[Sidenote: [1881-1904 A.D.]]
In the history of Russia the period extending from 1882 to 1902 was much
less eventful than the thirty years immediately preceding. The reign of
Alexander II had been a time of important administrative reforms and
of great economic, social, and intellectual changes in the life of the
nation. Serfage had been abolished, the emancipated peasantry had been
made communal proprietors of the soil, a democratic system of rural and
municipal self-government for local affairs had been introduced, the
tribunals of all degrees had been radically reorganised, means had been
taken for developing more energetically the vast natural resources of
the country, public instruction had received an unprecedented impetus, a
considerable amount of liberty had been accorded to the press, a liberal
spirit had been suddenly evoked and had spread rapidly among all sections
of the educated classes, a new imaginative and critical literature
dealing largely with economic, philosophical, and social questions
had sprung into existence, and for a time the young generation fondly
imagined that Russia, awakening from her traditional lethargy, was about
to overtake, and soon to surpass, on the paths of national progress, the
more advanced nations of western Europe.
These sanguine expectations were not fully realised. The economic and
moral condition of the peasantry was not much improved, and in many
districts there were signs of positive impoverishment and demoralisation.
Local self-government, after a short period of feverish and not always
well-directed activity, showed symptoms of organic exhaustion. The
reformed tribunals, though incomparably better than their predecessors,
did not give universal satisfaction. In the imperial administration the
corruption and long-established abuses which had momentarily vanished
began to reappear. Industrial enterprises did not always succeed.
Education produced many unforeseen and undesirable practical results.
The liberty of the press not unfrequently degenerated into license.
The liberal spirit, which had at first confined itself to demanding
feasible reforms, soon soared into the region of socialistic dreaming and
revolutionary projects.
In short, it became only too evident that there was no royal road to
national prosperity, and that Russia, like other nations, must be content
to advance slowly and laboriously along the rough path of painful
experience. In these circumstances sanguine enthusiasm naturally gave way
to despondency, and the reforming zeal of the government was replaced by
tendencies of a decidedly reactionary kind. Already in the last years
of the reign of Alexander II, these tendencies had found expression in
ukases and ministerial circulars, and zealous liberalism was more and
more discountenanced in the official world. Partly from a feeling of
despondency, and partly from a conviction that the country required
rest in order to judge the practical results of the reforms already
accomplished, the czar refrained from initiating any new legislation of
an important kind, and the government gave it to be understood that the
period of radical reforms was closed.
[Sidenote: [1881 A.D.]]
In the younger ranks of the educated classes this state of things
had produced much dissatisfaction, which soon found expression in
revolutionary agitation. At first the agitation was of an academic
character, and was dealt with by the press censure, but it gradually
took the form of secret associations, and the police had to interfere.
There were no great, well-organised secret societies, but there were
many small groups, composed chiefly of male and female students of the
universities and technical schools, which worked independently for a
common purpose. That purpose was the overthrow of the existing régime and
the reorganisation of society on collectivist principles. Finding that
the walls of autocracy could not be overturned by blasts of revolutionary
trumpets, the young enthusiasts determined to seek the support of the
masses, or, as they termed it, “to go in among the people” (_idti v
narod_). Under the guise of doctors, midwives, teachers, governesses,
factory hands, or common labourers, they sought to make proselytes among
the peasantry and the workmen in the industrial centres by revolutionary
pamphlets and oral explanations.
For a time the propaganda had very little success, because the uneducated
peasants and factory workers could not easily understand the phraseology
and principles of scientific socialism; but when the propagandists
descended to a lower platform and spread rumours that the czar had given
all the land to the peasants, and that the proprietors were preventing
his benevolent intentions from being carried into effect, there was a
serious danger of agrarian disturbances, and energetic measures were
adopted by the authorities. Wholesale arrests were made by the police,
and many of the accused were imprisoned or exiled to distant provinces,
some by the regular judicial procedure, and others by so-called
“administrative procedure,” without trial. The activity of the police
and the sufferings of the victims naturally produced intense excitement
and bitterness among those who escaped, and a secret body calling itself
the executive committee announced in its clandestinely printed organs
that those who distinguished themselves by endeavouring to suppress the
propaganda would be removed. A number of officials had been condemned to
death by this secret terrorist tribunal, and in some cases its sentences
were carried out. As these terrorist measures had quite the opposite of
the desired effect, repeated attempts had been made on the life of the
emperor. At last, on the 13th of March, 1881, the carefully-laid plans of
the conspirators, [as related in the last chapter], were successful.
THE REACTIONARY POLICY UNDER ALEXANDER III
Finding repressive police measures insufficient to suppress the
revolutionary movement, Alexander II had entertained the idea of giving
a certain satisfaction to moderate liberal opinion without restricting
his autocratic power. With this object in view he had appointed General
Loris-Melikov, who was credited with liberal views, minister of the
interior, and on the morning of his death he had signed a ukase creating
several commissions, composed of high official personages and eminent
private individuals, who should prepare reforms in various branches of
the administration.
His son and successor Alexander III (1881-94), who had never shown much
sympathy with liberalism in any form, entered frankly on a reactionary
policy, which was pursued consistently during the whole of his reign.
He could not, of course, undo the great reforms of his predecessor,
but he amended them in such a way as to counteract what he considered
the exaggerations of liberalism. Local self-government in the village
communes, the rural districts, and the towns was carefully restricted,
and placed to a greater extent under the control of the regular officials.
[Illustration: ALEXANDER III
(1845-1894)]
The reformers of the previous reign had endeavoured to make the
emancipated peasantry administratively and economically independent of
the landed proprietors; the conservatives of this later era, proceeding
on the assumption that the peasants did not know how to make a proper
use of the liberty prematurely conferred upon them, endeavoured to
re-establish the influence of the landed proprietors by appointing from
amongst them “land-chiefs,” who were to exercise over the peasants
of their district a certain amount of patriarchal jurisdiction. The
reformers of the previous reign had sought to make the new local
administration (_zemstvo_) a system of genuine rural self-government and
a basis for future parliamentary institutions; these later conservatives
transformed it into a mere branch of the ordinary state administration,
and took precautions against its ever assuming a political character.
Even municipal institutions, which had never shown much vitality, were
subjected to similar restrictions. In short, the various forms of local
self-government, which were intended to raise the nation gradually to the
higher political level of western Europe, were condemned as unsuited to
the national character and traditions, and as productive of disorder and
demoralisation. They were accordingly replaced in great measure by the
old autocratic methods of administration, and much of the administrative
corruption which had been cured, or at least repressed, by the reform
enthusiasm again flourished luxuriantly.
In a small but influential section of the educated classes there was
a conviction that the revolutionary tendencies, which culminated in
nihilism and anarchism, proceeded from the adoption of cosmopolitan
rather than national principles in all spheres of educational and
administrative activity, and that the best remedy for the evils from
which the country was suffering was to be found in a return to the three
great principles of nationality, orthodoxy, and autocracy. This doctrine,
which had been invented by the Slavophils of a previous generation, was
early instilled into the mind of Alexander III by Pobiedonostsev, who
was one of his teachers, and later his most trusted adviser, and its
influence can be traced in all the more important acts of the government
during that monarch’s reign. His determination to maintain autocracy was
officially proclaimed a few days after his accession. Nationality and
eastern orthodoxy, which are so closely connected as to be almost blended
together in the Russian mind, received not less attention.
THE RUSSIFICATION OF THE PROVINCES.
Even in European Russia the regions near the frontier contain a
great variety of nationalities, languages, and religions. In Finland
the population is composed of Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking
Protestants; the Baltic provinces are inhabited by German-speaking,
Lett-speaking, and Esth-speaking Lutherans; the inhabitants of the
southwestern provinces are chiefly Polish-speaking Roman Catholics and
Yiddish-speaking Jews; in the Crimea and on the middle Volga there are a
considerable number of Tatar-speaking Mohammedans; and in the Caucasus
there is a conglomeration of races and languages such as is to be found
on no other portion of the earth’s surface. Until recent times these
various nationalities were allowed to retain unmolested the language,
religion, and peculiar local administration of their ancestors, but when
the new nationality doctrine came into fashion attempts were made to
spread among them the language, religion, and administrative institutions
of the dominant race. In the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II
these attempts were merely occasional and intermittent; under Alexander
III they were made systematically and with very little consideration
for the feelings, wishes, and interests of the people concerned. The
local institutions were assimilated to those of the purely Russian
provinces; the use of the Russian language was made obligatory in the
administration, in the tribunals, and to some extent in the schools;
the spread of eastern orthodoxy was encouraged by the authorities,
whilst the other confessions were placed under severe restrictions;
foreigners were prohibited from possessing landed property, and in some
provinces administrative measures were taken for making the land pass
into the hands of orthodox Russians. In this process some of the local
officials displayed probably an amount of zeal beyond the intentions of
the government, but any attempt to oppose the movement was rigorously
punished.
Of all the various races the Jews were the most severely treated.
The great majority of them had long been confined to the western and
southwestern provinces. In the rest of the country they had not been
allowed to reside in the villages, because their habits of keeping
vodka-shops and lending money at usurious interest were found to
demoralise the peasantry, and even in the towns their number and
occupations had been restricted by the authorities. But, partly from the
usual laxity of the administration and partly from the readiness of the
Jews to conciliate the needy officials, the rules had been by no means
strictly applied. As soon as this fact became known to Alexander III he
ordered the rules to be strictly carried out, without considering what an
enormous amount of hardship and suffering such an order entailed. He also
caused new rules to be enacted by which his Jewish subjects were heavily
handicapped in education and professional advancement. In short, complete
russification of all non-Russian populations and institutions was the
chief aim of the government in home affairs.
