's aspirations toward independence, of
her inordinate demands in the matter of military legislation, of her
turning her population into an armed nation; in a word, all the
apprehensions felt that Finland may break loose from Russia are, down
to the present moment, devoid of foundation in fact.

"Finland under the egis of the Russian realm," our present Emperor has
said, "and strong in virtue of Russia's protection through the lapse of
almost a whole century, has advanced along the way of peaceful progress
unswervingly, and in the hearts of the Finnish people lived the
consciousness of their attachment to the Russian monarchs and to
Russia." In moments of stress and of Russia's danger, the Finnish
troops have always come forward as the fellow soldiers of our armies,
and Finland has shared with us unhesitatingly our military triumphs and
also the irksome consequences and tribulations of war-time. Thus, in
the year 1812 and in the Crimean campaign, her armies grew in number
considerably; in that eastern war almost her entire mercantile marine
was destroyed--a possession which was one of the principal sources of
the revenue of the country. During the Polish insurrection and the war
for the emancipation of Bulgaria Finnish troops took part in the
expeditions, and when in 1885 the Diet was opened, the Emperor
Alexander III., in his speech from the throne, bore witness to "the
unimpeachable way in which the population of the country had discharged
its military obligations," and he gave utterance to his conviction that
the Finnish troops would attain the object for which they existed.

By way of proving Finland's striving to cut herself apart from Russia,
people point to the doctrine disseminated about the Finnish State, to
its unwillingness to establish military conscription on the same lines
as the empire, and to the speeches of the Deputies of the Diets of
1877-1878 and 1879. But none of these arguments carries conviction.

The theory about the independence of Finland, as a separate realm,
which was worked out for the purpose of devising "the means of
safeguarding its idiosyncrasies," is far from proving that "Finland
aims at separation from Russia." Down to the present moment separation
has not been in her interests. She was never an independent State; her
historical traditions do not move her to play a political part in
Europe. Besides, her population is mixed. The Swedish element
constitutes only the topmost layer, and is not powerful enough to move
toward an independent existence or toward union with the Power which
belongs to the same race as that layer, while the mass of Finns,
dreading the oppression of the Swedish party, is drawn more to Russia
by the simple instinct of self-preservation. That is why the Finnish
patriot may well be a true and devoted citizen of the Russian Empire,
and being, as Alexander III. termed it, "a good Finlander," can also
"bear in mind that he is a member of the Russian family, at the head of
which stands the Russian Emperor."

The unfavorable attitude of the Finns toward the proposal of the War
Ministry for extending to them the general regulations that deal with
the obligation to serve in the army is also intelligible. That
obligation of military service is exceedingly irksome; and it is not
only the Finns who desire to fight shy of it, nor can one discover any
specially dangerous symptom in their wish to preserve the privileged
position which they have hitherto enjoyed as to the way of discharging
their military duties. They seek to perpetuate the privileges conferred
upon them in the form of fundamental laws, and they strive to avoid
being incorporated in the Russian Army, because service there would be
very much more onerous for them than in their own Finnish regiments...

If we now turn from the political to the economic aspect of the matter,
to the question how far the order of things as at present established
in Finland has proved advantageous to Russia from the financial point
of view, we shall search in vain for data capable of bearing out the
War Minister's opinion that, for the period of a century the Budget of
Finland has been sedulously husbanded at the cost of the Russian
people.

Ever since Finland has had an independent State Budget, she has never
required any sacrifices on the part of Russia for her economic
development. Ill-used by nature and ruined by wars, the country, by
dint of its own efforts, has advanced toward cultural and material
prosperity. Without subsidies or guaranties from the Imperial Treasury,
the land became furrowed with a network of carriage roads and railways;
industries were created; a mercantile fleet was built, and the work of
educating the nation was so successfully organized that one can hardly
find an illiterate person throughout the length and breadth of the
principality. It is also an interesting fact worth recording that,
whereas the Russian Government has almost every year to feed a starving
population, now in one district of the empire, now in another, and is
obliged from time to time to spend enormous sums of money for the
purpose, Finland, in spite of its frequent bad harvests, has generally
dispensed with such help on the part of the State Treasury...

