account of ill health, and the premiership had passed to
Clemenceau. The Cabinet underwent a degree of reconstruction
soon afterwards, and the upright, courageous Picquart,
formerly Colonel, now Brigadier-General, who had stood so long
almost alone in army circles as a champion of justice to the
foully wronged Dreyfus, had been given the portfolio of War.
See, in Volume VI. of this work,
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899)
To Dreyfus himself the Republic had made all the reparation
that it could. On the 12th of July in this year its highest
court had pronounced a decision which branded with falsity and
forgery every document and the whole testimony on which he had
been convicted, and declared that "the accusation against
Dreyfus was completely unjustified." Thereupon he was
reinstated in the army with the rank of major, and not many
days later, on the spot where the ceremony of his degradation
had been performed, in 1894, he received the insignia of a
Chevalier of the Legion of Honor.
In the May elections for the Chamber of Deputies the
Socialists had been heavily reinforced, and their most
strenuous leader, M. Jaurès, was inspired to say in his
journal, L'Humanité:
"There is no more time to be lost. This time we must give the
finishing blow to the Reaction, to all parties of the past, to
Clericalism and Cæsarism. After clearing the battleground of
all its litter, the Proletariat must be able to say to the
face of the Republican Democracy, the Radical Democracy which
at last is master of public power: ‘What are you going to do
for workmen? What reforms, what guarantees, are you going to
give them? How are you going to help French society out of the
deep crisis in which it struggles? How, by what organization
of Property and Labor, will you put an end to the exploiting
of men, to the war of classes let loose by the Capitalist form
of property?’" Quoting these words, soon afterwards, a writer
in _The Atlantic Monthly_ remarked:
"Such words are not the mere rhetoric of a Parliamentary
dictator who has just suffered a year’s eclipse in the
retrograde combinations given to the Radical majority by Prime
Minister Rouvier. Almost physiologically, certainly socially,
the millions of French workmen stand over against
property-holders in a way to which there is nothing comparable
in the Northern and Western United States, with all their
labor difficulties. They form a separate class in society,
because French property-holders form an exclusive caste. It
was the middle classes, the property-holding bourgeois and the
peasant proprietors bound up with them, who profited by the
great Revolution against the privileged classes of that
day,—royalty, clergy, and nobles. During the century which has
elapsed the triumphant bourgeois have steadily persisted in
throwing around themselves a practically impenetrable wall of
legal and social privilege in their turn. And now there is a
spontaneous upheaval of the excluded, unprivileged, inferior
class."
_Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906)._
Mainly, it appears, from the prompting and the influence of
the Socialist and Labor organizations, France obtained, in
1906, a law making Sunday a day of rest from most descriptions
of industry and commerce, exceptions being made to allow
travel and transportation companies, lighting and water works,
newspaper offices, and some other performers of public
services, to continue their operations, while hotels,
restaurants, wine shops, drug stores, and the like, were
exempted from closing their doors.
See (in this Volume)
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
Woman Suffrage Movement.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
The Thrift and consequent loanable Wealth of the country.
The power that it makes for peace.
"In the world at large, however, France has also come to a
consciousness of her real power. An English financier had
already said that if the French people continue to live on the
principle, ‘where you have four sous spend only two,’ they
will end by having in their possession all the coined gold in
the world. The great portion of it which they already possess,
and the distress caused to German finance and industry by the
patriotic refusal of the united French banks to allow their
gold to be drawn until peace was secure, had a great and
probably decisive influence in the happy termination of this
entangled affair of Morocco. The floating of the latest
Russian loan has since come to show yet further the riches of
France, to which tourists alone, it is estimated, add two
billion francs in gold each year. This money power and money
need should tend to the keeping of European peace more than
all the theories of the pacifists who clamor for a disarmament
impossible to obtain."
_Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
Deposition of the insane King of Anam.
See (in this Volume)
ANAM.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (February).
The Papal Encyclical "Vehementer Nos."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February).
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State.
Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite
standpoints.
From the Separationist Standpoint:
"The practical question, what course the French Catholics were
to adopt when the law should go into effect, was first
answered by the pope in his encyclical Gravissimo, published
August 10, 1906, eight months after the promulgation of the
law. The gist of the document is in two sentences: ‘After
having condemned as was our duty this iniquitous law, we
examined with the greatest care whether the articles of the
aforesaid law would leave at least some means of organizing
religious life in France so as to rescue the sacred principles
upon which rests the Holy Church.’ Having consulted the
bishops, and addressed 'fervent prayers to the Father of
Light,’ the pope came to the following conclusion:
‘As for the associations of worship, as the law organizes
them, we decree that they can absolutely not be formed without
violating the sacred rights which are the very life of the
church.’
{282}
"Is there any other form of association which might be both
legal and canonical? Pius X did not see any. Therefore, as
long as the law remained as it was, the Holy Father forbade
the French Catholics to try any form of association which did
not promise, in an ‘unmistakable and legal manner, that the
divine constitution of the church, the immutable rights of the
Roman pontiff and the bishops, as well as their authority over
the property necessary to the church, especially over the
sacred edifices, will be forever insured in those
associations.’ …
"For this decision there were, from the ecclesiastical point
of view, three grounds. One was the failure of the law of 1905
to recognize, in so many words, the authority of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Another was the abrupt fashion in
which the French government broke off its diplomatic relations
with the Vatican. The fact that the government consistently
ignored the pope during the drafting of the bill was a third.
…
"Under what regime the churches were to live was at first
somewhat uncertain; but M. Briand speedily discovered in
existing legislation all that was needed to insure the
continuance of religious worship. He was willing to admit that
the church was not obliged to avail herself of the privileges
that the new law provided for her. Law imposes duties on
citizens, but it does not force them to make use of rights or
privileges. Everything that is not forbidden is lawful. … The
minister stated that the priests could make use of the
churches after having filed such an application or declaration
as is required for ordinary meetings by the law of 1881. These
declarations would be valid for a whole year instead of for
one meeting. But under this regime the priests would be simply
temporary occupants of the buildings of worship without any
legal title.
"This compromise proved no more satisfactory to the Vatican
than the law of 1905. …
"The pope refused to sanction this arrangement. He objected to
the scheme of yearly declaration. In the first place he
complained that this broad interpretation of the law on public
meetings was merely a personal fancy of M. Briand which might
not bind his successors. In the second place, the dignity of
the priests did not allow them to accept the humiliating
position of simple occupants of the churches. …
"The government, however, could not leave several million
Catholics in a position in which opportunity to perform their
religious duties depended upon uncertain texts and the
circulars of a temporary minister of worship. It therefore set
out to draft a bill that would be acceptable to the church
without any recourse to the discarded associations of worship.
The new bill was submitted to Parliament December 15, 1906;
was accepted by the Chamber December 21 and by the Senate
December 29, and was promulgated January 2, 1907. …
"Most of the privileges granted in the law of 1905 are
withdrawn; and the law of associations of 1901, combined with
the law of public meetings of 1881, forms the basis of the new
regime. …
"Of all the catastrophes prophesied or feared by foes or
friends none has occurred. The new regime so violently
attacked in and out of France is being gradually acclimated."
_Othon Guerlac,
The Separation of Church and State in France
Political Science Quarterly, June, 1908._
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State.
Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite
standpoints.
From the Standpoint of the Church:
"The third meeting of the French episcopate, held at the
Château de la Muette, Paris, January 15-19, resulted in a
declaration (approved by the Holy See) of their unanimous
consent to essay the organization of public worship in
churches to be placed at the Bishops’ disposal free; an
essential condition being a legal contract (authorized by
Government) between themselves or their clergy and the
Prefects or Mayors to whom such churches (sequestrated in
December) have been handed or will be handed over; the
contract to be for a term of eighteen years, during which term
(being fixed by the common law of municipal leases of communal
properties) neither Mayors nor Prefects shall in any way
interfere either in parochial administration or in regard to
the conditions of occupancy of the edifices, which must be, as
regards police, under control of the priest in charge, the
mayor intervening only on grave occasions when his official
duties require him according to law to re-establish disturbed
order.
"This document, published on January 29, was immediately, with
a form of contract, sent by each Bishop to the Parish priests
in his diocese with a request to be informed immediately
whether the proposed contract would be entered into by their
respective mayors, and instructing them if possible to get it
signed at once and return it to the Bishop. Of course, from
every parish where Catholics are strong and zealous the signed
contracts were quickly obtainable or obtained. But so soon as
the Minister of Worship learned these proceedings, he
circularized the Prefects of France on February 1:
"‘You will shortly receive instructions concerning the
application of the Article in the Law of January 2, 1907,
providing that free use of Communal buildings intended for
worship, and of their fittings, may, subject to the
requirements of Article 13 in the Law of 9 December, 1905, be
accorded by an administration act of the mayors to the
ministers of worship specified in declarations of
worship-meetings. It is extremely urgent, to prevent mayors
being entrapped into giving their signatures, that you should
telegraphically warn them, they are not entitled to enter into
a contract of this kind without preliminary deliberation by
their municipal council, and that they should, pending the
vote of that body, confine themselves, if asked for it, to
giving an acknowledgment of receipt of any request for use of
edifices they may have received. You will also assure them
they shall at a very early date receive instructions defining
the conditions to be observed to render such contracts valid,
and will direct them to do nothing until those instructions
reach them.’
"It is due to M. Briand to acknowledge: first, that he lost no
time whatever in fulfilling this promise; second, that his new
circular on the application of the law of January 2, 1907,
which bears date Paris, February 3rd, and was published the
following evening, lays down regulations concerning the leases
of Churches and Communal Chapels which on the face of these
are fair, reasonable, and likely to be universally acceptable.
{283}
The main conditions are, approval of the agreements by the
municipal councils, failing which mayors cannot enter into
them; maximum term to be eighteen years; the lessee (whether a
curé, or a worship association) to keep the buildings in
proper repair; leases for longer periods than eighteen years
to be sanctioned by the prefect; that the curé acts by
permission of his ecclesiastical superior may be stated in the
lease, but such superior is not to be entitled in any way,
once the document is signed, to interfere, or exercise
authority. …
"In Paris the appearance of the circular was hailed with
satisfaction by Catholics and reasonable men. … Cardinal
Richard deems it proper and useful to direct his priests to
make the declaration, after the contract is duly signed, and
when His Eminence shall authorize them to make it. …
"His Eminence lost no time in submitting to the Protestant
prefect of the Seine, M. de Selves, a draft lease of the Paris
Cathedral (Notre Dame) and the historical St. Denis Basilica.