FOREIGN POLICY; THE FRENCH ALLIANCE
In the foreign policy of the empire Alexander III likewise introduced
considerable changes. During his father’s reign its main objects were: in
the west, the maintenance of the alliance with Germany; in southeastern
Europe, the recovery of what had been lost by the Crimean war, the
gradual weakening of the sultan’s authority, and the increase of Russian
influence among the minor slav nationalities; in Asia, the gradual but
cautious expansion of Russian domination. In the reign of Alexander III
the first of these objects was abandoned. Already, before his accession,
the bonds of friendship which united Russia to Germany had been weakened
by the action of Bismarck in giving to the cabinet of St. Petersburg at
the Berlin congress less diplomatic support than was expected, and by the
Austro-German treaty of alliance (October, 1879), concluded avowedly for
the purpose of opposing Russian aggression; but the old relations were
partly re-established by secret negotiations in 1880, by a meeting of the
young czar and the old emperor at Dantzic in 1881, and by the meeting of
the three emperors at Skiernewice in 1884, by which the Three Emperors’
League was reconstituted for a term of three years.
Gradually, however, a great change took place in the czar’s views with
regard to the German alliance. He suspected Bismarck of harbouring
hostile designs against Russia, and he came to recognise that the
permanent weakening of France was not in accordance with Russian
political interests. He determined, therefore, to oppose any further
disturbance of the balance of power in favour of Germany, and when the
treaty of Skiernewice expired in 1887, he declined to renew it. From that
time Russia gravitated slowly towards an alliance with France, and sought
to create a counterpoise against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria,
and Italy. The czar was reluctant to bind himself by a formal treaty,
because the French government did not offer the requisite guarantees
of stability, and because he feared that it might be induced, by the
prospects of Russian support, to assume an aggressive attitude towards
Germany. He recognised, however, that in the event of a great European
war the two nations would in all probability be found fighting on the
same side, and that if they made no preparations for concerted military
action they would be placed at a grave disadvantage in comparison with
their opponents of the Triple Alliance, who were believed to have already
worked out an elaborate plan of campaign. In view of this contingency the
Russian and French military authorities studied the military questions
in common, and the result of their labours was the preparation of a
military convention, which was finally ratified in 1894. During this
period the relations between the two governments and the two countries
became much more cordial. In the summer of 1891 the visit to Kronstad
of a French squadron under Admiral Gervais was made the occasion for an
enthusiastic demonstration in favour of a Franco-Russian alliance; and
two years later (October, 1893) a still more enthusiastic reception was
given to the Russian admiral Avelan and his officers when they visited
Toulon and Paris. But it was not till after the death of Alexander III
that the word “alliance” was used publicly by official personages. In
1895 the term was first publicly employed by Ribot, then president of the
council, in the chamber of deputies, but the expressions he used were so
vague that they did not entirely remove the prevailing doubts as to the
existence of a formal treaty. Two years later (August, 1897), during the
official visit of President Félix Faure to St. Petersburg, a little more
light was thrown on the subject. In the complimentary speeches delivered
by the president of the French Republic and the czar, France and Russia
were referred to as allies, and the term _nations alliées_ was afterwards
repeatedly used on occasions of a similar kind.
In southeastern Europe Alexander III adopted an attitude of reserve and
expectancy. He greatly increased and strengthened his Black Sea fleet,
so as to be ready for any emergency that might arise, and in June, 1886,
contrary to the declaration made in the Treaty of Berlin (Article 59),
he ordered Batum to be transformed into a fortified naval port, but in
the Balkan Peninsula he persistently refrained, under a good deal of
provocation, from any intervention that might lead to a European war.
The Bulgarian government, first under Prince Alexander and afterwards
under the direction of Stambolov, pursued systematically an anti-Russian
policy, but the cabinet of St. Petersburg confined itself officially to
breaking off diplomatic relations and making diplomatic protests, and
unofficially to giving tacit encouragement to revolutionary agitation.
In Asia, during the reign of Alexander III, the expansion of Russian
domination made considerable progress.[b]
THE CONQUEST OF THE TEKKE-TURCOMANS (1877-1881 A.D.)
Transcaspia is the official name given to the territory east of the
Caspian which was annexed by Russia in 1881 shortly after the accession
of Alexander III. The country was inhabited by the Turcomans--a branch of
the Turkish race--who have been identified with the old Parthians. They
were a brave but wild and lawless people, bands of whom would frequently
sweep down upon a peaceful village, kill the men, and carry off the
women and children to be sold as slaves in Bokhara and Khiva. Whole
villages were sometimes wiped out in this way. The marauding raids of the
Turcomans were a constant menace to the northern frontier of Persia and
we frequently find the Persians engaged in war with them. The great Nadir
Shah was himself a Turcoman. In 1861 the Persians had made a final attack
on the Turcomans or Tekkes, as they are commonly called, and defeated
them.
The Russian conquest of the Central Asian khanates, however, materially
altered the situation of these nomadic robbers; they could no longer sell
slaves in Bokhara, as the Russian laws forbade slavery, neither could
they carry on their depredations in lands guarded by the Russians, hence
they turned to Persia and offered her their allegiance in return for her
support against these civilised intruders. But they were now a serious
obstacle in the way of these same Russians. Caravans from Bokhara and
the East, to reach the Caspian, had to cross the Turcoman desert or else
make a long detour to the north, and these plundering tribes seriously
interfered with commerce.
In 1877 General Lomakin was sent against the Tekkes, but the
Russo-Turkish war intervened before he had accomplished anything. In 1878
Lomakin attacked Dengil Teppe, was defeated by the Tekkes, and forced to
retreat. The natives were greatly encouraged by this victory, their raids
increased, and they tried to stir up the Bokharans and Khivans to revolt.
The Russians now undertook more vigorous measures. General Skobelev was
put in charge of the campaign, a portable railway was started from the
shores of the Caspian towards the Amu Daria, a large force of artillery
was conveyed to the front, and a water distillery--of the greatest
service in this waterless region--was established at Krasnovodsk. Colonel
Kuropatkin, who had been on Skobelev’s staff in the Russo-Turkish war,
came by forced marches to assist his former chief.
The Turcomans were intrenched in three camps--Yangi Kala, Dangil Teppe,
and Geok Teppe. The Russians began the main attack on January 1st, 1881,
charging first upon Yangi Kala. The Tekkes fought with the greatest
bravery, but the Russian artillery forced them to evacuate. The Turcoman
sorties were made usually a little after sunset and the attacks were
exceedingly fierce. The Tekkes had their wives and children in camp
with them, huddled in their felt tents, and their sufferings under the
continual artillery fire must have been terrible. Finally upon January
24th, after three weeks of fighting, the Russians were successful, the
Tekkes were routed with great loss to both Russians and Turcomans. There
are different estimates given as the total number killed.
[Illustration: CATHEDRAL OF THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL]
Beveridge’s[c] figures, given below, cannot be far from right. He uses
this siege to illustrate the Russian method of conquest. Their method,
he says, “is to wage war while war exists and to employ the methods of
peace only when war is over. Skobelev at Geok Teppe refused to accept
the surrender of the heroic Tekkes who had terrorised Central Asia for
centuries, and he slaughtered more than twenty thousand men, women and
children in twenty days. It seemed quite terrible and was as terrible
as it seemed; but it is hard to see that it is much worse to destroy
20,000 men, women, and children and secure peace for all time than it
is to kill that number during twenty years and in the process increase
the irritation, the disorder, and the feud. For from the red day of
Geok Teppe to this hour, order, law, safety to travellers, security of
commerce and all other things which help to make up civilisation have
existed in Central Asia, as firmly guarded as they are in the United
States. War is bad under any circumstances, but if it must be it should
be thorough, that it may be brief and not fruitless.”
[Sidenote: [1885-1894 A.D.]]
After calling attention to the efficacy of this method in Manchuria
during the Boxer movement, the author continues: “It is worth the
attention of all men that when Russia has once inflicted her punishment
there has seldom been any recurrence of insurrection. Where Russian law
and order and system have been established they have remained, upheld not
by the bayonets of the soldiers who established them, but by the hands
of the very people among whom and against whose resistance they were
planted. Among all the defects of Russian civilisation, its virtues are
striking and elemental, and one of the chief of them is stability.”
The country of the Turcomans thus conquered was annexed to the Russian
Empire, the final annexation of Merv taking place in 1884.[a] Alexander
III then allowed the military authorities to push forward in the
direction of Afghanistan, until in March, 1885, an engagement took place
between Russian and Afghan forces at Penjdeh. Thereupon the British
government, which had been for some time carrying on negotiations with
the cabinet of St. Petersburg for a delimitation of the Russo-Afghan
frontier, intervened energetically and prepared for war; but a compromise
was effected, and after more than two years of negotiation a delimitation
convention was signed at St. Petersburg on July 20th, 1887. The forward
movement of Russia was thus stopped in the direction of Herat, but it
continued with great activity farther east in the region of the Pamir,
until another Anglo-Russian convention was signed in 1895. During the
whole reign of Alexander III the increase of territory in central Asia is
calculated by Russian authorities at 429,895 square kilometres.
ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS II (1894 A.D.)
On November 1st, 1894, Alexander III died, and was succeeded by his
son, Nicholas II, who, partly from similarity of character and partly
from veneration for his father’s memory, continued the existing lines
of policy in home and foreign affairs. The expectation entertained in
many quarters that great legislative changes would at once be made in a
liberal sense was not realised. When an influential deputation from the
province of Tver, which had long enjoyed a reputation for liberalism,
ventured to hint in a loyal address that the time had come for changes
in the existing autocratic régime they received a reply which showed
that the emperor had no intention of making any such changes. Private
suggestions in the same sense, offered directly and respectfully, were no
better received and no important changes were made in the legislation of
the preceding reign. But a great alteration took place noiselessly in the
manner of carrying out the laws and ministerial circulars.