Under these circumstances it is hardly fair to assert that Finland has
been living at Russia's expense. On the contrary, Finland is perhaps
the only one of our borderlands which has not required for its economic
or cultural development funds taken from the population of Russia
proper. The Caucasus, the Kingdom of Poland, Turkestan, part of
Siberia, and other portions of our border districts--nay, even the
northern provinces themselves--are sources of loss to us, or, at any
rate, they have cost the Russian Treasury very much, and some of them
still continue to cost it much, but the expenses they involve are
hidden in the totals of the Imperial Budget. A few data will throw
adequate light on this aspect of the situation. It is enough, for
instance, to call to mind what vast, what incalculable sacrifices the
pacification of the Caucasus required from Russia and what worry and
expense it still causes us. No less imposing is the expenditure which
the Kingdom of Poland with its two insurrections necessitated in the
course of last century.... And if we cast a glance at the youngest of
our borderlands--Turkestan--we shall find that here also the outlay
occasioned by the political situation of the country has already become
sharply outlined.... When we set those figures and data side by side we
shall find it hard to speak of "our expenditure on Finland" or of "the
vast privileges" we have conferred on the principality.

It follows, then, that the system of administration established for
Finland by the Emperor Alexander I. has not yet had any harmful
political results for Russia, and that it has dispensed the Russian
Government from incurring heavy expenditure for the administration and
the well-being of the country, and in this way has enabled Russia to
concentrate her forces and her care on other parts of the empire and to
devote her attention to other State problems.

One can not, of course, contend that the system of government adopted
in Finland satisfies, in each and all its parts, the requirements and
the needs of the present time. On the contrary, it is indubitable that
the independent existence of the principality, disconnected as it is
from the general interests of the empire, has led to a certain
estrangement between the Russian and the Finnish populations. That an
estrangement really exists can not be doubted; but the explanation of
it is to be found in the difference of the two cultures which have
their roots in history. To the protracted sway of Sweden and Finland's
continuous relations through her intermediary with Western Europe, the
circumstance is to be ascribed that the thinking spirits among the
Finns gravitate--in matters of culture--not to Russia but to the West,
and in particular to Sweden, with whom Finland is linked by bonds of
language--through her highest social class--and of religion, laws, and
literature. For that reason the views, ideas, and interests of
Western--and in particular of Scandinavian--peoples are more
thoroughly familiar and more intelligible to them than ours. That also
is why, when working out any kind of reforms and innovations, they seek
for models not among us but in Western Europe.

It is, doubtless, impossible to look upon that state of things with
approval. It is highly desirable that a closer union should take place
between the interests, cultural and political, of the principality and
those of the empire: that is postulated by the mutual advantages of
both countries. As I have already remarked, Russians could not
contemplate otherwise than with pleasure the possible union and
assimilation--in principle--of the borderland with the other parts of
our vast fatherland: they will also be unanimous in wishing this task
as successful an issue as is possible.....

But what is not feasible is to demolish at one swoop everything that
has been created and preserved in the course of a whole century. A
change of policy, if it is not to provoke tumults and disorganization,
must be carried out gradually and with extreme circumspection. The
assimilation of Finland can never be efficacious if achieved by
violence and constraint instead of by pacific means. The Finnish people
should be left to appreciate the benefits which would accrue to them
from union with a powerful empire: for an adequate understanding of
their own interests will, in the words of the Imperial rescript of
February 28, 1891, "inspire them with a desire to draw more closely the
bonds that link Finland with Russia." There is no doubt that even at
present a certain tendency is noticeable among the Finns in favor of
closer relations with Russia: the knowledge of the Russian tongue is
spreading more and more widely among them, and business relations
between them and us are growing brisker from year to year. The
desirable abolition of the customs cordon between the two countries is
bound to give a powerful fillip to the growth of commerce, which is the
most trustworthy and most pacific means of bringing about a better
understanding and strengthening the ties that bind Finland to Russia.

Harsh, drastic expedients may easily loosen the threads that have begun
to get tied, foster national hate, arouse mutual distrust and
suspicion, and lead to results the reverse of those aimed at.
Assimilative measures adopted by the Government, therefore, should be
thought out carefully and applied gradually.

J.N. REUTER

"Might can not dominate right in Russia," said M. Stolypin, Russian
Minister of the Interior and President of the Council of Ministers, in
the speech which he delivered in the Duma on May 18, 1908, when pressed
by the various parties to declare his policy with regard to Finland.
This noble sentiment has the familiar ring of Russian officialdom. It
may, perhaps, be worth while to consider it in the light of recent
history and present-day issues.