It was understood that, if settled and signed, this contract
should serve as the model to be followed in the remaining
eighty-five French dioceses. The Cardinal Secretary of State
at the Vatican authorized these negotiations, against his
personal judgment, without any illusions as to the result,
simply to satisfy the French episcopate and a minority in the
Sacred College. …
"After negotiations extending over three weeks, the Prefect
informed the Cardinal (in writing, on February 23) that His
Eminence’s proposals were inacceptable, but the government
invited amended ones based on ministerial declarations made in
the Chamber during a stormy debate on February 19, when M.
Briand found himself forced to confess the churches were left
open in view of the truth that a parliamentary majority had
‘no right to hinder millions of Catholic compatriots from
practising their religion.’ The Cardinal Archbishop replied
immediately that the text of the draft submitted embodied the
extreme limits of possible concessions."
_J. F. Boyd,
The French Ecclesiastical Revolution
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, January-April, 1907)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Effects of the Separation Law.
The Catholics of France lose all Legal Organization.
"The Church Separation Law has failed to do the particular
work for which it was voted by the preceding Parliament.
Catholic citizens have chosen to undergo its penalties, with
new pains and reprisals voted by the present Parliament,
rather than accept that civil reorganization of their religion
which it imposed on them. The result has been to deprive
French Catholics, not only of the church property which had
been restored to them after the confiscations of the
Revolution, but also of all church property of whatever kind,
even such as had since been gathered together by their private
and voluntary contributions. It is impossible to foresee how
they are legally to constitute new church property for
themselves. By the automatic working of separation, Catholics,
so far as any corporative action might be intended, are left
quite outside their country’s laws.
"The Associations Law had previously suppressed their
religious orders and congregations, that is, all those
teaching and other communities which combined individual
initiatives into a working power for their religion. In virtue
of that law, their convents and colleges and the other
properties of such religious associations have ‘reverted’ to
the State, which is gradually liquidating them for its own
purposes.
"No example of temporal sacrifices for religion’s sake on such
a scale has been seen since Catholics in the France of the
Revolution chose to lose all, in many cases life itself,
rather than accept the schismatical civil constitution of
their clergy, which was accompanied by a like nationalizing of
all their church property."
_Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1907)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Rapid Development of the Syndicalist Labor Union Movement.
The Confederation Generate du Travail.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Popular Vote on the Greatest Frenchman of the
Nineteenth Century, awarding the distinction to Louis Pasteur.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (May-July).
The revolt of the Wine-growers of the Midi.
From various causes, the wine-growers of Southern France have
suffered from an increasing decline in the market for their
products. They attributed this wholly to the extensive
manufacture of adulterated and counterfeited wines, though it
came partly, without doubt, from the increasing use of beers
and spirituous liquors among the French. The struggling
cultivators of the grape, who could hardly obtain a living
from their vineyards, accused the government of neglect to
make and enforce effective laws for the suppression of the
adulterating frauds. They demanded new measures for the
suppression of all vinous beverages that were not the pure
product of the grape. In the spring of 1907 their attitude
became seriously threatening; for a leader named Marcelin
Albert, having an eloquent tongue, a bold spirit, and a
capacity for command, had risen among them. Alarming
demonstrations of popular excitement occurred in the cities of
Perpignan, Montpellier, Narbonne, and others.
Then, in May, the discontented people gave formal notice that
they would refuse to pay taxes if all adulterate wine-making
was not summarily stopped by the 10th of June. At the
appointed time the threat was even more than made good, for
most of the municipal officers in the four departments of
Gard, Aude, Hérault, and the Pyrenees Orientales resigned and
the machinery of local government was dissolved. The
troublesome situation thus created was handled ably by Premier
Clemenceau. On one hand he secured new legislation from
Parliament against wine adulteration, while promptly ordering
troops to the region of revolt on the other. Marcelin Albert
and another leader, Dr. Ferroul, Mayor of Narbonne, were
arrested, and order was soon restored, though a few collisions
with turbulent crowds were attended with some loss of life.
The new laws enacted for the occasion were intended in part to
secure an annual record of the vineyard product of the country
that would enable the Government to keep knowledge of it from
the vine to the wine cask, and make fraudulent tampering with
it more difficult, at least.
{284}
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (September).
Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial Relations
with Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with Great Britain, Germany, Norway, and Russia,
guaranteeing the integrity of Norway.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with England concerning Death Duties.
See (in this Volume)
DEATH DUTIES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907-1909.
Operation in Morocco.
Bombardment of Casablanca.
Fresh irritation of Germany.
Arbitration of the Casablanca incident.
Dethronement of Sultan Abd el Aziz by his brother, Mulai Hafid.
Franco-German Agreement.
See (in this Volume)
Morocco: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic Agreements.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
The Situation of the Catholic Church since the Separation
of Church and State.
A Church Organization impossible.
"To question whether the Catholics in France, who have alone
done more than the Catholics in any other nation for foreign
missions and for the propagation of the faith, will succeed in
maintaining the Church in their own country by private
contributions, will perhaps arouse astonishment. Nevertheless
it may be questioned. We do not doubt the generosity of our
people, but that which does give us concern is the
impossibility of organizing any revenue which can be
permanent. … The Church would be able to surmount the
difficulty if she had endowments, revenues, or property, as in
other countries. But that of course demands some regular
organization, some corporation or some body recognized by the
laws of the country and capable of acquiring, possessing, and
exercising ordinary property rights. We cannot state too
emphatically that such an organization for the Church is not
possible to-day in France. On one side the only body
authorized by the law to look after the material side of the
religious interests is the _association cultuelle_, or
local committee of public worship, as defined and regulated by
the Law of Separation. On the other side, this _association
cultuelle_ has been declared by the Pope incompatible with
the hierarchical constitution of the Church of Rome, and the
bishops, the priests, and the Catholic laity, in obedience to
their Supreme Head, have abstained and will continue to
abstain from forming any such organization. Not only, then,
have there been no Catholic _associations cultuelles_ to
receive from the state the portion of the former religious
property (the half perhaps) which we might have kept; but
there will be none in the future to receive a gift of any
kind. In the eyes of the law there is no diocese, no parish,
no corporation representing diocese or parish. The bishop and
the pastor are only individual citizens, Messrs. So-and-So.
They cannot hold property except as individuals, and what they
might receive for religious purposes cannot be handed down to
their successors,—it must revert only to their legal heirs. In
brief, no permanent body whatever can provide for the
maintenance of public worship.
"This is the situation with its almost insurmountable
difficulties. In all probability it will be a long time before
we escape from it."
_Felix Klein,
The Present Difficulties of the Church in France
(Fortnightly Review, April, 1908)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June).
Treaty with Japan, adjusting interests of each country
in the East.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1907 (JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June).
Purchase of the Western Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909.
Operations in and around Morocco.
French Mauritanie.
Pushing French lines toward the West.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude on the question of the Austrian Annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
Socialism and the Socialist Parties.
The classes appealed to.
The leaders and the followers.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
A late awakening to the need of better Technical
and Industrial Training.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
Coöperative Organization in Agriculture.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January).
Elections to one-third of the French Senate.
Success of the Socialist-Radicals.
Endorsement of the Clemenceau Ministry.
Elections to the one-third of the French Senate which goes out
every third year were held on Sunday, the 3d of January, and
resulted heavily in favor of the party which calls itself
Socialist-Radical, holding a middle ground between the extreme
Socialists and the Moderate Republicans. M. Clemenceau, the
Premier, is of this party, and his administration had given it
great strength. He was one of the Senators whose term had
expired, and his constituents of the Var re-elected him by a
majority of 390, 46 more than they had formerly given him. Of
the 103 Senators chosen at this election the
Socialist-Radicals and Radicals (who work together) won 60,
giving them secure control of the Senate, where the Moderate
Republicans had been holding the balance of power. The latter
lost eighteen seats, while the Conservatives or Reactionists
of the Right added 1 to the 4 they had previously held. The
strength in France of a politically and practically restrained
sympathy with the economic ideas of Socialism was proved
signally in this election.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January).
Amended Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial
Relations with Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March).
Appointment of Abbé Loisy to the Professorship of the
History of Religions in the College of France.
Early in March, 1909, the Abbé Loisy, most conspicuous of the
"Modernists" who had been condemned and denounced by the Pope,
was appointed by the Minister of Public Instruction to be
Professor of the History of Religions in the College de
France, filling the chair vacated by the death of M. Réville.
The appointment had been recommended by the authorities of the
College, which is reputed to be an institution entirely
devoted to "disinterested scientific research." Nevertheless,
the choice was looked upon at once as being prompted by a
motive of offensive antagonism to the Papacy.
{285}
The Abbé has had distinction for years among the masters of
the higher criticism, and five of his books were placed on the
"Index" by the church in 1903. The propositions characterized
as "Modernism" and condemned by the Pope in 1907 were largely
drawn from his writings. The Abbé replied to the condemnation,
and was excommunicated.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-May).
Serious strike of Government employés in the Telegraph and
Postal Service.
Overcome by the firmness of the Government.
Disciplinary proceedings.
Court decision against Trade Unions among
employés of the State.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-MAY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-June).
Report of Parliamentary Commission on the Naval Administration.
Alarming conditions.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (April).
Reported reanimation of Clerical Anti-Republicanism.
"I learn on excellent authority," said an English
correspondent of the Press, writing from Paris in April, "that
the leaders of anti-clericalism in the French political world
are becoming somewhat concerned as to the rapid recrudescence
of the political religious orders, which, although suppressed,
are somehow managing to reestablish themselves in France. As
was recently pointed out by M. André Mater, in a Volume, ‘La
Politique Religieuse de la République Française,’ published
under the auspices of the ‘Committee for the defence abroad of
the religious policy of France,’ the French monks, and not the
French Bishops and priests, were almost entirely responsible
for the Vatican’s refusal to accept the three Separation Laws
which M. Briand, the then Minister of Public Worship, framed
in a conciliatory spirit towards the Roman Catholic Church,
and often with the assistance of the French Bishops
themselves. The French Government will certainly not allow the
religious orders to revive the old campaign of
anti-Republicanism, which has, in the opinion of many French
Roman Catholics, done so much to compromise the interests of
Roman Catholicism in this country."
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June).
Earthquake on the Mediterranean coast.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June-July).
Revised Naval Programme.
Changes in the Department of the Marine.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
Discussion of the Navy Report in the Chamber of Deputies.
M. Clemenceau’s outbreak of passion.
His flings at M. Delcassé resented by the Chamber.
He is driven from office by its vote.
His Successor, M. Briand, and the New Cabinet.
A Socialist Statesman at the head of the Government.