Though resembling his father in the main points of his character, the
young czar was of a more humane disposition, and he was much less of
a doctrinaire. With his father’s aspiration of making holy Russia a
homogeneous empire he thoroughly sympathised in principle, but he
disliked the systematic persecution of Jews, heretics, and schismatics
to which it gave rise, and he let it be understood, without any formal
order or proclamation, that the severe measures hitherto employed would
not meet with his approval. The officials were not slow to take the hint,
and their undue zeal at once disappeared. Nicholas II showed, however,
that his father’s policy of russification was neither to be reversed nor
to be abandoned. When an influential deputation was sent from Finland
to St. Petersburg to represent to him respectfully that the officials
were infringing the local rights and privileges solemnly accorded at
the time of the annexation, it was refused an audience, and the leaders
of the movement were informed indirectly that local interests must be
subordinated to the general welfare of the empire. In accordance with
this declaration, the policy of russification in Finland was steadily
maintained and caused much disappointment, not only to the Finlanders,
but also to the other nationalities who desired the preservation of their
ancient rights.
[Sidenote: [1895-1896 A.D.]]
In foreign affairs Nicholas II likewise continued the policy of his
predecessor, with certain modifications suggested by the change of
circumstances. He strengthened the cordial understanding with France by
a formal agreement, the terms of which were not divulged, but he never
encouraged the French government in any aggressive designs, and he
maintained friendly relations with Germany. In the Balkan Peninsula a
slight change of attitude took place. Alexander III, indignant at what
he considered the ingratitude of the Slav nationalities, remained coldly
aloof, as far as possible, from all intervention in their affairs. About
three months after his death, De Giers, who thoroughly approved of this
attitude, died (January 26th, 1895), and his successor, Prince Lobanov,
minister of foreign affairs from March 19th, 1895, to August 30th, 1896,
endeavoured to recover what he considered Russia’s legitimate influence
in the Slav world.
[Illustration: COUNT LYEFF TOLSTOI
(1828-)]
For this purpose Russian diplomacy became more active in southeastern
Europe. The result was perceived first in Montenegro and Servia, and
then in Bulgaria. Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria had long been anxious
to legalise his position by a reconciliation, and as soon as he got
rid of Stambulov he made advances to the Russian government. They were
well received, and a reconciliation was effected on certain conditions,
the first of which was that Prince Ferdinand’s eldest son and heir
should become a member of the Eastern orthodox church. As another means
of opposing Western influence in southeastern Europe, Prince Lobanov
inclined to the policy of protecting rather than weakening the Ottoman
empire. When the British government seemed disposed to use coercive
measures for the protection of the Armenians, he gave it clearly to be
understood that any such proceeding would be opposed by Russia.
[Sidenote: [1897 A.D.]]
After Prince Lobanov’s death and the appointment of Count Muraviev as
his successor in January, 1897, this tendency of Russian policy became
less marked. In April, 1897, it is true, when the Greeks provoked a
war with Turkey, they received no support from St. Petersburg, but at
the close of the war the czar showed himself more friendly to them;
and afterwards, when it proved extremely difficult to find a suitable
person as governor-general of Crete he recommended the appointment of
his cousin, Prince George of Greece--a selection which was pretty sure
to accelerate the union of the island with the Hellenic kingdom. How far
the recommendation was due to personal feeling, as opposed to political
considerations, it is impossible to say.
In Asia, after the accession of Nicholas II the expansion of Russia,
following the line of least resistance and stimulated by the construction
of the Siberian railway, was effected at the expense of China. As a
necessary basis for a strong foreign policy the army was systematically
strengthened. At one moment the schemes for military reorganisation
involved such an enormous expenditure that the czar conceived the idea of
an agreement among the great powers to arrest the increase of national
armaments. The idea was communicated to the powers somewhat abruptly by
Count Muraviev, Prince Lobanov’s successor in the direction of foreign
affairs, and an international conference was held at the Hague to discuss
the subject; but it had very little practical result, and certainly did
not attain the primary object in view. [Its final act is given in the
appendix to this volume.]
A sketch of the recent history of Russia, however brief, would be
incomplete without some mention of the remarkable industrial progress
made during the period under consideration. Protected by high tariffs and
fostered by the introduction of foreign capital, Russian manufacturing
industry made enormous strides. By way of illustration a few figures may
be cited. In the space of ten years (1887-1897) the number of workers
employed in the various branches of industrial enterprise rose from
1,318,048 to 2,098,262. The consumption of cotton for spinning purposes,
which was only 117 million kilograms in 1886, was 257 millions in 1898,
and the number of spindles, according to the weekly journal _Russia_ of
August 2nd, 1902, was estimated at that date at 6,970,000. Thanks chiefly
to this growth of the cotton industry, the town of Lódz, which was little
more than a big village in 1875, has now a population of over 300,000.
The iron, steel, and petroleum industries have likewise made enormous
progress. Between 1892 and 1900 the estimated value of metallic articles
manufactured in the country rose from 142 millions to 276 millions of
rubles. As is generally the case in such circumstances, protection led to
temporary over-production, which brought about a financial and economic
crisis; but if we may accept certain figures given by Henry Norman,[d]
the crisis could not have been very severe, for he states that “no fewer
than 580 companies declared a dividend during the first nine months of
1901, their total nominal capital being £105,000,000, and the average
dividend no less than 10.1 per cent.” Much of this progress is due to the
intelligence and energy of M. Witte, minister of finance.[b]
KUROPATKIN ON THE RUSSIAN POLICY OF EXPANSION
In connection with the Russian advance in Asia with its climax in the war
with Japan, it may be interesting to notice an address made by General
Kuropatkin to a party of English tourists at Askabad in November, 1897.
Its protestations of peaceful intent will come as a surprise to many who
have seen in the Russian advance only an insatiable land-hunger. General
Kuropatkin, whose fortune it was seven years later to command the Russian
army in the war with Japan, said in part, as quoted in a recent work:[a]
[Illustration: A RUSSIAN CHILD]
“The policy of our government in Central Asia, since the accession of the
late czar, has been eminently one of peace; and recourse has never been
had to arms until every other means of gaining a given object had failed.
The principles which govern the policy of Russia are very simple. They
are the maintenance of peace, of order, and of prosperity in all classes
of the population. The means employed to compass these ends are equally
free from complexity. Those who fill responsible positions are expressly
informed by our government that the assumption of sovereignty over alien
nationalities must not be attempted without very serious deliberation,
inasmuch as such become, on annexation, Russian subjects, children of
the czar, and invested with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the
empire. His majesty has enjoined on his representatives, as their first
duty, a fatherly care of his Asiatic subjects. In order to prevent the
possibility of internal discord, we have disarmed the natives, and no
pains have been spared to induce them to adopt peaceful pursuits. The
fruits of this action are already visible. A solitary traveller can now
cross central Asia, from the Caspian to the Siberian frontier, without
incurring the smallest risk of attack.
“We may boast with perfect truth that the thirty-five years during which
central Asia has enjoyed the blessings of a firm and civilised rule,
have been years of sustained progress, of daily-increasing strength in
bonds of attachment and good-will, which unite these subject peoples to
the inhabitants of other Russian provinces. Between 1885 and 1888 we
established a stable and logical frontier with the aid of Great Britain;
and in the twelve years which have since elapsed there have been no
expeditions throughout its length of 600 miles bordering on Persia,
and 400 on Afghanistan. The latter country contains much inflammable
material, but we have taken every means in our power to ensure that the
internal disorders of that state shall not react on our frontier. So
scrupulous is our regard for the _status quo_, that whole tribes have
cast themselves on our protection in vain.
“Piruzkuhis, Khezaris, and Jamshidis have crossed our borders in troops
of as many as 1,000 families, but we have always repatriated such
refugees. There have been similar cases in our dealings with Persian
subjects. Turkestan proper has been free from war since the occupation
of Farghana--twenty-one years ago. The Bokhara frontier has remained
intact since the capture of Samarkand in 1868. The last complication on
the Persian border dates from 1829--nearly 70 years ago. Throughout our
frontier conterminous with China we have had no disturbance for more
than a century. I am led to mention these significant facts in order to
show that our policy in Asia is essentially a peaceful one, and that we
are perfectly satisfied with our present boundaries. And I may claim
to speak with authority, apart from my official position, for I have
been personally concerned in all our important military and political
movements in Central Asia since 1868, when, only twenty, I took part in
storming Samarkand.”[e]
RUSSIA IN MANCHURIA
[Sidenote: [1900-1902 A.D.]]
Russian advance in the Far East has been going on so steadily and so
quietly that few realise to what an extent northeastern Asia is becoming
russianised. Russian ships are seen in Chinese and Japanese harbours,
Russian banks are found on Chinese territory, Russian railways are
connecting those remote parts of the world with Europe, and, most
important of all, Russian peasants are being landed in the Far East. The
russification movement is especially active in Manchuria, which province
has become prominent in the last few years. Although on a map of Asia
Manchuria does not look very large, it covers nearly as much space as
France and Germany together. Beveridge[c] recently said of it: “It is
an empire more favourably situated as to its climatic conditions than
any part of Asia. It is in the same latitude as southern Canada and the
northern portion of the United States. Its northern limits are about the
same as the northern limits of Quebec. Its southern limits are about the
same as the southern limits of Maryland. It is bounded on the north by
the richest portions of Siberia, which not many years ago was itself a
part of the dominion of the Manchus; for several hundred miles on the
east by the grain-fields of the Ussuri district of Russian Siberia, also
until recently a part of the Chinese Empire; on the east and south by
Korea, over which the world’s next great war will probably be fought,
and soon; on the west by Mongolia, and on the south by Korea, China, and
the gulfs and extensions of the Yellow Sea, which touches or commands
much of that empire. On these gulfs are two of the finest military and
commercial ports of Asia, or the world--Port Arthur and Talienwan, or, as
the Russians call it, Dalny.”
Russian designs upon Manchuria first became prominent after the
Chino-Japanese war when Russia objected to Japan’s acquiring any
territory in that quarter. During the Boxer uprising in 1900 Russian
troops overran Manchuria and in a convention concluded between Russia and
China at the end of the movement, the civil and military administration
of the province was placed practically under the control of Russia. Owing
to objections on the part of the other powers, however, Russia withdrew
this convention and another was signed in place of it on April 8th, 1902.