Alexander I., the first Russian sovereign of Finland, addressed a
Rescript to Count Steinheil on his appointment to the post of
Governor-General. Therein he wrote: "My object in Finland has been to
give the people a political existence so that they shall not regard
themselves as subject to Russia, but as attached to her by their own
obvious interests." It is not the place here to give an historical
account of subsequent events. It may, however, be briefly stated that
the political ideal expressed in the words quoted here was at times
forgotten, but was again revived, and, in such times, even resulted in
the extension of Finland's constitutional rights. Then, again, this
ideal was abandoned, and gave way to a totally different one, which
found its most acute expression in February, 1899, when the Czar, a
year after the issue of his invitations to the first Peace Conference
at The Hague, suppressed by an Imperial manifesto the constitutional
right of Finland. The arbitrary and corrupt Russian bureaucratic regime
little by little forced its way into the country, while Finlanders
watched with bitter resentment the suppression, one by one, of their
most cherished national institutions.

This manifesto was condemned in many European countries at the time,
and a protest against it was signed by over a thousand prominent
publicists and constitutional lawyers, who presented an international
address to the Czar begging him to restore the rights of the Grand
Duchy.

In 1905, however, it seemed at last that a new era was about to dawn.
The change was brought about by the domestic crisis through which
Russia herself was then passing. An Imperial manifesto promulgated in
October, containing the principles of a constitutional form of
government in Russia, was followed as an inevitable sequel by the
manifesto of November 4th, which practically restored to Finland its
full political rights. In 1906, a new Law of the Diet was enacted.
Instead of triennial sessions of the Estates, annual sessions of the
Diet were introduced, while an extension of the franchise to every
citizen over twenty-four years of age without distinction of sex gave
to women active electoral rights. Moreover, the door was opened to new
and far-reaching reforms, the fulfilment of which infused fresh life
into the democratic spirit of Finnish national institutions. While,
however, so much was done to improve the political, social, and
economic condition of the country, the promises which were then made
have not been fulfilled. The principal reason for this failure to
redeem their pledges lies in a change of attitude among Russian
officials and their interference in Finnish affairs. It is by
consideration of this change and of its effect upon Finland that we may
best judge how much truth there is in M. Stolypin's claim that in
Russia "might can not dominate right."

Ominous signs of a reversal of policy had appeared before, but the
first official expression to it was given in the speech of M. Stolypin
already referred to. In this speech he claimed for Russia as the
sovereign power the right of control over Finnish administration and
legislation whenever the interests of the empire were concerned. This
claim meant practically the restoration of the old Bobrikoff régime and
was based on the same ideas as those underlying the February manifesto
of 1899. M. Stolypin attempts to justify his attitude by arguing that
the constitutional relations between Russia and Finland are determined
only by Clause 4 of the Treaty of Peace between Russia and Sweden,
dated September 17,1809. This clause runs as follows:

"His Majesty the King of Sweden renounces irrevocably and forever, on
behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his successors to the Swedish
throne and realm, and in favor of his Majesty the Emperor of Russia and
his successors to the Russian throne and empire, all his rights and
titles of the governments enumerated hereafter which have been
conquered by the arms of his Imperial Majesty from the Swedish Army, to
wit: the Provinces of Kymmenegard, etc.

"These provinces, with all their inhabitants, towns, ports, forts,
villages, and islands, with their appurtenances, privileges, and
revenues, shall hereafter under full ownership and sovereignty belong
to the Russian Empire and be incorporated with the same."

After quoting this clause, M. Stolypin exclaimed, "This is the act, the
title, by which Russia possesses Finland, the one and only act which
determines the mutual relations between Russia and Finland."

Now this clause contains no reference whatever to the autonomy of the
Grand Duchy, and if it were the only act by which the mutual relations
of Russia and Finland were determined, then Finland would have no
constitution. The political autonomy of Finland, which has been
recognized for exactly one hundred years, would have been without legal
foundation. Even M. Stolypin admits that Finland enjoys autonomy.
"There must be no room for the suspicion," he said, "that Russia would
violate the rights of autonomy conferred on Finland by the monarch." On
what, then, does the claim to Finnish autonomy rest and how was it
conferred? Clause 6 of the Treaty of Peace contains the following
passage:

"His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, having already given the
most manifest proofs of the clemency and justice with which he has
resolved to govern the inhabitants of the provinces which he has
acquired, by generosity and by his own spontaneous act assuring to them
the free exercise of their religion, rights, property, and privileges,
his Swedish Majesty considers himself thereby released from performing
the otherwise sacred duty of making reservations in the above respects
in favor of his former subjects."