When the report of the Parliamentary Commission on the Navy
and the Naval Administration came up for discussion in the
Chamber of Deputies, in July, it brought about the overthrow
of Prime Minister Clemenceau and his Cabinet in a singular
way.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
The report itself had not been seriously threatening to the
stability of the Ministry. Responsibility for the weaknesses
found in the Naval administration belonged evidently, in large
measure, to the predecessors of M. Clemenceau and his
colleagues, and they were united in maintaining that M.
Picard, who held the Marine portfolio, had done all that could
be done since he came to office towards reforming his
department. M. Picard himself spoke with an aggressive
boldness of self-justification in the debate. His speech, made
on the 20th of July, called out M. Delcassé, president of the
investigating Commission, who mounted the tribune and
delivered an attack on the Government, fierce with the
animosities of a long antagonism between M. Clemenceau and
himself. This angered the Premier to a degree, apparently,
which overpowered his usually clear judgment, and he retorted
in a speech which taunted M. Delcassé with references to that
Morocco affair in which he and France were subjected to
mortifications at the hands of Germany.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906).
It is a matter on which sore feeling exists naturally in
France, and concerning which the sympathy of the nation is
with M. Delcassé. Hence the Chamber resented Clemenceau’s
allusions to it, and Delcassé was cheered when he made a
passionate but dignified reply. The Premier would have needed
to be blind if he did not see that his own party was against
him in the tone he had given to the controversy; and yet he
proceeded to a repetition of the taunt he had flung at his
opponent before. What followed was thus described to the
readers of the London _Times_ the next morning, by its
Paris correspondent:
"M. Clemenceau rose in face of a hostile Chamber, which had
been profoundly impressed by M. Delcassé, although on entering
the Palais Bourbon before the debate this afternoon not a
single member of the House had contemplated the possibility of
a division which would entail the fall of the Ministry and
expose all parties to the necessity of readjustments of
electoral arrangements under a new and untried Cabinet within
less than a year of the general election. M. Clemenceau said:—
"‘M. Delcassé has taken a great deal of trouble not to reply
to the only question which I put to him—namely, you were
Minister and you followed a policy which was bound to carry us
to one of the greatest humiliations.’
"It seemed, as one gazed down upon the House, that the entire
Chamber leapt as one man in indignant repudiation of this
sentence, which, moreover, had been truncated by this
spontaneous and concerted interruption. When the noise of the
slamming desks had died down, M. Clemenceau was heard to say:
"‘Oh, a truce to false indignation, I beg of you. You led us,
M. Delcassé, within a hair’s breadth of war and you did
nothing to prepare for any such policy by taking military
precautions. Everybody is aware that the Ministers of War and
of Marine were questioned, and that they declared that we were
not ready. (Loud protests.) I have not humiliated France, M.
Delcassé humiliated her.’
"As M. Clemenceau returned to his place, there could be no
doubt as to the temper of the House. A division was
immediately announced on an order of the day of confidence,
proposed by M. Jourde and accepted by the Government.
{286}
"The vote took place on priority in favour of this order of
the day amid the liveliest agitation. By 212 votes to 176
priority was rejected. As soon as the President had read out
the figures, M. Clemenceau and the Ministers rose, and leaving
the Government Bench filed out into the lobbies. Loud cheers
from the Right and the Extreme Left followed them to the door.
It was the fall of the Ministry which has enjoyed the longest
lease of life of any under the Third Republic.
"After holding a consultation at the Palais Bourbon, the Prime
Minister and his colleagues immediately proceeded to the
Elysee in order formally to tender their resignation.
President Fallières, who was at dinner and who had not heard
the result of the vote in the Chamber, was taken by surprise
and expressed regret at the departure of M. Clemenceau, with
whom he had collaborated so long. The short interview, which
lasted only ten minutes, concluded with a formal request on
the part of the President that M. Clemenceau and his
colleagues would continue to discharge the duties of their
respective Departments until the appointment of their
successors."
Though his colleagues went out of office with him, it was M.
Clemenceau, alone, who could be said to have "fallen." Even
that characterization of the occurrence was criticised by one
of his opponents, who said: "M. Clemenceau did not fall; he
plunged out of office." "The Chamber had no intention of
upsetting the Government," said one of the Republican journals
of Paris, "and an hour earlier, in fact, had loudly cheered
the Minister of Marine, M. Picard." In these circumstances it
was certain that the change of Ministry would make little
change in the character or policy of the Government. It did,
in fact, make no extensive change in even the personnel of the
Ministry; for six members of the Cabinet of M. Clemenceau
reappeared in its successor, and these included the new
Premier, M. Aristide Briand.
The choice of M. Briand for leadership in the Government
appears to have been made by a common consensus of opinion
that he was the one man pointed to by all the circumstances of
the case. As Minister of Public Worship he had shown a
temperateness of disposition and a political capacity, in
steering the country through the stormy achievement of the
separation of the State from the Church, which won high
admiration and esteem both at home and abroad. He had been
known as distinctly a Socialist, according to the full meaning
of the term in France, and had come into public life with the
prejudices raised against that brand of radicalism to contend
with. But he had given good proof that he could be practically
a statesman as well as theoretically a Socialist, and France
appeared to be fully willing to see the helm of Government put
into his hands. He is the first fully professed Socialist to
attain that position in a great State. In making up his
Cabinet he called into it two others of his own Socialist
sect, namely, M. Millerand, to be Minister of Public Works,
Posts, and Telegraphs, and M. Viviani to be Minister of Labor,
as he had been before. For himself he retained the Ministry of
Public Worship, and, with it, the Ministry of the Interior. Of
other important departments of the Government, that of Foreign
Affairs was reassumed by M. Pichon and that of Public
Instruction by M. Domergue. General Brun became Minister of
War and Admiral Boué de Lapcyrère, Minister of Marine. The
Cabinet appears to have been generally recognized as one of
exceptional strength.
On the 27th of July the new Premier spoke as such to the
Chamber of Deputies for the first time, and did so, it was
manifest, with impressive effect. "If I deemed my person to be
an element of discord in the Republican party," he said, "I
should ask you not to follow me. I could not suppose that
serious men would come to ask me to sort out, as it were, from
my old ideas those which experience has confirmed within me
and those which it has made me discard. If I had been base
enough to do that, my interpellators would be right if they
refused me their confidence. I come before you just as I am, a
man whom you all know. I have been working with you of the
majority for the last seven years. You know that I am not
afraid of ideas, and that my way of thinking is daring. The
Republic seems to me to be the germ of all progress, but I
admit only such ideas as are feasible. _Je suis un homme de
réalisation._ Those who have watched me know that full
well. If there be among you any who are still ignorant of
these facts, let them vote against me. I have as yet no
mandate from you. Tonight I may have one, but at present there
is still time for you to refuse to invest me with one."
At the close of the Premier’s address a motion of confidence
was made, and carried by 306 votes against 46.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
French Deputies to lose pay when not in attendance
at the Chamber.
Voting by proxy is permitted in the French Chamber of
Deputies, and this encourages absenteeism. To correct that
result a remarkable rule was adopted by the Chamber at its
session of July 17. "The Socialist Deputy for the Cher, M.
Berton, aided by the Socialist Radical M. Dumont, induced the
House to adopt, by 441 votes to 77, a measure in virtue of
which ‘any Deputy who shall not have signed during six
consecutive sittings a certificate of attendance shall be
regarded as being absent without permission’ and deprived of
his pay. M. Pelletan, ex-Minister of Marine, who is, with men
like M. Brisson, President of the Chamber, the type of the old
Parliamentary hand of the Republican _régime_, protested
in vain against a conception of Parliamentary work which, as
he said, humiliated the representatives of France to the
position of schoolboys who have to be ruled with a rod of iron
lest they play truant. M. Brisson himself pointed out that the
proposal of the Socialist Deputies was seriously wanting in
respect for the national sovereignty, and he reminded his
colleagues that mere attendance in the Chamber was by no means
the only, nor necessarily the most effective, way of doing
one’s duty as Deputy.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
The Pensioning of State Railway Employés.
The Pending Workman’s Pension Bill.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY: ITS PROBLEMS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Abrogation of Commercial Agreements with the United States.
See (in this Volume)
TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Clerical attack on the Secular or Neutral Schools.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
{287}
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (November).
Contemplated Reform in Criminal Court Procedure.
See (in this Volume)
LAW AND ITS COURTS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1910.
Destructive Floods in France, most seriously
in and around Paris.
Many parts of France suffered heavily from extraordinary
floods in the later half of January and the early days of
February, 1910; but Paris had the worst of the calamity to
bear. In its long history the city has been cruelly dealt with
many times by the waters of the Seine, which its quays and
bridges constrict and obstruct; but this latest experience
proved nearly the climax. It was comparable, at least, with a
historic flood that dates back to 1615. Large districts were
uninhabitable for days; half the streets and squares of the
city were under water: foundations of many of the grandest
buildings were being sapped, while sewers, subways, and
pavements were extensively destroyed. It was not until the
beginning of February that any subsidence of the waters
occurred, and far into the month before much restoration of
conditions could be taken in hand. The suffering meantime was
very great and the pecuniary damage immense.
----------FRANCE: End--------
FRANCO, JOÃO:
His drastic Government of Portugal.
See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
FREDERICK VIII.:
Succession to the Crown of Denmark.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1906.
FREE CHURCH, of Scotland.
See (in this Volume)
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.
FREE ZONE, Mexican:
Its abolition.
For an account of the Free Zone:
See Volume VI. of this work,
MEXICAN FREE ZONE.
It went out of existence in 1905.
See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.
FRIEDJUNG CASE, The.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FRIARS’ LANDS, Governmental purchase of the.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902-1903.
FRY, Sir Edward.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: England: A. D. 1907-1909.
FULLER, Sir Bampfylde, Resignation of.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909.
FULTON CELEBRATION.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
FURNESS, Sir Christopher:
His plan of Profit-sharing with Workmen.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.
G.
GAELIC LEAGUE.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.
GAGE, Lyman J.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.
GALSTER, Vice-Admiral:
Argument for Submarines against "Dreadnoughts."
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
GALVESTON PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
DES MOINES PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: GALVESTON.
GAMBLING:
Its suppression in Siam.
See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1905.
GAMBLING: Race-track:
Legislation for its Suppression in the State of New York.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1908.
GAMBLING:
Legislation for its Suppression in Louisiana and
the District of Columbia.
In June, 1908, Louisiana followed the example of New York in
passing an Act for the suppression of race-track gambling.
There, as in New York, only exactly enough votes to pass the
bill were secured; one Senator was present for the final vote
in spite of illness which subjected him to the most serious
inconvenience, and one Senator had to be sought by messenger
with a motor-car and brought by an all-night ride ninety miles
through the Louisiana marshes. Within a few months past the
gamblers of the race track had been similarly placed under the
ban of the law in the District of Columbia.