According to this Manchuria was to remain “an integral portion of the
Chinese Empire”; China pledged herself to protect the railway and all
Russian subjects and their enterprises in Manchuria, while Russia for
her part agreed to withdraw her troops gradually. This agreement on the
part of Russia remained a promise only. In the meanwhile Manchuria was
rapidly becoming russianised. The important cities along the railway
such as New-Chwang, Mukden, Liauyang and Kirin became centres of Russian
forces. Russian immigrants built and inhabited whole towns laid out like
European cities with all modern improvements. Harbin, which in 1897 was a
collection of mud huts, became a Russian city and a centre of Manchurian
trade.
THE WAR WITH JAPAN
[Sidenote: [1903-1904 A.D.]]
Russia’s policy in the Far East was the cause of friction with England
and the United States, and especially with Japan; relations with the
latter becoming more and more strained until they finally led to a
war which broke out in February, 1904. In April of the preceding year
Russia’s representative at Peking presented certain demands to the
Chinese government which virtually excluded all foreigners--except
Russians--from Manchuria, and were a plain violation of the principle
of the “open door” which Russia had pledged herself to maintain in
that province. Owing to the opposition of the United States and Japan,
however, most of these demands were withdrawn and permission was granted
to open two Manchurian ports, although this was not carried out. In
Korea also Russia opposed Japan, refusing to allow her to open the port
of Wi-ju to foreign trade, and objecting to a Japanese telegraph from
Seul to Fusan, although Russia herself laid a telegraph line on Korean
territory.
In August, 1903, Russia took the important step of establishing a
special vice-royalty in the Amur provinces which had been leased to her
in the Liao-tung peninsula. Vice-admiral Alexiev was appointed as first
Russian viceroy of the Far East, and was invested with civil and military
authority which made him to a great extent independent of St. Petersburg.
In September the Russian ambassador at Peking had announced that
New-Chwang and Mukden would be evacuated on October 8th, but that date
passed and Russian troops were still there, while Russia continued to
strengthen her army and navy in the Far East. Japan demanded that Russia
should evacuate Manchuria in agreement with her promises and that she
should discontinue her aggressive attitude in Korea.
Russia’s answers to Japan’s repeated demands were evasive, and on January
8th, 1904, Japan sent a final note to Russia and, receiving no reply,
withdrew her minister and legation from St. Petersburg on February 6th,
1904. On February 7th both governments issued statements announcing the
severance of diplomatic relations. On February 8th the main Japanese
fleet, under Vice-admiral Togo, opened the war by surprising the Russian
fleet at Port Arthur in a state of unpreparedness, and inflicting much
damage.
The attack was repeated on the following day with a repetition of the
result of the first day’s assault. On the same day Admiral Uriu and a
small Japanese squadron attacked and destroyed two Russian cruisers in
the harbour of Chemulpo. Thus at the very outset the Japanese had secured
a decided advantage over their opponents on the sea. At once the cry
arose in Russia that Japan, by not giving official notice of the proposed
attack had violated international law, but neutral nations generally
saw in Russia’s complaint only an attempt to excuse her defeats, and
held that the severing of diplomatic relations was warning enough. Still
that the Russians were not entirely crippled was shown by the fact that
within a fortnight their squadron of four cruisers at Vladivostok cut its
way out of the ice, which was supposed to hold it captive, and harried
the Japanese coast. But this danger did not hinder the transportation of
Japanese troops to Korea, which began on February 18th. The following
month saw a continuation of Japanese successes and of Russian losses.
Several times Admiral Togo attacked Port Arthur, at one time or another
almost all of the Russian ships of war sustaining more or less serious
damage. Vladivostok was bombarded, and a succession of minor engagements
took place between the outposts of the two opposing armies advancing
toward one another from opposite sides of the Yalu river. On February
24th Admiral Togo made an unsuccessful attempt to “bottle up” the Russian
fleet in the harbour of Port Arthur by sinking five old steam-ships in
the channel. Early in March, General Kuropatkin, the Russian minister
of war, was appointed by the czar to the supreme command of the Russian
armies in Manchuria to succeed Viceroy Alexiev and Admiral Makarov was
at the same time appointed to the command of the fleet. By the end of
the month the Japanese had, on the Manchurian border, in Korea, with
which country they had concluded a close alliance, a force estimated at
eighty thousand, with a base at Ping Yang. This was faced by a Russian
force, slightly smaller, but increased daily by reinforcements which kept
arriving in a continuous stream over the Trans-Siberian and Manchurian
railways. The Japanese successes appeared well nigh to stupefy Russia,
and the demoralisation of the czar’s official advisers seemed complete.
Beside the loss of General Kuropatkin, who was succeeded as minister of
war by General Sakarov, both Count Lamsdorf, minister of foreign affairs,
and M. Witte, the finance minister, retired from the cabinet. On April
13th, the Russian battle-ship _Petropavlovsk_ struck a mine or floating
torpedo near the entrance to Port Arthur harbour and sank with all on
board, including Admiral Makarov and the war artist Vereshchagin.
During the succeeding month war operations of importance or interest were
confined to the land. By the first of May the principal points in the
Japanese military programme had unfolded themselves. The absolute command
of the sea and coast, thus assuring ease and safety in the transportation
of troops and munitions of war, had been secured, and an efficient and
formidable army had been landed on the Asiatic mainland. Korea too had
been thoroughly occupied. The Japanese army, in the last days of April,
began its forward movement under General Kuroki, the purpose being
to cross the Yalu at several points and drive the Russians back into
Manchuria.
On May 1st, after a six days fight on the Yalu near Wi-ju, the Japanese
won their first land victory, and secured a firm footing on the
Manchurian side of the Yalu. During the month of May Kuroki continued
his advance into the interior, but his progress was slow owing to the
difficulty in maintaining communication with the coast and constant
skirmishing with the Cossacks who opposed his advance guard. Kuropatkin
meanwhile proceeded to concentrate his forces at Liauyang on the
Manchurian Railway south of Harbin, with the apparent intention of
leaving Port Arthur to its fate.
It was about the latter place that the activity now centred and against
it a second Japanese army under General Oku advanced. On May 25th Oku
landed a force of some forty thousand men near Kin-chau on the narrowest
point of the Liao-tung peninsula. At this point the Nan-shan hills
extending from Kin-chau, on the western side of the isthmus toward Dalny
on the east afforded the Russians an excellent opportunity for defence
and here they had constructed a strong line of fortifications, mounted a
large number of guns and manned them with the flower of the Port Arthur
army. After a series of tentative attacks, Oku made a grand assault under
cover of fire from warships in the harbour of Kin-chau. In the charge up
the heights he lost over 4,000 men, but drove out the Russians, who lost
2,000 men and 78 cannon. Two days later the Japanese occupied Russia’s
great commercial port, Dalny, finding the docks, piers, and railway yards
uninjured. It was thenceforward the Japanese base.
[Sidenote: [1904-1905 A.D.]]
Port Arthur was now left to its fate, save for the single effort of
General Stakelberg who was detached with 40,000 men to make a dash
southward, but was defeated by Oku at Telissu (Vofangow), eighty miles
north of Port Arthur (June 14-16), and by Kuroki. He made his escape,
having lost some 10,000 men on his vain foray.
Kuropatkin’s tactics were Fabian and his eventual reliance was the
reinforcements which the Siberian railway poured in as fast as possible.
The Japanese forced the attack. Marshal Oyama was in charge of the armies
opposed to Kuropatkin, his subordinates being Nodzu and the brilliant
Kuroki. General Oku also joined Oyama, the Port Arthur siege being
placed in the command of General Nogi. June 26-27 the Japanese took the
well-nigh impregnable position at Fen-shiu-ling pass. Shortly after
Kuroki took the important pass of Motien-ling. On July 17 General Count
Keller made a desperate effort to recapture it, but was repulsed with
heavy loss. July 24 Oku took Tashichiao and forced the Russians back to
the walled city of Hai-cheng. July 29 Kuroki took the Yangtse pass, in
whose defence General Keller was killed. Oku having turned his right
flank, Kuropatkin was forced to evacuate Hai-cheng and retreat to his
base at Liauyang. He was also compelled to give up the important city of
New-Chwang.
The capture of Liauyang was a great problem. The Japanese were not ready
to open battle till August 24, when they began a twelve days’ combat
which takes a permanent place as one of the largest and fiercest battles
in history. The Russians were estimated at 200,000; the Japanese at
240,000. The Japanese confessed a loss of 25,000; the Russian loss was
perhaps still greater, as they were defeated and escaped capture or
annihilation only by Kuropatkin’s ingenuity in retreat.
The Russians retired to Mukden. October 2nd Kuropatkin felt strong enough
to take the offensive, and assailed Oyama on the river Shakhe or the
Sha-ho. A series of battles followed, lasting till October 18, when the
Russians fell back again to Mukden, after a loss of 45,000 men killed and
wounded, according to a Russian staff report. Oyama claimed to have found
13,300 Russians dead on the field, and admitted a loss of 15,800 on his
own side.
Meanwhile Port Arthur was undergoing one of the most important sieges in
history. The siege began on May 26th, when Nan-shan hill was taken and
Dalny occupied, though on August 12th the last of the outlying defences
was taken and the Japanese sat down before the permanent works. They
combined a patient and scientific process of sapping, trenching and
tunnelling, with a series of six grand assaults. The collaboration of
such skill with such reckless heroism had its inevitable result. The
garrison under General Stoessel held out with splendid courage against an
army totalling perhaps 100,000, but the gradual exhaustion of ammunition,
food, and strength, together with the appearance of scurvy, compelled a
surrender. January 3rd, 1905, the Japanese took possession, finding 878
officers, 23,491 men, besides several thousand non-combatants.
The fleet which had made several efforts to escape had been reduced by
loss after loss, and finally, on the capture of 203 Metre Hill, had been
subjected to the fire of the land artillery and completely destroyed.