This entry in the Treaty of Peace refers to the settlement made at the
Borgo Diet a few months earlier, and it is under this settlement,
confirmed by deeds of a later date, that Finland claims her right to
autonomy. M. Stolypin recognizes the claim of Finland to autonomy, but
refuses to recognize the binding force of the acts of the Borgo Diet on
which alone it can legally be based. This claim gives Finland no voice
in her external relations. All international treaties, including
matters relating to the conduct of war (though laws on the liability of
Finnish citizens to military service fall under the competency of the
Finnish Diet), are matters common to Russia and Finland as one empire,
one international unit, and are dealt with by the proper Russian
authorities. This is admitted by all Finlanders. But M. Stolypin
extended Russian authority by making it paramount in all matters which
have a bearing on Russian or Imperial interests.

The attempt to curtail Finnish constitutional liberty has taken
different forms. Early in 1908 the Russian Council of Ministers, over
which M. Stolypin presides, drew up a "Journal," or Protocol, to which
the Czar on June 2d gave his sanction. The chief provisions of this
Protocol were briefly as follows: All legislative proposals and all
administrative matters "of general importance," before being brought to
the Sovereign for his sanction, or, as is the case with Bills to be
presented to the Diet, for his preliminary approval, as well as all
reports drawn up by Finnish authorities for the Czar's inspection, must
be communicated to the Russian Council of Ministers. The Council will
then decide "which matters concerning the Grand Duchy of Finland also
have a bearing on the interests of the empire, and, consequently, call
for a fuller examination on the part of the Ministries and Government
Boards." If the Council decide that a matter has a bearing on the
interests of the empire the Council prepare a report on it, and, should
the Council differ from the views taken up by the Finnish authorities,
the Finnish Secretary of State, who alone should be the constitutional
channel for bringing Finnish matters before the Sovereign's notice, can
do so only in the presence of the President of the Council of Ministers
or another Russian Minister. But in practise it has frequently happened
that the Council send in their report beforehand, and the Czar's
decision is practically taken when the Finnish Secretary is permitted
an audience.

This important measure was brought about by the exclusive
recommendation of Russian Ministers. Neither the Finnish Diet nor the
Senate nor the Secretary of State for Finland, who resides in St.
Petersburg, was consulted or had the slightest idea of what was going
on before the Protocol was published in Russia. It has never been
promulgated in Finland, and no Finnish authority has been officially
advised of it. The whole matter has been treated as a private affair
between the Czar and his Russian Ministers.

The excuse has been made that the Czar must be permitted to seek
counsel with whomsoever he chooses in regard to the government of
Finland. But this is not a question of privately consulting one man or
the other. The new measure amounts to an official recognition of the
Russian Council of Ministers as an organ of government exercising a
powerful control over Finnish legislation, administration, and finance.
The center of gravity of Finnish administration has, in fact, been
shifted from the Senate for Finland, composed of Finnish men, to the
Russian Council of Ministers.

The Finnish Senate protested to the Czar in three separate memoranda,
dated respectively June 19, 1908, December 22, 1908, and February
25,1909. The Finnish Diet adopted on October 13, 1908, a petition to
the Czar to reconsider the matter. On the occasion of the opening of
the Diet's next session the Speaker, in his reply to the Czar's
message, briefly referred to the anxiety prevailing in Finland, with
the result that the Diet was immediately punished by an order of
dissolution from the Czar. The Senate's memoranda, as well as the
Diet's petition, were rejected, the Czar acting on the exclusive
recommendation of the Russian Council of Ministers. They were not even
brought before him through the constitutional channels, the Finnish
Secretary of State having been refused a hearing. As a result all
members of the Department of Justice, or half the number of the
Senators, resigned.