GAMBLING:
Its Suppression in Japan.
The following was reported from Tokio, March 27, 1909:
"A tremendous effort has been made by the race-track element
in Japan to induce the government to retract and permit
betting upon the tracks, but Marquis Katsura, the premier, has
stood firm, and, for another year, at least, the race tracks
of the Empire will be without their favorite Pari Mutuel or
any other form of betting. This means in Japan practically an
end of horse-racing, and necessarily a heavy loss to the
stockholders in the various race tracks. The development of
racing in Japan was extremely rapid. From a single course
established at Yokohama by foreigners, at least half a dozen
tracks were in full swing when gambling was prohibited. So
flagrant were the cases of fraud and so numerous the examples
of ruin brought about by reckless betting that the government
suddenly put its foot down upon the whole thing."
GAMBLING:
Stock, and other Speculative Dealing.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
GAPON, Father George.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
GARCIA, Lugardo:
Deposed President of Ecuador.
See (in this Volume)
ECUADOR.
GARFIELD, HARRY A.: President of Williams College.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Commissioner of Corporations and Secretary of the Interior.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1909.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Investigation of the "Beef Trust," so-called.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Investigation of the Standard Oil Company, and Report.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
GASOLINE ENGINE.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION.
GATUN DAM.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
GAUNA, JUAN:
Revolutionary President of Paraguay.
See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
GAUTSCH, BARON.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
{288}
GAYNOR, WILLIAM J.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D). 1909.
GEAY, Bishop.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.
"GENERAL SLOCUM," Burning of the.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1904.
GEORGE, David Lloyd.
See (in this Volume)
LLOYD-GEORGE, DAVID.
GEORGE V., KING OF GREAT BRITAIN:
His accession to the Throne.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (MAY).
GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
GEORGEI POBIEDONOSETS, MUTINY ON THE.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1908.
Abolition of the Convict Lease System.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1908.
Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1909.
Railroad Strike.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909.
GERMAN EAST AFRICA:
Its parts suitable for European Settlement.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA.
GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: GERMAN COLONIES.
----------GERMANY: Start--------
GERMANY:
Industrial Combinations, called Cartels.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: IN GERMANY.
GERMANY:
Matters relating to the Use of Alcoholic Liquors.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
GERMANY:
State and Municipal Dealings with the
Problems of Poverty and Unemployment.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.
Rise of Commercial Universities.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900.
Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (December).
Claims and Complaints against Venezuela communicated to the
United States.
The Reply.
Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA A. D. 1901.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901-1902.
Industrial Crisis and succeeding Depression.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-May).
Measures for Germanizing the Polish Provinces of Prussia.
For many years past the Prussian Government had been exerting
itself to dilute the Polish population of its Polish
provinces, by settling German colonists in them and by buying
land from Polish owners. It now assumed a more aggressive
attitude of hostility toward that portion of its subjects, as
appeared from the temper of a speech by Count Bülow in the
Prussian legislature, in January of this year, on what he
characterized as "the most important concern of Prussian
politics at the present time." German property, be said "was
steadily passing into Polish hands," and "Polish lawyers,
Polish doctors, Polish contractors, were united in the attempt
to thrust the German element into the background." In support
of the Count’s position it was averred by others in the debate
that not only was Eastern Prussia being made Polish by the
rise of a vigorous Polish middle class, but that the Poles
already formed 10 per cent of the whole population of Prussia,
and were spreading in other parts of the Empire, holding
themselves generally apart from their German neighbors and
cultivating a national patriotism of their own.
In March the Prussian Government issued orders forbidding the
admission of immigrants from Russian Poland into Prussia
unless they brought not less than 400 marks of money in hand.
Two months later a bill was brought forward appropriating
250,000,000 marks for the purchasing of land in the Polish
provinces and for settling German colonists upon it. In
connection with this measure it was reported that, since the
buying of land for these purposes began, in Posen, the Poles
had acquired more from Germans than Germans had acquired
from Poles, to the extent of 76,611 acres. Hence more money
must be put into the game if it was to be played with effect.
The money was voted, though opposition to the policy which
makes enemies of the Poles, instead of Germanizing them by
friendly treatment, made a show of much strength.
"It was in 1886 that the Iron Chancellor started the fight
against the Poles by the expulsion of more than 50,000 Polish
labourers, natives of Austria and Russia. This measure not
only hit the poor people who were driven away, it also and
principally was directed against the Polish owners of large
landed estates in the Eastern provinces, who thereafter
experienced great difficulty in obtaining the necessary number
of farm-hands. This artificial scarcity of labour, together
with the great decrease in price of agricultural products
which had just taken place, entirely ruined many owners of
large estates, and there were therefore a great number who
wanted to sell. Bismarck then appointed a Committee of
Colonisation to buy Polish estates and parcel them out to
German peasant farmers. The necessary funds were provided for
by a sum of 100,000,000 marks (equal to £5,000,000) which was
placed at the disposal of the Committee.
"At the first moment the Poles were paralysed. What were they
to do to ward off such an attack aimed at the poorest among
them? But they kept up a good heart and did the only
reasonable thing: some wealthy Polish noble men furnished a
sum of 3,000,000 marks (equal to £150,000) whereby to fight
the mighty Prussian Government, with its Committee of
Colonisation and well-nigh inexhaustible financial resources.
With this capital of 3,000,000 marks a Polish land bank was
started for the purpose of buying estates and reselling them
in small holdings to Polish colonists. …
{289}
"It maybe guessed from what is already stated that the Poles
have not only been able to maintain their former hold on the
land, but actually as peaceable conquerors are marching
triumphantly westwards. This is also the case, but we need not
restrict ourselves to a guess, the ‘_Statisches Jahrbueh für
den Preussischen Staat_’ for 1903 containing ample
corroboration of it. According to this official handbook there
were parcelled out in the years 1896 to 1901, in the Provinces
of Posen and West Prussia, 7,828 estates by German activity,
containing 617,200 hectares, and 9,079 estates by Polish
activity, containing 213,700 hectares. Although the Germans
have parcelled out a very considerably larger area, the Poles
have bought and parcelled out a far greater number of
properties. The advantage thus obtained is put into an even
stronger light when we learn that during the same period by
this parcelling out there have been created only 15,941 German
farms, with an area of 155,200 hectares, as against 22,289
Polish farms, with an area of 95,800 hectares, for these
figures show that during these six years more than 6,000
Polish homes have been established over and above the number
of German homes planted on old Polish soil. Moreover the
advantage thus gained by the Poles has been increased during
the last two years."
_Erik Givskov,
Germany and her Subjected Races,
Contemporary Review, June, 1905._
GERMANY: A. D. 1902.
The Imperial Pension Fund for Veterans.
A statement of the condition of the imperial pension fund for
the veterans of the wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 showed that
this fund, which was established by setting apart $138,000,000
out of the war indemnity paid by France, had not for years
past been able to meet the claims made upon it out of the
income it produced. Recourse was had to appropriations of
capital, and the fund would consequently be exhausted in
course of time, probably not earlier than 1908 and not later
than 1910. All the expenses now covered by the fund would then
have to be incorporated in the ordinary estimates for the
Empire. The Prussian Minister for War had estimated that about
600,000 veterans of the former wars were still surviving.
Allowing 10,000 for those who had died since this estimate was
made, and allowing both for the 45,000 who already received a
pension and the 12,000 who depended upon the special fund at
the disposition of the Emperor, there remained over half a
million veterans who as yet received no support from the fund.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902.
New Tariff Law and changed Commercial Policy.
Attitude toward the United States.
See (in this Volume)
TARIFFS, CUSTOMS: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-September).
Discussion of Alcoholic Drinking.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (June).
Renewal of the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume)
TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (August).
Curtailment of visits to their native country of
Expatriated Germans.
Principles asserted by the United States.
See (in this Volume)
NATURALIZATION.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902-1903.
Concessions for building the Bagdad Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902-1904.
Coercive proceedings against Venezuela concerted with
Great Britain and Italy.
Settlement of Claims secured.
Reference to The Hague.
Recognition given to the American Monroe Doctrine.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903.
Elections for the Reichstag.
Large gains by the Socialists.
Their disability in Prussia.
Strong combination supporting the Imperial Government.
Brutality in the Army.
Prosecutions for Lèse Majesté.
State of Colonies.
General elections for the Reichstag, on the 16th of June,
1903, took notable significance from the fact that the
representation of the Social Democrats was increased from 58
to 81, and that these figures gave no full measure of their
actual gain in strength, since their votes in the election
rose in number from 2,107,000 in 1898 to 3,010,771. Had the
distribution of seats in the imperial legislature been fair to
the towns, instead of favoring the agricultural interests, the
Socialists would have gained more. In Berlin they won every
seat but one. Nevertheless, in the elections for the lower
house of the Prussian Landtag, which took place in November,
they could not carry a single seat in the kingdom, owing to
the ingenious disfranchisement of the common people which the
Prussian constitution accomplishes by its classification of
votes. Socialist gains in the Reichstag were made at the
expense of the Radicals, from whom it drew votes which
expressed, not so much conversion to Socialism as bitterness
of opposition to the government. Socialist and Radical
representatives together numbered only 111, against 224 in the
combination of Conservatives, Clericals, and National
Liberals, which gave the Ministry a more than ample support.
"The Social Democrats in Germany are increasing in power at
once steadily and rapidly; for, as Herr Bebel declares, every
speech the Emperor makes secures for them thousands of
adherents, adherents of whom quite a fair percentage now
belong to the Intelligentia—are lawyers, professors,
journalists, artists, etc. Already the party numbers nearly
seven million members; it owns seventy-five journals, of which
some thirty are issued daily; and the Berlin branch alone has
under its control a revenue of £20,000 a year. At the General
Election in 1874, their candidates received 351,671 votes; in
1884, although the Exceptional Laws were then in force, they
received 549,990 votes; and in 1893, 1,786,738. Thus, already
at that time they were numerically the strongest party in the
Empire, as the Ultramontanes received only 1,468,000 votes;
and the Conservatives, 1,038,300. At the 1898 General Election
no fewer than 2,120,000 votes were recorded for the
Socialists; and, at the last Election, that held only the
other day, some 3,000,000. Thanks to the Emperor’s speeches,
thanks, too, to the new Tariff, Herr Bebel and his friends
practically swept everything before them in the first ballot,
and captured seats everywhere—five out of the six in Berlin,
and, what is much more notable, eighteen out of the
twenty-three seats in Saxony, the most ultra-Conservative and
clerical of all the States. Were every constituency of equal
size in Germany, and thus every vote of equal value, the
Socialist Party would already to-day be the dominant party in
the Reichstag."