During the leaguer of Port Arthur and the gradual beating back of
Kuropatkin, other Russian activities kept diplomacy busy. The seizure of
neutral ships in the Red Sea by two vessels that passed the Dardanelles
as merchantmen and then equipped as cruisers, provoked such indignation
in England and Germany that the seizures were discontinued. The
Vladivostok squadron made daring raids upon Japanese and neutral vessels,
but after a long pursuit was caught by Admiral Kamimura, who sank the
Ruric and crippled the other two cruisers.
Much talk was made of sending the powerful Baltic fleet to the aid of
Port Arthur under the command of Admiral Rojestvensky. It set forth
in October after infinite delays. On the night of the 21st, while in
the North Sea, off the Dogger Bank, it met a fleet of British fishing
smacks and fired on it, sinking one boat and killing two fishermen. The
indignation of the English people was intense, an inquiry was demanded,
during the progress of which the Baltic fleet continued on its long
voyage.
The internal condition of Russia was rendered critical by the war, and
by profound commercial distress. June 15th the Governor-General over
Finland, Bobrikov, was assassinated by an opponent of the russification
policy. On July 29th the Czar’s minister of the interior, Von Plehve, was
slain by a bomb thrown at his carriage. Rightly or wrongly, Von Plehve
was considered the special author and adviser of the increasing vigour
and tyranny of the czar’s internal administration. Jews abhorred him as
the man responsible for the Kishinev massacres, and the Finns looked upon
him as the destroyer of their national institutions. He was succeeded
by Prince Peter Sviatopolk-Mirsky, a man of comparatively liberal and
progressive views.
This gave some encouragement to the zemstvos, the farthest step toward
representative government yet taken in Russia. They date only from the
czar’s ukase of January, 1864. Each of the districts in which Russia is
divided is represented by an assembly, elected by the three estates,
communes, municipalities, and landowners. Each district assembly in a
province sends delegates to a general provincial assembly or zemstvo,
which body controls the roads, primary schools, etc. Alexander II meant
that these zemstvos should acquire large power, but after his death they
fell under the sway of provincial governors. November 21st, 1904, the
zemstvos lifted their heads again, and their presidents met in a congress
which, by a majority of 105 to 3, voted to beg the czar to grant Russia a
constitution and a genuine representative government.
The czar, with some asperity of tone, refused a constitution, and while
promising certain reforms, rebuked the zemstvos and forbade their further
discussion of such unsettling topics. Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky now
resigned, declaring that Russia was on the brink of a great revolution,
and that the bureaucracy must be supplanted by “the freely elected
representatives of the people.” In January, 1905, Sergius de Witte
succeeded to the office of minister of the interior. One of the most
prominent European statesmen, a liberal, and an enemy of Von Plehve, his
first statements were nevertheless disappointing to the believers that
radical reforms alone can save Russia.
[Illustration]
APPENDIX. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RUSSIAN HISTORY
I
TREATY OF PARIS
GENERAL TREATY BETWEEN THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND IRELAND, THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA, THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH, THE KING
OF PRUSSIA, THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA, THE KING OF SARDINIA, AND THE SULTAN
_Signed at Paris, March 30th, 1856. Ratifications exchanged at Paris,
April 27th_
Art. 1. From the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present
treaty there shall be peace and friendship between her majesty the Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, his majesty the
Emperor of the French, his majesty the King of Sardinia, his imperial
majesty the Sultan, on the one part, and his majesty the Emperor of
all the Russias, on the other part, as well as between their heirs and
successors, their respective dominions and subjects in perpetuity.
Art. 2. Peace being happily re-established between their said majesties,
the territories conquered or occupied by their armies during the war
shall be reciprocally evacuated.
Special arrangements shall regulate the mode of the evacuation, which
shall be as prompt as possible.
Art. 3. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias engages to restore
to his majesty the Sultan the town and citadel of Kars, as well as the
other parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troops are in
possession.
Art. 4. Their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the King of Sardinia, and the
Sultan, engage to restore to his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias
the towns and ports of Sebastopol, Balaklava, Kamiesch, Eupatoria,
Kertch, Yenikale, Kinburn, as well as all other territories occupied by
the allied troops.
Art. 5. Their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, the Emperor of all the
Russias, the King of Sardinia, and the Sultan, grant a full and entire
amnesty to those of their subjects who may have been compromised by any
participation whatsoever in the events of the war in favour of the cause
of the enemy.
It is expressly understood that such amnesty shall extend to the subjects
of each of the belligerent parties who may have continued during the war
to be employed in the service of one of the other belligerents.
Art. 6. Prisoners of war shall be immediately given up on either side.
Art. 7. Her majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, his majesty the Emperor of Austria, his majesty the Emperor of
the French, his majesty the King of Prussia, his majesty the Emperor
of all the Russias, and his majesty the King of Sardinia, declare the
Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the public
law and system (_concert_) of Europe. Their majesties engage, each on
his part, to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of
the Ottoman empire; guarantee in common the strict observance of that
engagement; and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its
violation as a question of general interest.
Art. 8. If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more
of the other signing powers any misunderstanding which might endanger
the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte and each of such
powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the
other contracting parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity
by means of their mediation.
Art. 9. His imperial majesty the Sultan having, in his constant
solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a _firman_ which,
while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of
race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of
his empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in that
respect, has resolved to communicate to the contracting parties the said
firman, emanating spontaneously from his sovereign will.
The contracting powers recognise the high value of this communication.
It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said
powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in
the relations of his majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the
internal administration of his empire.
Art. 10. The convention of the 13th of July, 1841, which maintains the
ancient rule of the Ottoman empire relative to the closing of the straits
of the Bosporus and of the Dardanelles, has been revised by common
consent.
The act concluded for that purpose, and in conformity with that
principle, between the high contracting parties, is and remains annexed
to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity as if
it formed an integral part thereof.
Art. 11. The Black Sea is neutralised; its waters and its ports,
thrown open to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and
in perpetuity interdicted to the flag of war, either of the powers
possessing its coasts or of any other power, with the exceptions
mentioned in Articles 14 and 19 of the present treaty.
Art. 12. Free from any impediment, the commerce in the ports and waters
of the Black Sea shall be subject only to regulations of health,
customs, and police, framed in a spirit favourable to the development of
commercial transactions.
In order to afford to the commercial and maritime interests of every
nation the security which is desired, Russia and the Sublime Porte will
admit consuls into their ports situated upon the coast of the Black Sea,
in conformity with the principles of international law.
Art. 13. The Black Sea being neutralised according to the terms of Art.
11, the maintenance or establishment upon its coast of military-maritime
arsenals becomes alike unnecessary and purposeless; in consequence,
his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his imperial majesty
the Sultan engage not to establish or to maintain upon that coast any
military-maritime arsenal.
Art. 14. Their majesties the Emperor of all the Russias and the Sultan
having concluded a convention for the purpose of settling the force and
the number of light vessels necessary for the service of their coasts,
which they reserve to themselves to maintain in the Black Sea, that
convention is annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same
force and validity, as if it formed an integral part thereof. It cannot
be either annulled or modified without the assent of the powers signing
the present treaty.
Art. 15. The act of the Congress of Vienna having established the
principles intended to regulate the navigation of rivers which separate
or traverse different states, the contracting powers stipulate among
themselves that those principles shall in future be equally applied to
the Danube and its mouths. They declare that this arrangement henceforth
forms a part of the public law of Europe, and take it under their
guarantee.
The navigation of the Danube cannot be subjected to any impediment or
charge not expressly provided for by the stipulations contained in the
following articles; in consequence, there shall not be levied any toll
founded solely upon the fact of the navigation of the river, nor any
duty upon the goods which may be on board of vessels. The regulations of
police and of quarantine to be established for the safety of the states
separated or traversed by that river shall be so framed as to facilitate,
as much as possible, the passage of vessels. With the exception of such
regulations, no obstacle whatever shall be opposed to free navigation.
Art. 16. Establishing a temporary international commission for the
control of navigation on the Danube.
Arts. 17-19. Establishing a permanent commission for the improvement and
control of navigation on the Danube.
Art. 20. In exchange for the towns, ports, and territories enumerated
in Art. 4 of the present treaty, and in order more fully to secure the
freedom of the navigation of the Danube, his majesty the Emperor of all
the Russias consents to the rectification of his frontier in Bessarabia.
Art. 21. The territory ceded by Russia shall be annexed to the
principality of Moldavia under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte. The
inhabitants of that territory shall enjoy the rights and privileges
secured to the principalities; and during the space of three years they
shall be permitted to transfer their domicile elsewhere, disposing freely
of their property.
Art. 22. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia shall continue
to enjoy, under the suzerainty of the Porte and under the guarantee of
the contracting powers, the privileges and immunities of which they are
in possession. No exclusive protection shall be exercised over them by
any of the guaranteeing powers. There shall be no separate right of
interference in their internal affairs.
Arts. 23-27. Concerning the government, administration, preservation of
order in, and defence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia.
Art. 28. The principality of Servia shall continue to hold the Sublime
Porte, in conformity with the imperial _hats_ which fix and determine its
rights and immunities, placed henceforward under the collective guarantee
of the contracting powers. In consequence the said principality shall
preserve its independent and national administration, as well as full
liberty of worship, of legislation, of commerce, and of navigation.
Art. 29. The right of garrison of the Sublime Porte, as stipulated by
anterior regulations, is maintained. No armed intervention can take place
in Servia without previous agreement between the high contracting powers.
Art. 30. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and his majesty the
Sultan maintain in its integrity the state of their possessions in Asia,
such as it legally existed before the rupture. A mixed commission for the
verification or rectification of the frontiers is provided for.
Art. 31. The territories occupied during the war by the troops of
their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, and the
King of Sardinia, according to the terms of the conventions signed
at Constantinople on the 12th of March, 1854, between Great Britain,
France, and the Sublime Porte; on the 14th of June, of the same year,
between Austria and the Sublime Porte; and on the 15th of March, 1855,
between Sardinia and the Sublime Porte, shall be evacuated as soon as
possible after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.
The periods and the means of execution shall form the object of an
arrangement between the Sublime Porte and the powers whose troops have
occupied its territory.