In the same year another but less successful attack was made on the
Finnish Constitution. In the autumn of 1908 the Finnish Diet adopted a
new Landlord and Tenant Bill, but before it was brought up for the
Czar's sanction the Diet was dissolved in the manner just described.
The Bill being of a pressing nature, the Council of Ministers was at
last prevailed upon to report on it to the Czar. The latter then gave
his sanction to it, but, on the recommendation of the Council, added a
rider in the preamble. This was to the effect that, though the Bill,
having been adopted by a Diet which was dissolved before the expiration
of the three years' period for which it was elected, should not have
been presented for his consideration at all, the Czar would
nevertheless make an exception from the rule and sanction it, prompted
by his regard for the welfare of the poorer part of the population.

The Senate decided to postpone promulgation of this law in view of the
constitutional doctrine involved in the preamble. It was pointed out
that this doctrine was entirely foreign to Finnish law. The preamble
which, according to custom, should have contained nothing beyond the
formal sanction to the law in question, embodied an interpretation of
constitutional law. Such an interpretation could only legally be made
in the same manner as the enactment of a constitutional law, _i.e.,_
through the concurrent decision of the Sovereign and the Diet. The
Senate, therefore, petitioned the Czar to modify the preamble in such a
way as to remove from it what could be construed as an interpretation
of constitutional law.

In reply, the Czar reprimanded the Senate for delaying promulgation,
recommended it to do so immediately, but promised later on to take the
representations made by the Senate into his consideration. Five of the
Senators then voted against, while the Governor-General and five others
voted for promulgation of, the law. The minority then tendered their
resignations. The inconveniences resulting from this new constitutional
doctrine proved, however, of so serious a practical nature that the
Czar eventually, in July, 1909, issued a declaration that "the gracious
expressions in the preamble to the Landlord and Tenant Law concerning
the invalidity of the decisions of a dissolved Diet do not constitute
an interpretation of the constitutional law and shall not in the future
be binding in law."

A third and most important encroachment by the Russian Council of
Ministers on the autonomy of Finland was also carried out at the
instigation of M. Stolypin. The Finnish Constitution makes no
distinction between matters that may have, or may not have, a bearing
on the interests of Russia. At the same time Russian interests have
never been disregarded in Finnish legislation. It had been the
practise, when a legislative proposal was brought forward in Finland,
and a Russian interest might be affected by it, to communicate with the
Russian Minister whom the matter most closely concerned, in order that
he might make his observations. This practise was confirmed by law in
1891. In its memoranda of 1908 and 1909, on the interference of the
Russian Council of Ministers in Finnish affairs, the Senate suggested
that, in case the procedure under the ordinance of 1891 were not
satisfactory, a committee of Russian and Finnish members should be
appointed to discuss a _modus procedendi_ of such a nature that the
Constitution of Finland should not be violated. On the recommendation
of the Council of Ministers, the Czar rejected these suggestions, but
the Council of Ministers took the matter in hand and summoned a
"Special Conference," consisting of several Russian Ministers, other
high Russian functionaries, the Governor-General of Finland, who is
also a Russian, with M. Stolypin as President. Their business was to
draw up a program for a joint committee to be appointed "for the
drafting of proposals for regulations concerning the procedure of
issuing laws of general Imperial interest concerning Finland." This
conference accordingly drew up a program, approved by the Czar on April
10, 1909, in which it was resolved that the joint committee should
suggest a definition of the term "laws of general Imperial interest
concerning Finland." These laws, it was proposed, should be totally
withdrawn from the competency of the Finnish Diet and should be passed
by the legislative bodies of Russia, that is, the Council of State and
the Duma. The only safeguard for the interests of Finland suggested in
the program is that a representative for Finland should be admitted to
these two bodies when Finnish questions were discussed there.

It is impossible to say what laws concerning Finland will be defined as
being of "general interest." Having regard, however, to the wide
interpretation which Russian reactionaries are wont to put on the
expression, there is every reason to suppose that the Russian members
of the committee will insist on its extension so as to include every
important category of law.

The Finnish members through their spokesman, Archbishop Johansson,
declared that they proceeded to work on the committee on the assumption
that in case alterations in the law of Finland should be found
necessary, having regard to Imperial interests, such alterations should
be made through modifications in the constitutional laws of Finland.
The Finlanders are prepared to do their duty by the empire, but, the
Archbishop said: "Sacrifices have been demanded from us to which no
people can consent. The Finnish people can not forego their
Constitution, which is a gift of the Most High, and which, next to the
Gospel, is their most cherished possession."