_Edith Sellers,
August Bebel
(Fortnightly Review, July, 1903)._
{290}
Throughout the year 1903 much excitement of feeling was caused
by the many complaints that were brought against officers of
the army for brutal and insolent treatment of soldiers. No
less than 180 convictions are said to have been obtained in
the course of the single year, for cruelty in the use of the
power which military rank confers. Several soldiers were found
to have committed suicide to escape from the suffering and
humiliation of their life in the service. Another excitement
of angry discussion came often from the many prosecutions for
_lèse-majesté_ that were instituted at this time. In both
matters, a potent corrective was applied, without doubt, by
the public feeling stirred up.
An official report at the end of the year 1903 showed the
total number of Germans in the German colonial possessions in
Africa and the South Seas was only 5,125, more than a fourth
of the number being officials or in the military force. Since
1884 Germany had expended on its colonies about $75,000,000.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903.
Adoption of a new Child Labor Law.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903 (October).
Opposition to Socialism among Workmen.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904.
Arrangement of Professorial Interchanges between German
and American Universities.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904.
Rivalry with England in the Persian Gulf.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904-1905.
Wars with Natives in German African Colonies.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904-1905.
Startling Increase of Labor Conflicts,
compared with previous five years.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905.
The Emperor’s Statement of his Peace Policy based
on Preparation for War.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905.
Effect of the Russo-Japanese War on the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms
in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1906.
Raising the Morocco Question.
The Kaiser’s Speech at Tangier.
Demand for an International Conference.
The Conference at Algeciras.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Spirit of the Struggle between Workmen and Capitalists.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
Extensions of Popular Rights in Würtemburg, Baden, Bavaria,
Saxony, Saxe Weimar, and Oldenburg.
A Comedy of Election Reform in Prussia.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
Enormous Results derived from Technical Education.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
German Settlements in Brazil.
See (in this Volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
Popular Demand for better Representation in Prussia
and elsewhere.
School "Strike" in Polish Provinces.
Dissatisfaction with Colonial Policy.
Refusal in the Reichstag of Increased Appropriations.
Dissolution by the Emperor.
Result of the Elections.
Popular Vote heavily against the Government.
Incongruous Coalition or "Bloc" secured by the Chancellor.
The democratic demand in Prussia and in some other German
States, for a better representation in the legislatures than
is afforded by their odious schemes of class election, became
turbulent in the early part of 1906, and was met by strong
military preparations for resistance by the Government.
Notable demonstrations of popular feeling occurred in several
cities, but with proceedings of violence only at Hamburg.
Nothing was yielded to the demand; it was simply defied.
The hard Prussian determination to crush out Polish sentiment
in the Prussian provinces of the kingdom was relentlessly
pursued. Polish children in the schools were required to
receive religious instruction in the German language, and
punished if they refused to answer questions in that tongue.
This provoked a "strike" which took over 100,000 pupils out of
the schools. In dealing with it, the Government both fined and
imprisoned parents, and even sent children to a reformatory,
on the ground that their parents were incapable of giving them
proper care.
The affairs of the German colonies in Africa became the
subject of most heated and important discussion in the
Reichstag during the last months of 1906. Both in German
Southwest Africa and in German East Africa the obstinate
revolts of native tribes were unsubdued, and the wars in the
former were still requiring nearly 15,000 troops. The total
German losses in Southwest Africa since the beginning of the
outbreak of Hereros, Hottentots, and Witbois, were reported to
have been 1750 killed, 900 wounded, 2000 disabled by disease.
Popular feeling seemed to be turning very strongly against the
whole colonial policy of the Empire. The economic promises of
the undertaking were not looked upon as satisfactory.
Statistical reports of the German capital invested in all
German colonies excepting Kiao-chau, in China, showed a total
of 370,000,000 marks ($92,500,000) of which 250,000,000 marks
were classed as remunerative, 100,000,000 as
"underdevelopment," 12,000,000 as unremunerative, and
8,000,000 as missionary property. The capital value of the
total productions of German colonies was estimated at
616,000,000 marks ($154,000,000), half of which came from the
Kameruns and Togo; but the revenue was only balancing the cost
of administration. Ugly stories, moreover, of barbarity in the
treatment of the natives, of official misconduct in other
forms, and of private monopolies permitted, were told. On the
whole, the colonial situation had created a temper in the
Reichstag which was not friendly to the demand of the
Government for increased appropriations to that department of
administration. Even the Centrum or Clerical party, on which
the Ministry counted for the reinforcing of the Conservatives
of "the Right," refused the grant, and joined the Liberals,
the Socialists, the Polish deputies, and other discontented
groups in voting it down. As soon as the vote was announced,
Chancellor Bülow arose and read a decree dissolving the House,
which the Emperor had signed, in expectation of the defeat,
that morning, December 13.
{291}
It is a provision of the Constitution of the German Empire
that "in the case of a dissolution of the Reichstag, new
elections shall take place within a period of sixty days".
See (in Volume I.)
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
The elections were appointed accordingly for the 25th of
January, 1907. The preparatory canvass, compressed within six
weeks, was one of extraordinary vigor, especially on the side
of the Government, even the Emperor, as well as the
Chancellor, making personal appeals. The efforts of the latter
were directed especially against the party of the Center, from
its past dependence on which for support the Government was
most anxious to escape. These efforts were so little
effective, however, that the Centrists gained two seats in the
election, carrying 110. The heaviest losers were the
Socialists, who, though they gained a quarter of a million of
electoral votes, yet secured 36 fewer representatives in the
Reichstag than they had before, electing only 43.
Regarded as a _plebiscite_, the election went heavily
against the government. That is to say, if the elected
Reichstag had been truly representative of the popular vote,
the Government could have made no combination of parties in it
that would have given it support. As it was, the voters were
so unequally represented that Chancellor Bülow was able, by
dexterous compromises, to make up a precarious coalition, or
"bloc," of Conservatives with National Liberals, and even
Radicals, against Socialists, Clericals or Centrists, Poles,
etc., which carried his administration through nearly three
subsequent years.
Somewhat detailed, the election resulted as follows: The
parties which gave subsequent support to the Government for a
time secured 215 seats in the Reichstag, gaining 33, thus
distributed:
Conservatives 108 (gain 13);
National Liberals 56 (gain 5);
Radicals 51 (gain 15).
The parties in opposition won 182 seats,—a net loss among
them of 33,—thus:
Center 110 (gain 2);
Socialists 43 (loss 36);
Poles, Alsatians, etc. 29 (gain 1).
The popular vote in the election was divided among these
parties as follows:
In the parties of the "bloc"—
Conservatives (including Agrarians,
Anti-Semites, etc.) 2,235,000
National Liberals 1,655,000
Radicals 1,226,000
Total for Government 5,116,000
In the Opposition—
Socialists 3,259,000
Center 2,262,000
Poles, etc. 626,000
Total against the Government. 6,147,000
To show what the Socialist vote really indicated, the
following statement of the vote cast and the seats won by that
party in successive elections of the past twenty years is
interesting.
Vote. Seats won. Seats that equal apportionment
would have given.
1887 763,000 11 40
1890 1,427,000 35 80
1893 1,787,000 44 92
1898 2,107,000 56 108
1903 3,011,000 79 125
1907 3,259,000 43 116
It is evident that the surface-show of results in the election
cannot be taken for a true indication of the prevalent state
of mind in the Empire. The Centrists or Clericals, for
example, elected more than twice as many deputies as the
Socialists, by nearly 1,000,000 votes less. The Socialists
polled about 250,000 votes more than in 1903, and yet lost 36
seats. The inequity in the apportionment of representatives
which produced this travesty of representation had some
beginning, no doubt, in the organization of the imperial
system, thirty-six years before; but it had been aggravated by
the enormously disproportionate growth of cities ever since.
That one constituency in Berlin, with a present population of
nearly 700,000, had the same representation as a town of
60,000 people, is doubtless an extreme instance of the
inequalities that had come about, but the distortion was
universal, and altogether in favor of the country landowning
class. The Socialists polled some 250,000 more votes than in
1903, and this was reckoned as an increase substantially
commensurate with the general growth of population in four
years. Hence socialism may be said to have neither gained nor
lost footing in the empire; but hitherto it had been showing
rapid gains.
"The Centrum is one of the queerest, most paradoxical parties
to be found in any country. It is usually called ultramontane
by its enemies because it has its _raison d’être_ in
safeguarding the interests of the Catholic Church; yet it has
not scrupled at times to disregard the wishes of the Vatican
in respect to German internal affairs; and the Vatican, on its
part, carefully avoids identifying its interests with those of
the Centrum, since it is sure of getting better results
through direct diplomatic action at Berlin. ‘The Centrum is an
incalculable party,’ said Prince Bülow last winter in a
campaign letter; ‘it represents aristocratic and democratic,
reactionary and liberal, ultramontane and national policies.’
The party lives upon a reminiscence, its defeat of Bismarck in
the _Kulturkampf_; but since that time it has been
without any sound reason for its existence. …
See, in Volume II. of this work,
GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
"The government’s attempt to break the power of the Centrum
had already been tried by Bismarck in 1887 and again by
Caprivi in 1893, and it had failed. Bülow’s step was
accordingly a display of courage which the country had not
been accustomed to expect from him. His breach with the
Centrum, however, proved a most popular issue with the
non-Catholic electorate; a thrill of exultation was its first
response to the dissolution, and this feeling persisted
throughout the campaign. Many of the most intelligent voters
had hitherto stood aloof from politics owing precisely to the
predominance of the Centrum; but they now greeted with
enthusiasm the opportunity to extricate the government from
its yoke. University professors, artists, and literary men
organized an ‘Action Committee’ which plied these stay-at-home
_Intellektuellen_ with campaign literature."
_W. C. Dreher,
The Year in Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, December, 1907)._
{292}
As stated and illustrated above, the election gave the
Government no majority of natural supporters. For the carrying
of its measures it was left dependent on a coalition of
Liberal with Conservative votes. The alliance was an
incongruous one, produced by nothing but a common opposition
to Socialists and Clericals, and it brought the Liberals into
an utterly false position. Within the first year there were
signs of a Liberal revolt from it: whereupon the chancellor
made known that he would resign if the supporting coalition or
"bloc" was not maintained. To avoid such a governmental crisis
the Liberals were said to have given promises of continued
support.