Art. 32. Until the treaties or conventions which existed before the war
between the belligerent powers have been either renewed or replaced by
new acts, commerce of importation or of exportation shall take place
reciprocally on the footing of the regulations in force before the war;
and in all other matters their subjects shall be respectively treated
upon the footing of the most favoured nation.
Art. 33. The convention concluded this day between their majesties the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor
of the French, on the one part, and his majesty the Emperor of all the
Russias on the other part respecting the Åland Islands, is and remains
annexed to the present treaty, and shall have the same force and validity
as if it formed a part thereof.
CONVENTIONS ANNEXED TO THE PRECEDING TREATY
1. _Convention between the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King
of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the King of Sardinia, on the one
part, and the Sultan on the other part, respecting the Straits of the
Dardanelles and of the Bosporus._
Art. 1. His majesty the Sultan, on the one part, declares that he is
firmly resolved to maintain for the future the principle invariably
established as the ancient rule of his empire, and in virtue of which it
has at all times been prohibited for the ships of war of foreign powers
to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosporus, and that, so
long as the Porte is at peace, his majesty will admit no foreign ship of
war into the said Straits.
And their majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, the Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of the French, the King of
Prussia, the Emperor of all the Russias, and the King of Sardinia, on the
other part, engage to respect this determination of the Sultan’s, and to
conform themselves to the principle above declared.
Art. 2. The Sultan reserves to himself, as in past times, to deliver
firmans of passage for light vessels under flag of war, which shall be
employed, as is usual, in the service of the missions of foreign powers.
Art. 3. The same exception applies to the light vessels under flag of
war, which each of the contracting powers is authorised to station at the
mouths of the Danube, in order to secure the execution of the regulations
relative to the liberty of that river, and the number of which is not to
exceed two for each power.
2. _Convention between the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan, limiting
their naval force in the Black Sea._
Art. 1. The high contracting parties mutually engage not to have in the
Black Sea any other vessels of war than those of which the number, the
force, and the dimensions are hereinafter stipulated.
Art. 2. The high contracting parties reserve to themselves each to
maintain in that sea six steam-vessels of fifty metres in length at the
line of floatation, of a tonnage of 800 tons at the maximum, and four
light steam or sailing vessels, of a tonnage which shall not exceed 200
tons each.
3. _Convention between her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, the Emperor of the French, and the Emperor of
Russia, respecting the Åland Islands._
Art. 1. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, in order to respond
to the desire which has been expressed to him by their majesties the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor
of the French, declares that the Åland Islands shall not be fortified,
and that no military or naval establishment shall be maintained or
created there.
_Declaration respecting maritime law, signed by the plenipotentiaries of
Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey,
assembled in congress at Paris, April 16th, 1856._
The plenipotentiaries who signed the treaty of Paris, of the 30th of
March, 1856, being duly authorised, and having come to an agreement, have
adopted the following solemn declaration:--
1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished.
2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of
contraband of war.
3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable
to capture under enemy’s flag.
4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective--that is to say
maintained by force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of
the enemy.
The governments of the undersigned plenipotentiaries engage to bring the
present declaration to the knowledge of the states which have taken part
in the congress of Paris, and to invite them to accede to it.
Convinced that the maxims which they now proclaim cannot but be received
with gratitude by the whole world, the undersigned plenipotentiaries
doubt not that the efforts of their governments to obtain the general
adoption thereof will be crowned with full success.
The present declaration is not and shall not be binding, except between
those powers who have acceded, or shall accede, to it.
Done at Paris, the 16th of April, 1856.
[Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries of the signatory powers.]
II
TREATY OF BERLIN, 1878
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
Empress of India, His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia,
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and King
Apostolic of Hungary, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty
the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and His
Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, being desirous to regulate with a
view to European order, conformably to the stipulations of the Treaty of
Paris of 30th March, 1856, the questions raised in the East by the events
of late years and by the war terminated by the Preliminary Treaty of San
Stefano, have been unanimously of opinion that the meeting of a Congress
would offer the best means of facilitating an understanding.
[Here follow the names of the ambassadors.]
Who, in accordance with the proposal of the Court of Austria-Hungary, and
on the invitation of the Court of Germany, have met at Berlin furnished
with full powers, which have been found in good and due form.
An understanding having been happily established between them, they have
agreed to the following stipulations:
Art. 1. Bulgaria is constituted an autonomous and tributary Principality
under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan; it will have a
Christian government and a national militia.
Art. 2. The Principality of Bulgaria will include the following
territories:
[Here follows a detailed account of boundaries. These having mainly a
technical interest are omitted here and in other articles of the treaty
of the same nature. Those articles likewise whose importance is purely
local are given in abbreviated form.]
This delimitation shall be fixed on the spot by the European Commission,
on which the Signatory Powers shall be represented. It is understood: 1.
That this Commission will take into consideration the necessity for His
Imperial Majesty the Sultan to be able to defend the Balkan frontier of
Eastern Rumelia. 2. That no fortifications may be erected within a radius
of 10 kilometres from Samakov.
Art. 3. The Prince of Bulgaria shall be freely elected by the population
and confirmed by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers. No
member of the Reigning Dynasties of the Great European Powers may be
elected Prince of Bulgaria. In case of a vacancy in the princely dignity
the election of a new Prince shall take place under the same conditions
and with the same forms.
Art. 4. An Assembly of Notables of Bulgaria convoked at Tirnovo, shall,
before the election of the Prince, draw up the Organic Law of the
Principality. In the districts where Bulgarians are intermixed with
Turkish, Rumanian, Greek or other populations, the rights and intents
of these populations shall be taken into consideration as regards the
elections and the drawing up of the Organic Law.
Art. 5. Differences of religious creed not to be a bar to office holding
in Bulgaria. Complete freedom of worship assured.
Art. 6. The provisional administration of Bulgaria.
Art. 7. The provisional _régime_ shall not be prolonged beyond a period
of nine months from the exchange of the ratifications of the present
Treaty. When the Organic Law is completed the election of the Prince of
Bulgaria shall be proceeded with immediately. As soon as the Prince shall
have been installed, the new organisation shall be put into force, and
the Principality shall enter into the full enjoyment of its autonomy.
Art. 8. The treaties of commerce and navigation as well as all
conventions and arrangements concluded between Foreign Powers and the
Porte, and now in force are maintained in the Principality of Bulgaria,
and no change shall be made in them with regard to any Power without its
previous consent. No transit duties shall be levied in Bulgaria on goods
passing through that principality. The subjects and citizens of commerce
of all the powers shall be treated in the principality on a footing of
strict equality. The immunities and privileges of foreigners, as well
as the rights of consular jurisdiction and protection as established by
the capitulations and usages, shall remain in full force so long as they
shall not have been modified with the consent of the parties concerned.
Art. 9. Tribute to be paid by Bulgaria to suzerain court, etc.
Art. 10. Railway questions in Bulgaria.
Art. 11. Evacuation and demolition of Bulgarian fortresses.
Art. 12. Land rights of non-resident Moslems and others. Commission to
settle questions of state property. Bulgarians travelling in Turkey
subject to Ottoman laws.
Art. 13. A province is formed south of the Balkans which will take the
name of “Eastern Rumelia,” and will remain under the direct political and
military authority of His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, under conditions
of administrative autonomy. It shall have a Christian Governor-General.
Art. 14. Boundaries of Eastern Rumelia.
Art. 15. His Majesty, the Sultan, shall have the right of providing for
the defence of the land and sea frontiers of the province by erecting
fortifications on those frontiers and maintaining troops there. Internal
order is maintained in Eastern Rumelia by a native gendarmerie assisted
by a local militia. In forming these corps, the officers of which are
nominated by the Sultan, regard shall be paid in the different localities
to the religion of the inhabitants.
His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, undertakes not to employ irregular
troops, such as Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians, in the garrisons of the
frontiers. The regular troops detailed for this service must not in any
case be billeted on the inhabitants. When they pass through the province
they shall not make a stay there.
Art. 16. The governor-general shall have the right of summoning the
Ottoman troops in the event of the internal or external security of the
province being threatened. In such an eventuality the Sublime Porte shall
inform the representatives of the Powers at Constantinople of such a
decision, as well as of the exigencies which justify it.
Art. 17. The governor-general of Eastern Rumelia shall be nominated by
the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers for a term of five years.
Arts. 18 and 19. Creating a European commission for the organisation of
Eastern Rumelia.
Arts. 20 and 21. Concerning foreign relations, religious liberty and
railway administration of Eastern Rumelia.
Art. 22. Regulations concerning Russian occupation of Bulgaria and
Eastern Rumelia. Evacuation of Rumania.
Art. 23. The Sublime Porte undertakes scrupulously to apply, in the
Island of Crete the Organic Law of 1868 with such modifications as may
be considered equitable. Similar laws adapted to local requirements,
excepting as regards the exemption from taxation granted to Crete shall
also be introduced into the other parts of Turkey in Europe, for which no
such organisation has been provided by the present Treaty. The Sublime
Porte shall depute special Commissions, in which the native element
shall be largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in
each province. The schemes of organisation resulting from these labours
shall be submitted for examination to the Sublime Porte, which, before
promulgating the Acts for putting them into force, shall consult the
European Commission instituted for Eastern Rumelia.
Art. 24. In the event of the Sublime Porte and Greece being unable to
agree upon the rectification of frontiers suggested in the 13th protocol
of the Congress of Berlin, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Great
Britain, Italy, and Russia reserve to themselves to offer their mediation
to the two parties to facilitate negotiations.
Art. 25. The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied and
administered by Austria-Hungary. The government of Austria-Hungary, not
desiring to undertake the administration of the Sandjak of Novibazar,
which extends between Servia and Montenegro in a southeasterly direction
to the other side of Mitrovitz, the Ottoman administration shall continue
to exercise its functions there. Nevertheless, in order to assure the
maintenance of the new political state of affairs, as well as the freedom
and security of communications, Austria-Hungary reserves the right of
keeping garrisons and having military and commercial roads in the whole
of this part of the ancient Vilayet of Bosnia.