M. Deutrich, who spoke on behalf of the Russian members, explained that
any law resulting from the labors of the committee would not be
submitted to the ratification of the Finnish Diet.

So M. Stolypin's way was now clear. The sanction of the people will not
be required. The Finlanders have practically no other help than that
given by a consciousness of the justice of their cause. They have no
appeal.

In November of 1909 the Finnish Diet was dissolved by a ukase of the
Czar. Since then the Russian Government has been passing decree after
decree for Finland, giving the constitutional authorities no voice even
of protest. So ends Finland.




MAN'S FASTEST MILE THE AUTOMOBILE AGE

A.D. 1911

C.F. CARTER ISAAC MARCOSSON

On April 23, 1911, an automobile was driven along the hard, smooth sand
of a Florida sea beach, covering a mile in 25-2/5 seconds. And it
continued for a second mile at the same tremendous speed. These were
the fastest two miles ever made by man. They were at the rate of a
trifle over 140 miles an hour. As this record was not equaled in the
three years that followed, it may be regarded as approaching the
maximum speed of which automobiles are capable. And as another
automobile, in endeavoring to reach such a speed, dissolved into its
separate parts, practically disintegrated, and left an astonished
driver floundering by himself upon the sand, we may assume that no
noticeably greater speed can be attained except by some wholly
different method or new invention.

In contrast to this picture of "speed maniacs" darting more swiftly
than ever eagle swooped or lightning express-train ran, let us
contemplate for a moment that first automobile race held in Chicago in
1894. A twenty-four horse-power Panhard machine showed a speed of
thirty miles an hour and was objected to by the newspapers as a "racing
monster" likely to cause endless tragedy, menacing death to its owners
and to the public. Thus in the brief space of seventeen years did the
construction of automobiles improve and the temper of the world toward
them change. The present day may almost be called the "automobile age."
The progress by which this has come about, and the enormous development
of this new industry is here traced by two men who have followed it
most closely. The narrative of the "auto's" triumphs by Mr. C.F. Carter
appeared first in the _Outing Magazine_. The account of the industry's
growth by Mr. Isaac Marcosson appeared in _Munsey's Magazine_, of which
he was the editor. Both are given here by the permission of the
magazines.

C.F. CARTER

When the marine architects and engineers catch up with the automobile
makers they can build a ship capable of crossing the Atlantic in
twenty-three hours; or, if we forget to make allowance for the
difference in longitude, capable of making the run from Liverpool to
New York in the same apparent time in which the Twentieth Century
Limited makes the run from New York to Chicago. That is, the vessel
leaving Liverpool at three o'clock in the afternoon would arrive at New
York at nine o'clock the following morning, which, allowing for the
five hours' difference in time, would make twenty-three hours.

When the railroad engineers provide improved tracks and motive power
that will enable them to parallel the feats of the automobile men, if
they ever do, the running time for the fastest trains between New York
and Chicago will be reduced to seven hours, while San Francisco will be
but a day's run from the metropolis.

And when the airship enthusiasts are able to dart through the air at
the speed attained by the automobile, it will be time enough to think
of taking seriously the extravagant claims made in behalf of aviation.

For the automobile is the swiftest machine ever built by human hands.
It is so much swifter than its nearest competitor that those who read
these lines to-day are likely to be some years older before its speed
is even equaled, to say nothing of being surpassed, by any other kind
of vehicle.

So far as is known, but one human being ever traveled faster than
Robert Burman did in his racing auto on the beach at Daytona, Florida,
on April 23, 1911. This solitary exception was a Hindu carrier who
chanced to tumble off the brink of a chasm in the Himalayas. His name
has not been preserved, he never made any claim to the record, he was
not officially timed, and altogether the event has no official
standing. Still, as he is the only man who is ever alleged to have
covered so great a distance as six thousand feet in an obstructed fall,
the matter is not without interest; for, according to the accepted rule
for finding the velocity of a body falling freely from rest, he must
have been going at the rate of seven miles a second when he reached the
bottom.

About Burman's record there can be no doubt, for it was made in the
presence of many witnesses, and it was duly timed with stop-watches by
men skilled in the art. The straightaway mile over the smooth, hard
beach was covered from a running start in the almost incredibly short
time of 25.40 seconds.