The attitude thus assumed by the German chancellor toward the
Reichstag is practically that of an English prime minister
toward the House of Commons, and it creates a precedent which
must make it very difficult, if not impossible, for imperial
ministers to recover the defiantly independent posture of
former times. Without verbal amendment, perhaps, but
incidentally and informally, by force of circumstances, the
absolutist features of the German constitution are manifestly
dropping away.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907.
Statistics of Population.
Birth Rate and Death Rate.
"The official report upon public health in Prussia for the
year 1907 has just been published [May, 1909], and includes
the latest available statistics regarding the movement of the
population of Germany. The figures confirm the view, which is
not always admitted, that a satisfactory decrease in the
death-rate is still accompanied by a persistently
unsatisfactory decrease in the birth-rate.
"Prussia may be regarded, roughly, as comprising two-thirds of
the German Empire. The population of the empire on December 1,
1905, was 60,641,278, and the population of Prussia was
37,293,324. On January 1, 1907, the population of Prussia was
37,908,104. During the year 1907 the excess of births over
deaths was 578,687, as compared with 595,942 in 1906, 514,941
in 1905, 562,387 in 1904, and 527,263 in 1903. Although the
Prussian figures are not always a sufficient index, it may be
estimated that the excess of births over deaths in the whole
empire during 1907 did not exceed 900,000. The comparatively
satisfactory total increase of population is due to a decline
in the death-rate to 17.96 per 1,000 of the population—the
lowest rate ever recorded. In Silesia, in Hohenzollern, and in
both West and East Prussia the rate exceeds 20 per 1,000. In
the city of Berlin, on the other hand, the rate is 15.62, and
in Berlin (outside the city) only 14.79. For the most part a
high death-rate is set off by a high birth-rate. In Westphalia
and the Rhine Province alone is a high birth-rate accompanied
by a death-rate below the average. As regards ages at which
death occurred, the statistics show a considerable decrease in
infant mortality, although deaths under the age of one year
were 31.14 per cent., or nearly one-third, of the whole number
of deaths. While the death-rate was in 1907 the lowest ever
recorded in Prussia, the birth-rate was the most
unsatisfactory. The total number of births was less by 10,621
in 1907 than in 1906, and was actually less by 1,058 than in
the year 1901. The birth-rate per 1,000 inhabitants declined
to 33.23, as compared with 34.00 in 1906, 33.77 in 1905, and
35.04 in 1904."
_Berlin Correspondence London Times,
May 27, 1909._
The same correspondent reported, June 19, a further
publication of statistics, which prove the Prussian returns,
previously given, "to have been a fairly accurate index to the
movement of population in the whole Empire. There is a marked
decline in the birth-rate, which fell to 33.2 per 1,000
inhabitants, as compared with 34.08 in 1906. The death-rate
fell to 18.98, as compared with 19.20 in 1906. The excess of
births over deaths was 882,624, as compared with 910,275 in
1906. The excess, however, of births over deaths (natural
increase of population) was greater in 1907 than in any
previous year except 1906 and 1902 (902,243). The decline in
the birth-rate, which stood at 41.64 in 1877, 38.33 in 1887,
and 37.17 in 1897, as compared with 33.2 in 1907, as now
attributable to a falling off in the number of births in every
part of the Empire except Westphalia, and in Westphalia the
number of births is not quite keeping pace with the total
growth of population. The decrease in the number of births in
the whole Empire in 1907 was 23,766, or 1.1 per cent. In
Saxony the decrease was 3 per cent., and East Prussia, West
Prussia, and Pomerania show about the same percentage. As
regards the death-rate, which stood at 28.05 in 1877, 25.62 in
1887, and 22.52 in 1897, as compared with 18.98 in 1907, there
is a steady decline in the infant mortality rate in all parts
of the Empire, but especially in large towns."
GERMANY: A. D. 1907.
Rapid Decrease of Agricultural Population.
"The results of a census of occupations, taken in December of
1907, has just been published and shows a remarkably rapid
shifting of the population of Prussia from agriculture to
industry and trade. The number of persons engaged in industry
and trade was increased by 1,500,000 from 1895 to 1907, while
the number engaged in agriculture was decreased by 500,000.
This means that the non-farming population rose from 50 to 66
per cent. in twelve years."
_Press Report from Berlin,
February, 1909._
GERMANY: A. D. 1907.
Financial Situation.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with Great Britain, France, Norway, and Russia,
guaranteeing the Integrity of Norway.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
The Scandals connected with the Trials of Editor Harden.
Maximilian Harden, editor of the _Zukunft_, made attacks
on the character of Prince Eulenburg and Count Kuno von
Moltke, in 1907, on account of which the latter brought a
libel suit against him. "The charges not only affected the
character of the persons accused, but affirmed that they had
constituted a kind of kitchen cabinet, or ‘Camarilla,’ and had
again and again given the Emperor misleading information and
had exerted a very unfortunate influence over him. The case
aroused intense interest throughout Germany, and indeed
throughout Europe; and in spite of the unspeakable nature of
the charges, the testimony was widely reprinted, and much more
frankly, it may be said in passing, than would have been
possible for the yellowest journalism in this country. Harden
was acquitted, and the plaintiff was sentenced to pay the cost
of the suit.
{293}
Taking into account the exalted political position of the
accused, and the great respect in which the Imperial court is
held in Germany, this action of a German judge was regarded as
sustaining the high character of the German courts for
independence. A criminal suit was then brought by the public
prosecutor, at the instigation of Count von Moltke and his
associates, on the charge that Harden had committed an offense
against public morals. On this trial the same witnesses
appeared as on the former trial, but a great change had taken
place in their memory of the transactions to which they had
testified on the first trial. They either contradicted or
repudiated their former statements to such a degree that their
evidence was discredited and Harden’s defense was broken down.
Harden was found guilty and sentenced to four months’
imprisonment. What changed the attitude of the witnesses is a
matter of guesswork. It has been charged that their change of
front was due to very powerful influences brought to bear upon
them."
_The Outlook,
January 18, 1908._
An appeal was taken by Harden to a higher court. Official
investigations which followed the trials resulted in the
court-martialing of Count Lynar and General Hohenau, the
former of whom was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment,
while the latter was acquitted. In May, 1908, Prince Eulenburg
was arrested on charges of immorality, but appears to have
been so shattered in health that he could not be brought to
trial. Substantially, Editor Harden has been vindicated.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1909.
Opposition to the "Navy Fever."
Views of Herr von Holstein and Admiral Galster.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Maintenance of the "Bloc."
Two good measures of legislation.
Revision of the Bourse Law and the law regulating meetings
and association.
More vigorous Germanizing of Polish Prussia.
"Although many members of the Bloc thought its enemies
justified in predicting that it would speedily break down, the
combination did hold together during the past session. It did
more; it passed at least two good laws. It revised the Bourse
Law in a manner fairly satisfactory to the financial
community, so that swindling speculators will henceforth find
it less easy to get the sanction of the courts for repudiating
debts incurred in stock operations. Another law regulates for
the first time on a national basis the right of assembly and
association, which had hitherto been in the hands of the
individual states. It is interesting to note that this is
another important step in the centralizing tendency in
Germany. …
"The measure foreshadowed in my last article for the forcible
acquisition of Polish estates was duly laid before the Diet.
The discussion of the bill brought out intense antagonisms,
and the line of cleavage between the parties was not along
Bloc lines. The Radicals joined with the ‘Centrum’ in opposing
the dispossession of the Poles. As finally passed, the bill
gives the Government the right to acquire, under the law of
eminent domain, a maximum of 174,000 acres in the provinces of
Posen and West Prussia, and to borrow $65,000,000 for this
purpose and for further prosecuting settlement work. The final
reading of the bill in the House of Lords stirred that usually
somnolent body to a remarkable degree. The vote there showed
how deeply, and on what uncommon lines, this radical measure
had divided the minds of the people. While most of the titled
lords of the land, including many intimate friends of the
Kaiser, voted against dispossession, the university professors
and mayors of liberal municipalities voted mostly for it."
_W. C. Dreher,
The Year in Germany
(Atlantic, January, 1909)._
In his advocacy of this measure Prince Bülow proclaimed the
reasons for it without reserve. "Can we " he asked, "do
without the two Polish provinces, one of which begins within
75 miles of Berlin? That is the crucial point of the
situation; there is no doubt about it. Our eastern provinces
constitute the point of least resistance in the public body.
We dare not wait until the grave disease, with its probable
irreparable consequences, sets in." An English view of the
measure is presented in the following:
"Prince Bülow is only developing the policy of Bismarck, who
perceived, as Frederick the Great did before him, that the
possession of Posen was vital to the Prussian State, and who
held that the surest way to secure that province was to plant
German settlers on Polish land. The strategical importance of
Posen has been a cardinal article in the political and
military creed of all Prussian statesmen and soldiers for
generations. Posen is of far more importance to Prussia than
is Ireland to Great Britain, and the true motives which have
induced Prussian statesmen to make the agrarian proposals
embodied in Prince Bülow’s Bill are to be found not in their
comparatively trifling difficulties with Liberals, Radicals,
and Revolutionists at home, but in the foreign policy of the
Court of Berlin. …
"That portion of Poland which was given to Prussia by the
Congress of Vienna has been administered by that Power in
accordance with the spirit of Frederick the Great. The object
of Frederick was to develop the intellectual and material
resources of his Polish possessions, making them an integral
part of the Prussian monarchy, and gradually eliminating all
recollections on the part of the Poles of their having once
been an independent nation. This policy to be successful
should be carried out by officials with intellects as clear,
if not as powerful, as that possessed by Frederick himself.
The Prussian officials, however, who have administered Posen
since 1815, have not always risen to the height of their
mission. Edward Henry v. Flottwell, who was charged with the
government of the province from 1830 to 1840, alone understood
the conditions of success. He knew that in politics it is as
mischievous as it is futile to endeavour to reconcile the
irreconcilable. The efforts made in that direction after 1815
strengthened the revolutionary spirit in Posen. On the
retirement of Flottwell, Frederick William IV. tried again to
propitiate Polish national feeling, with the result that the
irreconcilable forces grew in strength, and in March, 1848,
the Poles were the driving-power of the Revolutionary movement
in Berlin. …
"As far as international life is concerned the true
significance of the Polish question is in the relations it has
created between the three great Northern Powers. Those between
Prussia and Russia have in consequence become extremely
intimate. At the present moment that intimacy is as great, if
not greater, than at any previous time.
{294}
Besides the German Ambassador at St. Petersburg and the
Russian Ambassador at Berlin, there is a German military
officer at St. Petersburg, and a Russian military officer at
Berlin, who are especially charged to convey intimate
communications between the Czar and the Kaiser. In spite of
the alliance between Russia and France, which was concluded by
the former Power, mainly for financial reasons, and which has
never much disturbed the equanimity of Berlin, it is quite
certain that in no conceivable circumstances will there be a
real breach between Prussia and Russia. The Government of the
Kaiser must and will make every possible concession to Russia
rather than provoke a serious breach. This is the true
inwardness of the policy as regards Poland. As long as Posen
continues Polish Germany will be largely dependent on Russia."