Arts. 26-33. Recognition of the independence of Montenegro and
regulations as to its boundaries, freedom of worship, debt, commerce and
defence.
Art. 34. The High Contracting Parties recognise the independence of
Servia, subject to the conditions set forth in the following Article.
Art. 35. Differences of religious creed to be no bar to officeholding in
Servia; freedom of worship assured.
Art. 36. Boundaries of Servia.
Arts. 37-42. Concerning commercial relations and consular jurisdiction in
Servia; railway administration and property rights.
Art. 43. The High Contracting Parties recognise the independence of
Rumania, subject to the conditions set forth in the two following
Articles.
Art. 44. Differences in religious creed to be no bar to officeholding in
Rumania: freedom of worship assured.
Arts. 45-46. Concerning the cession of Bessarabian territory by Rumania
to Russia and the addition of the Danubian Delta, etc., to Rumania.
Arts. 47-49. Concerning fisheries, transit dues and rights of foreign
consuls in Rumania.
Art. 50. Reciprocity of consular rights between Turkey and Rumania.
Transfer of public works in ceded territory.
Art. 52. In order to increase the guarantees which assure the freedom of
navigation on the Danube, which is recognised as of European interest,
the High Contracting Parties determine that all the fortresses and
fortifications existing on the course of the river from the Iron Gates
to its mouths shall be rased, and no new ones erected. No vessel of war
shall navigate the Danube, below the Iron Gates, with the exception of
vessels of light tonnage in the service of the river police and customs.
The “stationnaires” of the Powers at the mouths of the Danube may,
however, ascend the river as far as Galatz.
Arts. 53-56. Concerning the rights and duties of the European Commission
of the Danube.
Art. 57. Rights of Austria-Hungary on the Danube.
Art. 58. The Sublime Porte cedes to the Russian Empire in Asia, the
territories of Ardahan, Kars, and Batum, together with the latter port,
as well as all the territories comprised between the former Russo-Turkish
frontier and the following line:
[Here follows new boundary line between Russia and Turkey.]
Art. 59. His Majesty the Emperor of Russia declares that it is his
intention to constitute Batum a free port, essentially commercial.
Art. 60. Restoration of Alaschkerd to Turkey: cession of Khotour to
Persia.
Art. 61. The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further
delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the
provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security
against the Circassians and Kurds.
Art. 62. Pledge of Turkey to maintain the principle of religious liberty.
Art. 63. The Treaty of Paris, of March 30th, 1856, as well as the Treaty
of London, of March 13th, 1871, are maintained in all such of their
provisions as are not abrogated or modified by the preceding stipulations.
Art. 64. The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications
exchanged at Berlin, within three weeks, or sooner if possible.
In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed it, and
affixed to it the seal of their arms. Done at Berlin, the thirteenth day
of the month of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight.
[Signatures.]
III
THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE
[An international conference of representatives of the principal powers
of the world assembled at The Hague, May 18th, 1899, in response to a
call issued by the Czar of Russia with a view to concerted action in
regard to an amelioration of the hardships of war, the furtherance of the
principle of the arbitration of international disputes, the maintenance
of a general peace and the possible reduction of the world’s military and
naval armaments. The states represented were Germany, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, China, Japan, France, Mexico, the United States, Great
Britain, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Russia, Spain, Italy, Servia,
Siam, the Netherlands, Rumania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Switzerland,
Luxembourg, Persia and Portugal. Sessions continued until July 29th,
when the delegates embodied the conclusions reached in a final act for
submission to the several states represented. This final act consisted
of three conventions, three formal declarations and a series of six
resolutions. The resolutions embodied an expression of the desire that
certain unsettled points in regard to neutrals, contraband and so forth
might be passed upon by an international tribunal at an early date.
The conventions were (1) For the pacific settlement of international
conflicts; (2) Regarding the laws and customs of war by land; (3) For
the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva
Convention, August 22nd, 1864. The declarations had to do with (1) The
prohibition of launching explosives and projectiles from balloons; (2)
The prohibition of the use of projectiles diffusing poisonous gases;
(3) The prohibition of the use of expanding or flattening bullets. The
Conventions were signed at once by 16 powers, Germany, Great Britain,
Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, and several minor powers, withholding
their assent temporarily but finally accepting them.]
A. CONVENTION FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES
_Title I--On the Maintenance of the General Peace_
Art. 1. Agreement of powers to use best efforts to ensure peaceful
settlement of international disputes.
_Title II--On Good Offices and Mediation_
Arts. 2-4. Recommendation of the principle of mediation, the exercise of
which is never to be considered an unfriendly act.
Art. 5. The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is
declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute, or by the mediator
himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not
accepted.
Art. 6. Good offices and mediation, either at the request of the parties
at variance, or on the initiative of powers strangers to the dispute,
have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.
Art. 7. The acceptance of mediation not to hinder preparations for, or
interfere with the prosecution of war.
Art. 8. Concerning special mediation.
_Title III--On International Commissions of Inquiry_
Arts. 9-13. Appointment and procedure of the Commissions of Inquiry.
Art. 14. The report of the International Commission of Inquiry is limited
to a statement of facts, and is in no way the character of an arbitral
award.
_Title IV--On International Arbitration_
CHAPTER I--ON THE SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION
Arts. 15-19. Recognition of the efficacy of arbitration conventions, and
the implied engagement of loyal submission to the award.
CHAPTER II--ON THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION
Art. 20. Undertaking of the signatory powers to organise a permanent
court.
Art. 21. The permanent court shall be competent for all arbitration
cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special tribunal.
Art. 22. An international bureau, established at The Hague, serves as
record office for the court, and the channel for communications relative
to the meetings of the court. It has the custody of the archives and
conducts all the administrative business.
Art. 23. Selection of members of the court.
Art. 24. Arbitrators are to be chosen from the general list of members of
the court. Alternative provisions in case of failure of direct agreement.
Art. 25. Seat of the tribunal to be ordinarily at The Hague.
Art. 26. The jurisdiction of the permanent court may within the
conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between
non-signatory powers, or between signatory powers and non-signatory
powers if the parties are agreed on recourse to this tribunal.
Art. 27. Reminding powers of the existence of the court not to be
considered an unfriendly act.
Art. 28. Institution and duties of a permanent administrative council to
be composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory powers
accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland minister for foreign
affairs, who will act as president.
Art. 29. The expenses of the bureau.
CHAPTER III--ON ARBITRAL PROCEDURE
Arts. 30-31. Regarding agreement to submit to arbitration.
Art. 32. Failing the constitution of the tribunal by direct agreement
between the parties, the following course shall be pursued: Each party
appoints two arbitrators and these latter together choose an umpire. In
case of equal voting the choice of the umpire is entrusted to a third
power, selected by the parties by common accord. If no agreement is
arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different power, and the
choice of the umpire is made in concert by the powers thus selected.
Arts. 33-38. Concerning umpires, seat of tribunal, counsel, and language.
Art. 39. As a general rule the arbitral procedure comprises two distinct
phases; preliminary examination of documents, manuscripts and briefs and
oral discussion of the agreements of the parties.
Arts. 40-51. Concerning procedure as to documents and arguments.
Art. 52. The award, given by a majority of votes, is accompanied by a
statement of reasons. It is drawn up in writing and signed by each member
of the tribunal. Those members who are in the minority may record their
dissent when signing.
Art. 53. Publication of the award.
Art. 54. The award puts an end to the dispute definitively, and without
appeal.
Art. 55. Concerning demand for a revision of the award on account of the
discovery of new evidence.
Art. 56. The award binding only on parties who submitted to arbitration.
Right to intervene of other nations parties to a convention interpreted.
Art. 57. Parties to arbitration to share expenses equally.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Arts. 58-60. Ratification and notification of ratification and the
adherence of non-signatory powers.
Art. 61. In the event of one of the high contracting parties denouncing
the present Convention, this denunciation would not take effect until a
year after its notification made in writing to the Netherland government,
and by it communicated at once to all the other contracting powers. This
denunciation shall only affect the notifying power.
B. CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
[Here follow the names of the signatory powers and a statement of
the reasons for and the necessities which have led to the following
convention.]
Art. 1. Contracting powers to accept “Regulations” adopted by the present
conference.
Art. 2. Regulations to be binding only in case of war between two
contracting powers, and cease to be binding when a non-contracting power
joins one of the belligerents.
Arts. 3-5. Concerning ratification by contracting powers, the adherence
of non-contracting powers, and denunciation by a contracting power.
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION
Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
_Section I--On Belligerents_
CHAPTER I--ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF BELLIGERENTS
Art. 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to the
armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the
following conditions: I. To be commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates; II. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a
distance; III. To carry arms openly; and IV. To conduct their operations
in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where
militia or volunteer corps constitute the “army,” or form part of it,
they are included under the term.
Art. 2. The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on
the enemy’s approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
troops without having time to organise themselves in accordance with
Article I, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and
customs of war.
Art. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of
combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have
a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
CHAPTER II--ON PRISONERS OF WAR
Arts. 4-12. Prisoners of war; their personal property, their
imprisonment, utilisation of their labor, maintenance, recapture of
escaped prisoners and parole.
Art. 13. Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to it,
such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers, contractors, who
fall into the enemy’s hands, and whom the latter think fit to detain,
have a right to be treated as prisoners of war, provided they can produce
a certificate from the military authorities of the army they were
accompanying.
Art. 14. A bureau for information relative to prisoners of war to
be instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the
belligerent states, to answer all inquiries about prisoners of war, to
keep an individual return for each prisoner of war.
Arts. 15-16. Concerning rights and privileges of relief societies and
information bureaus.
Art. 17. Officers taken prisoners may receive, if necessary, the full pay
allowed them in this position by their country’s regulations, the amount
to be repaid by their government.
Arts. 18-20. Right of prisoners to freedom of worship; wills;
repatriation.
CHAPTER III--ON THE SICK AND WOUNDED
Art. 21. The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and
wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention of the 22nd of August,
1864, subject to any modifications which may be introduced into it.
_Section II--On Hostilities_
CHAPTER I--ON MEANS OF INJURING THE ENEMY, SIEGES, AND BOMBARDMENTS
Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
is not unlimited.
Art. 23. Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions, it
is especially prohibited: (a) To employ poison or poisoned arms; (b) To
kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation
or army; (c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or
having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; (d) To
declare that no quarter will be given; (e) To employ arms, projectiles,
or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; (f) To make improper
use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and
the enemy’s uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva
Convention; (g) To destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such
destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
Art. 24. Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain
information about the enemy and the country, are considered allowable.
Art. 25. Attack or bombardment of undefended towns prohibited.
Art. 26. Providing for warning before bombardment.
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be
taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art,
science, and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded
are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military
purposes. The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some
particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the
assailants.
Art. 28. Pillage of a town even when taken by assault prohibited.
[Chapters II-V, containing Arts. 29-41, are concerned with Spies, Flags
of Truce, Capitulations, and Armistices.]
_Section III--On Military Authority over Hostile Territory_
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed
under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to
the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to
assert itself.
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed
into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in her
power to re-establish and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while representing, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country.
Arts. 44-45. Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to
take part in military operations against its own country or oath to the
hostile powers is prohibited.
Art. 46. Family honours and rights, individual lives and private
property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be
respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.
Art. 47. Pillage is formally prohibited.
Arts. 48-49. Right of hostile power to levy taxes, dues, and tolls in
occupied territory for the administration of such territory.
Art. 50. No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on
the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot
be regarded as collectively responsible.
Art. 51. No tax shall be collected except under a written order on the
responsibility of a commander-in-chief. For every payment a receipt shall
be given to the taxpayer.
Art. 52. Neither requisitions in kind, nor services can be demanded
from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of
occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country,
and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation
of taking part in military operations against their country. These
requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the
commander in the locality occupied. The contributions in kind shall as
far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall
be acknowledged.
Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash,
funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the
state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and
generally all movable property of the state which may be used for
military operations. Railway plants, land telegraphs, telephones,
steamers, and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law,
as well as depots of arms and, generally, all kinds of war material,
even though belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise
material which may serve for military operations, but they must be
restored at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid.
Art. 54. The plant of railways coming from neutral states whether the
property of those states, or of companies or of private persons, shall be
sent back to them as soon as possible.
Art. 55. The occupying state shall only be regarded as administrator
and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and
agricultural works belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the
occupied country.
Art. 56. The property of the communes, that of religious, charitable,
and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when
state property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of,
and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to
historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited.
_Section IV--On the Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the
Wounded in Neutral Countries_
Arts. 57-60. Concerning the internment, detention and maintenance of
belligerents, and of the sick and wounded of a belligerent in a neutral
country. Application of the Geneva Convention.
DECLARATIONS
(I) The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a term of five years,
the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other
new methods of a similar nature.
(II) The contracting parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets
which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a
hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with
incisions.
(III) The contracting powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles
the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.
The above declarations are only binding on the contracting powers in the
case of a war between two or more of them. They shall cease to be binding
from the time when in a war between the contracting powers, one of the
belligerents shall be joined by a non-contracting power.
The non-signatory powers can adhere to the above declarations.
In the event of one of the high contracting parties denouncing the
declarations, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after
the notification made in writing to the government of the Netherlands,
and forthwith communicated by it to all the other contracting powers.
This denunciation shall only affect the notifying power.
D. CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION TO MARITIME WARFARE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF AUGUST 22ND, 1854
Arts. 1-5. Military hospital-ships owned either by a state or a private
individual or society not to be considered belligerent.
Art. 6. Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having or taking on
board, sick, wounded, or the shipwrecked of the belligerents, cannot be
captured for so doing, but they are liable to capture, for any violation
of neutrality.
Art. 7. Concerning the inviolability of the religious, medical, or
hospital staff of any captured ship.
Art. 8. Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when sick or wounded,
to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected by the captors.
Art. 9. The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who
fall into the hands of the other, are prisoners of war.
Art. 10. Concerning the treatment of the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick,
landed at a neutral port with the consent of the local authorities.
Art. 11. Concerning limitation, ratification, acceptance by a
non-signatory power and denunciation of the above articles.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS
[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]
CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE AND EARLY HISTORY (to 1054 A.D.)
[b] A. LEROY-BEAULIEU, _L’Empire des Tsars et les Russes_.
[c] M. KOVALEVSKI, _Russian Political Institutions_.
[d] PROCOPIUS, _Gothica seu Bellum Gothicum_.
[e] MAURICIUS, _Strategicum_.
[f] LEO, _Tacita seu de re militari_.
[g] T. SCHIEMANN, _Russland, Polen und Livland_.
[h] NESTOR, _Chronicle_.
[i] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[j] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[k] ROBERT BELL, _History of Russia_.
CHAPTER II. THE PERIOD OF THE PRINCIPALITIES (1054-1224 A.D.)
[b] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[c] T. SCHIEMANN, _Russland, Polen und Livland_.
[d] N. M. KARAMZIN, _History of the Russian Empire_.
CHAPTER III. THE TIME OF TATAR DOMINATION (1235-1462 A.D.)
[b] R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, _Russian History_.
[c] D. M. WALLACE, _Russia_.
[d] R. BELL, _A History of Russia_.
[e] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.
[f] N. TURGENIEV, _La Russie et les Russes_.
[g] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[h] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.
[i] A. BRÜCKNER, _Geschichte Russlands_.
CHAPTER IV. FROM IVAN THE GREAT TO IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1462-1584 A.D.)
[b] R. N. BESTUZHEV-RIUMIN, _Russian History_.
[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.
[d] P. STRAHL and E. HERMANN, _Geschichte des Russischen Staates_.
[e] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[f] N. KARAMZIN, _History of the Russian Empire_.
[g] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.
[h] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.
CHAPTER V. THE CENTURY AFTER IVAN THE TERRIBLE (1584-1682 A.D.)
[b] PROSPER MÉRIMÉE, _Demetrius the Impostor_.
[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.
[d] N. KARAMZIN, _History of the Russian Empire_.
[e] JEAN HENRI SCHNITZLER, _L’Empire des Tsars au point actuél de la
science_.
[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[g] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.
[h] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[i] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.
CHAPTER VI. PETER THE GREAT (1682-1725 A.D.)
[b] VOLTAIRE, _Histoire de Russie_.
[c] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.
[d] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.
[e] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[f] P. STRAHL and E. HERMANN, _Geschichte des Russischen Staates_.
[g] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[h] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, _Readings from Russian History_.
[i] S. M. SOLOVIOV, _History of Russia from the Earliest Times_.
[j] AUGUSTE DE HAXTHAUSEN, _The Russian Empire, its People, Institutions
and Resources_.
[k] CLAUDE CARLOMAN DE RULHIÈRE, _Révolution de Pologne_.
[l] C. A. DE LOUVILLE, _Mémoires_.
[m] IVAN GOLIKOV, _The Acts of Peter the Great_.
CHAPTER VII. CATHERINE I TO PETER III (1725-1796 A.D.)
[b] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.
[c] N. I. KOSTOMAROV, _Russian History_.
[d] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, _Readings from Russian History_.
[e] V. A. BILBASSOV, _History of Catherine II_.
[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Historie de la Russie_.
[g] R. NISBET BAIN, _The Daughter of Peter the Great_.
CHAPTER VIII. THE AGE OF CATHERINE II (1769-1796 A.D.)
[b] P. SHTCHEBALSKI, _Readings from Russian History_.
[c] V. A. BILBASSOV, _History of Catherine II_.
[d] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[e] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.
[f] ANTOINE DE FERRAND, _Les trois démembrements de la Pologne_.
[g] CATHERINE II, _Memoirs_.
[h] A. BRÜCKNER, _History of Catherine II_.
[i] THEODOR VON BERNHARDI, _Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen
Politik in den Jahren 1814-1831_.
[j] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[k] N. K. SHILDER, _The Emperor Alexander I_.
CHAPTER IX. RUSSIA IN THE NAPOLEONIC EPOCH (1796-1815 A.D.)
[b] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _Geschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts_.
[c] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[d] R. BELL, _History of Russia_.
[e] R. GOSSIP, _History of Russia_.
[f] A. ALISON, _History of Europe_.
[g] N. K. SHILDER, _The Emperor Alexander I_.
[h] P. DE SÉGUR, _History of the Expedition to Russia_.
[i] A. MIKHAILOVSKI-DANILEVSKI, _Vie du Feld-Maréchal Koutouzoff_.
[j] T. VON BERNHARDI, _Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen Politik
in den Jahren 1814-1831_.
[k] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[l] F. H. SKRINE, _The Expansion of Russia, 1815-1900_.
CHAPTER X. ALEXANDER I, MYSTIC AND HUMANITARIAN (1801-1825 A.D.)
[b] N. K. SHILDER, _The Emperor Alexander I_.
[d] N. TURGENIEV, _La Russie et les Russes_.
[e] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[g] A. ALISON, _History of Europe_.
[h] F. H. SKRINE, _The Expansion of Russia 1815-1900_.
[i] STORCK, _Russland unter Alexander dem Ersten_.
CHAPTER XI. THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS I (1825-1854 A.D.)
[b] N. K. SHILDER, _The Reign of the Emperor Nicholas I_.
[c] J. H. SCHNITZLER, _La Russie, Ancienne et Moderne_.
[d] W. K. KELLY, _History of Russia_.
[e] A. P. DE CUSTINE, _La Russie en 1839_.
[f] A. RAMBAUD, _Histoire de la Russie_.
[g] T. DELORD, _Histoire du second Empire_.
[h] P. DE LA GORCE, _Histoire du second Empire_.
[i] H. MARTIN, _Histoire de la France depuis 1789 jusqu’à nos jours_.