The next fastest mile ever traveled by human beings who lived to tell
about it was made in an electric-car on the experimental track between
Berlin and Zossen, in 1902. As the engineers who achieved this record
for the advancement of scientific knowledge of the railroad considered
such speed dangerous, it is not at all likely to become standard
practise. The fastest time ever made by a steam locomotive of which
there is any record, was the run of five miles from Fleming to
Jacksonville, Florida, in two and a half minutes by a Plant system
locomotive in March, 1901. This was at the rate of 120 miles an hour.
As for steamships, the record of 30.53 miles per hour is held by the
_Mauretania_.

These things, if borne in mind, will serve to throw into stronger
relief the things that an automobile can do, and to supply a
substantial basis for the premise that, at least in some respects, the
automobile is the most marvelous machine the world has yet seen. It can
go anywhere at any time, floundering through two feet of snow, ford any
stream that isn't deep enough to drown out the magneto, triumph over
mud axle deep, jump fences, and cavort over plowed ground at fifteen
miles an hour. It has been used with brilliant success in various kinds
of hunting, including coyote coursing on the prairies of Colorado,
where it can run all around the bronco, formerly in favor, since it
never runs any risk of breaking a leg in a prairie-dog hole. Educated
automobiles have been trained to shell corn, saw wood, pump water,
churn, plow, and, in short, do anything required of them except figure
out where the consumer gets off under the new tariff law.

But to get back to the subject of speed, as automobile talk always
does, the supremacy of the motor-car has been established by so many
official records that any attempt to select the most striking only
results in bewilderment. The best that can be done is to recite a few
representative ones.

That was a most interesting illustration, for instance, of the capacity
for sustained high speed made by a Stearns car on the mile track at
Brighton Beach in 1910. In twenty-four hours the car covered the
amazing distance of 1,253 miles, which was at the average speed of
52-1/5 miles per hour. This record is all the more remarkable from the
fact the car was not a racer, but a stock car which had been driven for
some months by its owner before it was borrowed for the race, and did
not have any special preparation. The men who drove it were not
notified that their services were wanted until the morning of the race.

While this is about the average rate per hour of the fastest train
between New York and Chicago, it should be remembered that the trains
run on steel rails, that curves are comparatively few, and they are not
sharp, while the automobile was spinning around a mile track made of
plain dirt, and was obliged to negotiate 2,506 sharp curves. Besides,
the locomotives on the fast trains are changed every 120 to 150 miles,
while the entire run of 1,253 miles was made by one auto which had
already run 7,500 miles in ordinary service before it was entered in
the race.

Unfortunately for the automobile, it has achieved so many remarkable
speed records that its name is suggestive of swiftness. If the English
language were not the stereotyped, inelastic vehicle for the
communication of thought that it is we should now be speaking of
"automobiling" a shady bill through the city council instead of
"railroading" it. There are few places where it is permissible to
attain record speed, and fewer men who, with safety to others, may be
entrusted with the attempt. The true value of the automobile to the
average man lies in its ability to keep right on going indefinitely at
moderate speed under any and all conditions.

One of the innumerable tests in which the staying qualities of the
automobile were brought out was the trip from Pittsburg to Philadelphia
by way of Gettysburg by S.D. Waldon and four passengers in a Packard
car, September 20, 1910. This run of 303 miles over three mountain
ranges, with the usual accompaniments of steep grades, rocks, ruts, and
thank-you-ma'ms to rack the machinery and bruise the feelings of the
riders, was made in 12 hours and 51 minutes.

A little run of three or four hundred miles, though, is scarcely worth
mentioning by way of showing what an auto can do in a real endurance
contest. A much more notable trip was the non-stop run from Jackson,
Michigan, to Bangor, Maine, in November, 1909, by E.P. Blake and Dr.
Charles Percival. The distance of 1,600 miles was covered in 123 hours,
which meant traveling at an average speed of 13 miles an hour in rain
and snow and mud over country roads at their worst. In all that time
the motor never once stopped. In the Munsey historical tour of 1910 a
Brush single-cylinder car covered the 1,550 miles of a schedule
designed for big cars and came through with a perfect score. If you
know the hill roads of Pennsylvania y

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/10341