_Rowland Blennerhassett,
The Significance of the Polish Question
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1908)._
Dr. Dillon, who reviews European politics regularly for the
_Contemporary Review_, says with positiveness that the
Polish expropriation bill was passed "against the better
judgment of press, bar, gentry, political parties and people."
He cites it as an illustration of the absolute domination
under which the Prussian legislature is held, and maintains
that national feeling and opinion have, practically, no
influence over Prussian policy and no weight in the conduct of
Prussian affairs. Concerning motives behind the Polish
expropriation, this well-informed writer reports it to be a
prevalent belief in Austrian and other political circles that
the bill was driven through as a military measure, in
anticipation of some future hostile alliance between Russia
and Great Britain. It seems to be the belief that the Kaiser,
if not his ministers, is haunted with the expectation of a war
to be fought with those powers in combination, and is
determined that, if a British fleet in the Baltic is ever
coöperating with a Russian army, there shall be a population
of patriotic Germans instead of disaffected Prussian Poles
between them and Berlin.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
The leading motive of German Foreign Policy officially stated.
The Principle of the "Open Door."
Colonial Expansion unnecessary.
"Usually it has been stated that Germany has an annual
increase of population of 800,000, that these new masses must
be supported by manufactories, and that the German Empire will
thus be forced, with or against its will, into expansion, in
order to procure the raw material and to establish the
requisite markets for its industrial growth. The annexation of
Holland and Flemish Belgium, containing Antwerp, is described
as a mere preliminary necessary to make possible such measures
of expansion. Germany must enlarge its maritime basis, and
should have control of the Lower Rhine and its harbors. To the
alien, these arguments may seem plausible enough. Whoever is
acquainted with existing conditions, however, knows that,
though seemingly plausible, this is not the truth.
"In the first place, it is not true that colonial expansion is
a necessity for Germany, resulting from its industrial growth.
The impetus given to German commerce and German manufactures
is to be ascribed far more to the increase in the buying
capacity of other nations—England, France, Russia or
America—than to all the German colonies combined. Germany
needs no colonies; what she wants is merely free competition
on all seas, the open door, and the right to cooperate freely
on an equal footing with all other commercial and industrial
nations, in opening up new and as yet unopened districts and
markets. Hence the principle of the open door is the leading
motive of the foreign policy pursued by Germany. It is the red
thread that winds itself through the Eastern-Asiatic, the
Oriental and the Moroccan policy of the German Empire. The
high quality of all German products obviates the necessity of
unfair preferences accruing to political power. All they need
is a fair chance to compete on equal terms with other
countries. The world is large enough, and rich enough, in
still dormant possibilities, to admit of a pacific
co-operation by all nations in this great work."
_Baron von Speck-Sternburg,
Imperial German Ambassador to the United States,
The Truth about German Expansion
(North American Review, March, 1908)._
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Amendment to Industrial Code.
Hours of Labor.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Remarkable Decrease of Emigration.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic Agreements.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (January).
Institution of Juvenile Courts.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (April).
Passage of Law defining for the Empire at large the Rights
of Association and Public Meeting.
The rights of association and public meeting were determined
for the Empire at large by an enactment of the Reichstag, for
the first time, in April, 1908. Hitherto each State had
regulated these fundamental matters of political freedom by
legislation of its own, some with considerable latitude, and
others, especially in the North German States, with a narrow
restraint, subject, in an intolerable degree, to the
discretion or will of the police. The national law now brought
into force, superseding the local legislation, enlarged
greatly the liberty of citizens to associate themselves for
legitimate purposes and to hold public meetings. An attempt to
forbid the use of any foreign language at public meetings was
defeated; but public speaking in other languages was
sanctioned only in districts where 60 per cent, of the
population use the foreign tongue. This does not apply,
however, to international congresses in Germany, or to
meetings of electors for the election of legislative
representatives, Federal or State; and the States have some
privilege of modifying the rule.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, England, France, the Netherlands, and
Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (November).
Excitement in Europe over a published Interview
with the Emperor.
What may fairly be called a "row" in the European world, and
of the greatest liveliness in Germany itself, arose, early in
November, 1908, from the appearance in the London
_Telegraph_ of a reported interview with the Emperor by
"a representative Englishman who long since passed" it was
said, "from public into private life."
{295}
The writer characterized it as "a calculated indiscretion,"
which was expected to prove of great public service, by
removing misconceptions of the Emperor’s feelings toward the
English. The effect produced by the publication left no doubt
of its indiscretion, but proved likewise that it had been very
badly miscalculated. In his anxiety to convince the English of
his friendliness to them the talkative Emperor made known that
France and Russia, during the Boer War, had invited him to
join them in a demand on England to stop it, and claimed
credit for having prepared for the British army in that war a
plan of campaign, which could be found at Windsor Castle, and
which was on lines that Lord Roberts had followed in his
subsequent operations to a large extent.
How flattering this story was to English pride, and how
pleasing to the Governments of Russia and France, might be
imagined very easily; but it would not have been so easy to
anticipate the outbreak of anger that it exploded in Germany.
The Empire itself was surprised by that. It had been
submissive to so many "indiscretions" of speech from its
Kaiser that it could hardly have expected to be moved
excitedly by anything from the imperial lips. But, with the
indiscretion in this case, there seemed to be a reckless
interference with the appointed organs provided for dealing
with foreign affairs, doing mischief to the whole system of
governmental administration. This proved, however, to be less
the fact than appeared. According to subsequent explanations,
the Emperor had sent the manuscript of the interview (which
embodied the substance of a number of conversations with
several Englishmen) to the Chancellor, Prince von Bülow, for
his judgment on it, and the latter, not recognizing its
character, had not read it, but passed it to a subordinate,
who simply verified the facts stated in it and returned it to
the Emperor as approved.
This revelation convicted the Chancellor very clearly of a
careless performance of duty in his office, and laid on him a
large share of responsibility for the mischievous publication.
He offered his resignation to the Emperor and it was refused.
Constitutionally he was responsible only to the Emperor; the
Reichstag could not hold him to account, in any practical way,
nor did it attempt to do so; but there was such plain speaking
in the Chamber from all parties, Conservative, Liberal, and
Radical, during two days of debate, November 11 and 12, as
never had been heard in Germany before. Whatever the language
of the Constitution might be, it was made known beyond a
question, then and in a later discussion, that Germany
expected the crowned head of its Government to conduct
himself—in the words of one speaker—as "the first servant of
the State," preserving his own august irresponsibility only by
acting and speaking in public matters, through ministers
responsible to the elected representatives of the people. "We
wish," said Herr Bassermann, leader of the National Liberals
"so far as it is possible, for trustworthy guarantees against
the intervention of the personal regime," and before he sat
down he declared with the approval of the House; "It is the
desire of my friends that the Kaiser should be thoroughly
informed with regard to these proceedings. … Although fully
convinced that even these utterances of our Kaiser sprang from
his deep anxiety for the welfare of his people, we must give
expression to the earnest desire that the Kaiser will, in his
political activity, impose upon himself the reserve proper to
a Constitutional ruler."
Dr. Wiener, for the Radicals, corroborated the previous
speaker by declaring that the article in question had filled
the entire nation with embitterment, consternation, and rage,
because it was felt that "confidence in our trustworthiness
had been shaken. Everywhere it had been recognised that
Germany’s prestige had received a severe blow." The trend of
his speech was to show that the so-called "interview" had been
interpreted in Germany as a crass specimen of personal regime
which was distasteful to the nation in its entirety.
Constitutional Government was what was wanted: the Minister,
not the Sovereign, should be responsible to the people.
Prince Hatzfeld, of the Imperial party, who stands in great
favor with the Kaiser, impressed upon the House that the
Chancellor and not the wearer of the crown was the responsible
personage in the State. Prince von Bülow, speaking on the
first day of debate, declared that grave injury had been
caused by the publication in the _Daily Telegraph_. He
added that immediately on reading the article in question, as
to the disastrous consequences of which he could not for a
moment be in doubt, he sent in his resignation, taking upon
himself full responsibility for the mistakes which had been
made in handling the manuscript. And he followed this up with
the following significant statement: "Gentlemen! recognition
that the publication of these utterances has not in England
had the effect anticipated by his Majesty the Emperor, and, on
the other hand, in Germany has called forth great excitement
and painful regret, will—this firm conviction I have won in
these sad days—induce his Majesty the Kaiser in future to
impose upon himself, even in his private conversations, that
reserve which is indispensable to a consistent policy and to
the authority of the Crown. If that were not so, neither I nor
any of my successors could accept responsibility for it."
Proposals of amendment to the Constitution, carrying such
ministerial responsibility into the fundamental law, were
advocated without success; but the unwritten constitution
which public opinion moulds slowly in every country took a
notable shaping from these debates.
For some time the Emperor was very silent, and kept himself
unusually retired. Having occasion to speak publicly at Berlin
on the 21st of November, when the centennial of the formation
of the City Council was celebrated, it was reported that
"Prince von Bülow stepped forward and impressively handed him
a printed sheet," from which, contrary to his custom, he read
his remarks.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attempted Reform of Imperial Finance and its Defeat.
Breaking of Chancellor Bülow’s "Bloc" in the Reichstag by
the Government’s project of New Taxes.
Triumph of the Agrarian Interests in renewed Coalition
with the Center.
Resignation of Chancellor Bülow.
His successor.
Expenditure outrunning income from year to year—thanks mainly
to the burden of army and navy—with deficits made good by
loans, mortgaging the future in an ever-growing public debt,
had forced the Government, in 1908, to a resolution, not that
the imperial expenditure on armament must be cut down, but
that imperial taxation must be increased.
{296}
The Governments of the Federated States, which are directly
represented, as such, in the Federal Council, were assenting
parties to this conclusion, and the resulting measure was
regarded, in all the proceedings which followed, as emanating
essentially from that senatorial branch of the Parliament of
the Empire.
Preparatory to the undertaking, a new Minister of Finance,
Herr Reinhold Sydow, was brought into office, and early in
November, 1908, he submitted to the Reichstag a bill providing
for new taxes that were estimated to add 500,000,000 marks
($125,000,000) yearly to the Treasury of the Empire. The
scheme included an extended and augmented inheritance tax, new
methods of deriving revenue from spirits and tobacco, added
excise duties on beer and bottled still wines, taxes on
electricity, gas, advertisements, etc. The bill went to the
Finance Committee of the Reichstag and developed there, during
the next five months, an antagonism of class interests, and
consequently of parties, which completely shattered the
"bloc," or coalition, which Chancellor Bülow had contrived to
organize in 1906 for the support of his administration. The
proposed new inheritance tax or death duty was especially
obnoxious to the land-owning classes,—the agrarian core of
German conservatism,—and no influence from the Government
could save it from being stifled in their hands. Other
oppositions were rallied against the proposals which touched
spirits, tobacco, electricity, gas, and newspaper
advertisements, and by the 20th of March, 1909, it was known
that the Finance Committee had rejected or would reject all
but about one-fifth of the new taxation which the Government
and the Federal Council claimed from it.
A month later the Government signified its abandonment of a
present expectation, at least, of financial reform, by
inviting subscriptions to a fresh loan. The budget wrangle in
Committee went on, however, until the 13th of May, when the
National-Liberals, the Radicals, and the Socialists of the
Committee withdrew from it, the Chairman, Herr Paasche, a
National-Liberal, resigning, refusing to take any further part
in proceedings which they wholly disapproved. This left the
Conservatives, the Center or Clerical party, and the Poles,
who seem to have practically organized an opposition "bloc,"
which proceeded to frame a budget on entirely different lines
from that which the Government desired, one of its
contemplated features being a tax on purchases and sales of
stocks. On the 18th of May the Reichstag was adjourned until
the 15th of June, and a month of rest from the controversy was
enjoyed.
When the Reichstag reassembled the Government laid before it
several proposals of taxes to be substituted for those which
the Committee had rejected. Inheritance taxation was still
prominent in the revised scheme, but considerably modified in
its range and reduced in productiveness. With it went an
extensive readjustment of stamp duties, applied to bonds,
stock certificates, transfers of real estate, bills and checks
and a tax on policies of fire insurance. This revised budget
of additions to the Imperial revenue was estimated to yield
about $35,000,000. It fared no better than the original
proposals of the Government. A week after its introduction the
Reichstag adopted the tax on securities (called the
_Cotierungssteuer_) which the Government disapproved, and
on the 24th of June it rejected the new inheritance tax bill,
by 194 votes to 186, the minority being composed of
National-Liberals, Radicals and Socialists, with a few from
the Conservative side. On the next day, rumors of the intended
resignation of Prince Bülow were checked by the publication of
the following semi-official statement:
"Prince von Bülow will remain as chancellor of the empire. The
Reichstag will not be dissolved. The chancellor holds that his
duty is to be in accord with the conviction of the Federal
Council of the necessity to bring about the passage of a
taxation measure, but with the exclusion therefrom of duties
on stock transfers, the output of the grain mills, and the
exports of coal. Financial reform must now come into
operation. What the chancellor will do after this has been
accomplished is his personal affair."
Nevertheless, it was made known on the 27th that the
Chancellor had offered his resignation to the Emperor, who had
declined to accept it, pointing out "that in the unanimous
conviction of the Federal Governments the early achievement of
finance reform is a vital question for the internal welfare of
the Empire, as well as for its position in relation to foreign
countries. In the circumstances he could not take into closer
consideration the fulfilment of Prince Bülow’s wish to be
relieved of his offices until the labours for the reform of
the Imperial finances should have produced a result of a
positive kind which the Federal Governments could accept." To
this statement there was added, semi-officially, next day, the
following: "Subject to the rejection of those taxation
proposals which would be injurious to the general interest,
and therefore impossible of acceptance by the Federal
Governments, the Imperial Chancellor was unwilling not to
comply with the Emperor’s desire. Nevertheless, having regard
to the political development which was manifested by the
division on the inheritance tax, he is irrevocably resolved to
retire from office immediately after the accomplishment of
finance reform."
Then followed negotiations with the Conservative-Clerical
majority now fully in control of the Reichstag, the Government
yielding step by step, and the Federal Council coming openly
into the management of the negotiations, the Chancellor
falling into the background, and waiting only for permission
to lay his office down. In the resulting budget of new taxes
there was very little saved of the "financial reform" which
the Federal Council and the Chancellor had undertaken to
introduce. On most points the land-owners had their way. The
character and effect of the legislation accomplished in the
early days of July were described thus by a Berlin
correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_, who wrote
on the 11th of the month:
"The _leitmotif_ of the bill is that property shall be
protected and industry shall pay. Even on the reckoning of the
new majority the ratio between indirect and direct taxation in
the scheme is as 14 to 34, but in reality property comes off
far better. … The large land-owners will not be hit at all.
The only tax that could touch them to any appreciable extent
is the stamp duty on transfers of real estate.
{297}
But the remedy lies in their hands; they need not sell, and,
in any event, of the $10,000,000 at which the returns are
estimated only $1,250,000 at most falls on landed property. If
the spirits bounty to be paid by the Government to the spirit
distilleries (which are in agrarian hands) is set against this
sum, it will be seen that the agrarians do not only _not_
suffer, but net a profit of some ten millions of dollars. Most
of all it is the consuming classes that are the victims of the
new majority's taxation proposals. Every cup of coffee, the
staple nourishment of the German workingman’s family, every
cup of tea, every glass of beer and schnapps, the staple
refreshment of the German workingman, will cost more, the
total sum to be derived from these sources reaching
$54,250,000, which, with the duty on the poor man’s cigar,
amounts to over $60,000,000. Adding to this 30 per cent. for
the increase in the middleman’s prices, the total burden of
the consuming classes reaches over $80,000,000, or an increase
of $7.50 on the workingman’s household expenses a year."
On the 13th of July the session of the Reichstag was closed by
Imperial decree. On the 14th the following announcement
appeared in the _Imperial Gazette:_ "His Majesty the
Emperor and King has been graciously pleased to accede to the
request of the Imperial Chancellor, the President of the
Ministry, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Bülow, to
be relieved of his offices, and has conferred upon him the
High Order of the Black Eagle with brilliants. His Majesty has
been graciously pleased to appoint Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg,
Secretary of State for the Interior, Minister of State, to be
Imperial Chancellor, President of the Ministry, and Minister
for Foreign Affairs." Herr Sydow now resigned from the
secretaryship of the Imperial Treasury, and was made Prussian
Minister of Commerce, in place of Herr Delbruck, who succeeded
the new Chancellor as "Imperial Secretary of State for the
Interior and representative of the Imperial Chancellor." Herr
Sydow’s place in the department of the Imperial Treasury was
taken by Herr Wermuth.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909 (September-May).
The Casablanca Incident and its Arbitration at The Hague.
Friendly Agreement with France.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1907-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909.
Accelerated Naval Construction.
Excitement in Great Britain.
Parliamentary Debates.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909.
Extent of Trade Unionism.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909.
Proposed Amendments of the System of Workingmen’s Insurance.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS;
also,
LABOR PROTECTION: ACCIDENT AND SICKNESS INSURANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (January).
Rejection of Proposed Reforms of the Elective Franchise
in Prussia.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: PRUSSIA.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (April).
Economic Conditions.
Gain of Fifteen Years in National Wealth.
Increased Cost of Living.
Diminished Savings.
Check on the Overcrowding of Towns.
A report by the British Consul-General on the trade and
commerce of the consular district of Frankfort-on-the-Main for
the year ending April 30, 1909, gave the following items of
interest touching general economic conditions of the year:
Early in 1909 the national wealth of Germany, which had been
estimated at 220,000,000,000 marks 15 years ago, was estimated
to have reached 350,000,000,000 marks—i. e., an increase of 59
per cent. in half a generation.
"The cheapening of all manufactured commodities in comparison
with the price they had reached during the end of the boom has
failed until now, in spite of an unprecedented supply of cash,
because the development which had taken place behind the wall
of protection—the system of syndication—has killed free
competition at home and has unduly raised the cost of the raw
material needed by the finishing industries. The agricultural
protection as well as the industrial has, moreover, increased
the cost of living and has narrowed down the margin of profit
which might have been used like a safety valve for reductions
of price to revive trade at home or facilitate competition
abroad. Syndication and protection have in fact combined to
deprive German manufacture of that elastic cheapening power
which ought chiefly to revive trade during the period
succeeding a commercial high tide. At the same time the
increased protection of the home market has admittedly
rendered foreign markets more difficult for the German
manufacturer."
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES, &C.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (September).
Speech of the Emperor on the Pride of his Subjects in
"the Game of War."
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (September).
Latest Statistics of the Social Democratic Party.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (October-December).
Socialist Gains in By-elections, etc.
Changed relations between Parties and the Government.
Several by-elections for the Reichstag and elections to the
diets of Saxony and Baden in these months showed somewhat
startling gains for the Socialists. In the Saxon Diet they won
25 seats, whereas in the late chamber, elected in 1907, they
had held but 1. Both the Conservatives and the National
Liberals were losers in the contest, the former most heavily.
The Radicals shared a few of the gains. In the Baden Diet the
Socialist gain was 8. At a by-election in one of the
Brandenburg divisions the Socialists increased their vote by
more than a thousand.
The Reichstag was reopened by the Emperor on the 30th of
November. On the organization of the House, Dr. Herman S.
Paasche, National Liberal, declined election as Second
Vice-President, stating that the National-Liberal party had
decided unanimously not to accept office in the reorganization
of the House. The Imperial party, or free Conservatives, also
declined to take part in the organization, while the Radicals
went so far as to decide that they would cast blank votes.
These three parties are determined to place the full
responsibility for the coming legislation upon the German
Conservatives and Clericals.
{298}
This new attitude of parties, as one side of the sequence to
the dissolution of the bloc of the past two years, and to the
retirement of Chancellor Bülow, was responded to most
appositely on the side of the Government by the new Imperial
Chancellor, Dr. von Bethmann Hollweg, when he made his first
speech in that capacity to the Reichstag, December 9th. In not
many words he made it plain that the Imperial Government’s
policy now was "to stand aloof from parties and groups of
parties; in short, that the government of Germany was not a
government by party. Governmental measures would be submitted
to the Reichstag for adoption, but he was not disposed to
define the constellation of parties which, he thought, would
support these measures. The recent political crisis over the
taxation bill had made no change in German institutions, he
continued. Radicalism strove to divide all Germany into two
political camps, but the existence of such a dualism was a
fiction devised for party objects. It could not contribute to
the sound development of the country for every proposal to be
classified as either radical or reactionary. Germany, the
chancellor affirmed, needed continuous and steady policies,
both at home and abroad, to satisfy the people to the end that
their work, either material or intellectual, might be
undisturbed by disorders or experiments." His words in part
were as follows: