the revisiting of their native country by Germans who had
become naturalized citizens of the United States, the American
Ambassador to Berlin discussed the subject with the German
Foreign Minister, on the 12th of August, 1902, and reported
the substance of the conversation to Washington: "Statements
were made on the part of the embassy as follows: No sympathy
whatever is felt with the person who deliberately emigrates
and avails himself of the American naturalization laws for the
mere purpose of escaping military service in Germany, and
there is no wish on the part of the American authorities to
enable such persons to make a convenience of their American
naturalization. The embassy has also consistently declined to
intervene in behalf of persons whose wish was to make their
permanent residence in Germany. It is thought, however, that
where German emigrants have fulfilled the conditions necessary
to entitle them to ‘be treated as American citizens’ they
should actually be so treated, and when they have emigrated in
good faith they should be permitted to sojourn in Germany, for
their business or pleasure, to visit at their former homes, or
to enjoy the benefits afforded by German watering places,
etc., in accordance with the terms of the treaty with Prussia
of 1828. The sovereign right of Prussia to expel persons whose
presence is not considered desirable is not contested, but it
is thought that the American Government has the right to know
why the presence of any American citizen is so considered.
"Dr. Von Mühlberg’s attention was called to a number of cases
now pending, where naturalized American citizens have received
orders to leave the country after a stay of a few weeks. He
said that he would take the matter up personally and would
communicate with the Prussian minister of the interior in
regard to it at once."
{444}
In reply from the Department of State at Washington, the
action of Ambassador White was approved, and it was said
further: "You should lose no suitable opportunity to press and
to emphasize the considerations which you advanced in your
interview with Dr. Von Mühlberg. The essence of the right of
expulsion which the German States claim is that it should be
reasonably and justly applied in cases obviously calling for
so extreme a measure. Expulsion should not be invoked
indiscriminately, so as to operate as a deterrent to the
exercise of the rights of expatriation and acquisition of new
allegiance granted under the naturalization treaties, or so as
to neutralize, by indirection, treatment stipulated thereafter
regarding the recognition of the new national character."
_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of
the United States, 1902, page 441._
The doctrine of citizenship stated by Ambassador White on this
occasion was embodied subsequently in a new citizenship law,
which came into force on the 2d of March, 1907. The new law
was based on a report made by an official commission, one of
the members of which has written of it as follows:
"When a future historian shall write an account of the
achievements of this the most remarkable administration of our
government since the Civil War, he will give prominent place
to the naturalization law of a year ago and the citizenship
law which was approved last March and is now becoming
effective; for these two measures are the culmination of a
hundred years of effort for reform, and affect the very
foundation of our political structure. …
"So far as the naturalization law is concerned, the objections
to it come chiefly from petty courts throughout the country
which are now not permitted to naturalize, and which formerly
derived part of their prestige and their fees from
naturalization business. Dissatisfaction with the new
citizenship law flows from those people who have been living
abroad in fancied security of their American citizenship, and
who now find themselves obliged to take positive steps to
preserve a status which they have heretofore supposed attached
to them indefinitely, without the performance of any
obligations on their part. Both of these laws originated in
the House of Representatives, but each resulted from a report
made by executive officers, and the Senate can claim little
agency in them. The citizenship law was based upon a report
made to Secretary Root by a board of officers of his
Department, the members being James Brown Scott, the Solicitor
for the Department of State, David Jayne Hill, our Minister at
The Hague, and the writer of this article, with Samuel B.
Crandall, Ph. D., of the Department as Secretary. … From this
report sprang a bill, introduced in the House by the Honorable
James Breck Perkins of New York, which became a law on March
2nd.
"The law does not change or even modify the American doctrine
of citizenship. That was already settled by the Constitution
and the decisions of the Supreme Court. Anybody born in the
United States, no matter what his race, unless he is an Indian
living with a tribe, or however ineligible to our citizenship
he may be for any other reason, is a citizen of the United
States. …
"Broadly speaking, an individual becomes a citizen of the
United States by birth or naturalization, and these facts have
been well settled; but how does he lose American citizenship?
This was the question to which the citizenship board chiefly
addressed itself, and which Congress settled a few months ago
by declaring that an American shall be held to have
expatriated himself when he becomes naturalized as a citizen
of another country, or when he takes an oath of allegiance to
another state, or when he lives permanently outside of the
United States without intent to return. …
"We have had a constantly increasing number of so-called
American citizens living abroad—men who have lived in the
United States for only five years and in many cases have
fraudulently secured naturalization papers after less than
five years of residence; who never were really domiciled
there; who never have performed any of the duties of American
citizenship and who never intended to do so. … Until the new
naturalization law went into effect, it was not actually
against the letter of the law for a man to commit this fraud;
for, when he applied for citizenship, he was required merely
to show that he had resided in the United States for five
years, and no inquiry was made concerning his future
intentions."
_Gaillard Hunt,
The New Citizenship Law
(North American Review, July, 1907)._
NAVAL CONFERENCE, INTERNATIONAL, AT LONDON, 1908-1909.
_See (in this Volume)
War, The Revolt against: A. D. 1907
(appended to account of Second Peace Conference
at The Hague)._
NAVIES.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
NAVIGATION LAWS:
Proposed British Imperial Policy.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
NEERGAARD, M.: PREMIER OF DENMARK.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1905-1909.
NEGRO PROBLEMS, IN THE UNITED STATES.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES.
NELIDOW, M.:
President of the Second Peace Conference.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1902.
Offer of mediation between Great Britain and the Boers.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.
Laws against Railway Strikes.
Failure of General Labor Strike to prevent their Enactment.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.
Agreement for Settlement of Claims against Venezuela.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1904.
Military operations against the Atchinese.
A Dutch military expedition against the long-insurgent natives
of the old Sultanate of Atchin, in Sumatra, which was said to
have carried death to a thousand women and children, gave rise
to stormy scenes in the Netherlands when its session was
opened in September. The excuse of the Government was that the
warriors used the women and children as shields.
{445}
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.
Defeat and Fall of the Calvinistic Party of the
Reverend Dr. Kuyper.
The Suffrage and Education Questions.
The six principal Parties.
Success of the groups of "the Right" in the latest Elections.
Elections to the lower chamber of the States-General, held in
June, overthrew the Conservative majority in that body and
gave the Liberals a small majority of 4. An important issue
between parties had been on the question of universal
suffrage, but the support given to its advocates was not
strong enough to justify immediate attempts on their part to
carry any measure of law. A royal Commission was appointed,
however, to investigate and report generally on the need or
expediency of a revision of the Constitution. The defeated
Ministry of Dr. Abraham Kuyper represented an
ultra-Calvinistic Church element in politics, and its defeat
appears to have been due in the main to educational laws which
it had carried through. According to the Dutch review, _De
Gids_, from which the following has been translated, the
aim of the new laws and the objection to them were much the
same as in the English controversy over the Education Act of
1902, when church and clerical influences carried the day
against the supporters of secular schools. "These educational
laws," said _De Gids_, "were unanimously supported by, if
they did not wholly originate with, the clericals, or the
Anti-Revolutionary party, as they call themselves, of which
Dr. Kuyper is the astute and able leader and head. They had
the undivided support also of the Catholics, but were
strenuously opposed by the Liberals and all the
anti-clericals, including the Social Democrats. The
Anti-Revolutionists and Catholics on the one hand, and the
Liberals and their allies on the other, form, respectively,
the Right and Left in the Chambers."
Since 1905 there seems to have been little if any change in
the Dutch parties. On the approach of the quadrennial general
elections of June, 1909, a correspondent of the London
_Times_ wrote of "the complex grouping" of the political
parties contending in them: "There are six which may fairly
claim to be important. The largest is probably the Catholic.
It is estimated that a third of the population is Catholic by
religion, and of the Catholics a very large proportion belong
to the Catholic political party, and vote consistently in
accordance with the commands of its leaders. Next to the
Catholics come the strict Calvinists, who have been organized
by Dr. Kuyper into a compact and most formidable party,
generally called the Anti-Révolutionnaire party. It finds its
chief supporters among the rural population and the petite
bourgeoisie, and owes its name to the doctrine, sedulously
preached by Dr. Kuyper, that the Radical and Liberal parties
are fomenting an anti-religious revolution, and that it is
therefore necessary to choose between Christianity and
Heathenism. This doctrine is generally known as ‘the
antithesis,’ and, though its influence has waned somewhat in
the towns, it still has considerable influence in the country.
Closely allied to the Anti-Révolutionnaire party is the
Christlijk Historisch party, which is more aristocratic, but
less energetic, with many principles but no very definite
programme. It not infrequently speaks against the Calvinist
party, but as a rule joins it when it comes to voting.
"These three parties, Catholic, Anti-Révolutionnaire, and
Christlijk Historisch, form the Right. The Left is composed of
the Old and United Liberals, the Radicals or Vrijzinnige
Democraten, and the Socialists, representing all shades of
opinion from what in England might be called Whiggism to
extreme Socialism. The questions which really divide these
parties, as distinguished from the party cries on which the
election is being fought, are Clericalism and Socialism, and a
very large proportion of the electors are not quite sure which
enemy they most fear. There is no doubt that the
Anti-Révolutionnaire party and the Catholics represent two
forms of Clericalism, while the Socialists are openly
Collectivists. The other parties, with the exception of the
Vrijzinnige Democraten, can be better described as opposed to
the two extremes than as presenting any clearly marked
characteristics of their own."
The first balloting of this election took place on the 11th of
June and the second on the 23d. The Anti-Révolutionnaires came
out of it with 23, the Catholics with 25, the Christlijk
Historischs with 12, making 60 for the groups of "the Right";
against a total of 40 in the groups of "the Left." Of this
minority only 7 were in the ranks of the Social Democrats. Dr.
Kuyper was among the defeated candidates.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1906.
At the Algeciras Conference on the Morocco Question.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1906.
The Second Peace Conference at The Hague convoked by the Queen.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, England, France, Germany, and Sweden,
for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1908-1909.
Trouble with Castro of Venezuela.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1908-1909.
NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1901-1902.
Census.
Reduced representation in Parliament.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.
NEWCOMB, PROFESSOR SIMON.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION:
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION, AND AERONAUTICS.
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902.
British Colonial Conference at London.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE.
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902-1905.
Negotiation and Senatorial Destruction of the Hay-Bond
Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.
In November, 1902, a Treaty of Reciprocity which would have
settled the long-standing disputes over American rights of
fishing on the Newfoundland coast, on terms of most equitable
advantage to both countries, and especially favorable to the
interests of the general public in the United States, was
concluded and signed at Washington by Secretary Hay and the
British Ambassador, Sir Michael Herbert. The Premier of
Newfoundland, Sir Robert Bond, had taken a principal part in
the negotiation, and the resulting document was known
consequently as the Hay-Bond Treaty. It secured to the New
England fishermen the coveted privilege of buying bait and
other supplies and hiring crews in Newfoundland ports; and it
admitted the greater part of American manufactures into the
island duty free.
{446}
On the other hand, it opened the markets of the United States
to the fish and fish products, the coal, oil, and ores of
Newfoundland, for the benefit of the consumers of the country.
The treaty was hailed with satisfaction by the general public
of the United States, but opposed by a few interests whose
gains might be lessened if any breach in their monopoly of the
sale of salted fish and coal and oil should be permitted. The
majority which has seldom failed of late to be retainable in
the United States Senate for the service of such private
interests, against the public good, was promptly organized by
Senator Lodge, first for pocketing the Treaty throughout more
than two years, and finally for amending it to death, in
February, 1905. The provisions that made it advantageous to
Newfoundland were cut out, and it was reduced to a state which
made it insulting as an offer of reciprocity. It suffered the
fate which, in late years, is quite certain to befall any
project of real statesmanship that has to go through the hands
of the United States Senate.
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1904.
Convention between England and France touching Fishery Rights.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
Renewed Disputes over American Fishing Rights
on the Treaty Coast.
Arrangement of a Modus Vivendi.
Agreement on Questions to be submitted to a Tribunal
of Arbitration at The Hague.
Constitution of the Tribunal.
The endless friction that has attended the exercise of
treaty-rights by American fishermen in the Newfoundland
fisheries was freshly roughened in the fall of 1905, by a new
enactment of the provincial legislature, to prevent the sale
of bait or outfits and supplies of any nature to foreign
fishermen, and by orders from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries forbidding vessels of American registry to fish on
the Treaty Coast. This reopened debate between the State
Department at Washington and the Foreign Office at London,
over the intentions and meanings of that first article in the
Treaty of 1818 which has been a source of incessant dispute
for ninety-one years. The following is the language of the
article:
"Article I.
Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed
by the United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take,
dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays, harbours, and
creeks of His Britannick Majesty’s Dominions in America, it is
agreed between the High Contracting Parties that the
inhabitants of the said United States shall have, for ever, in
common with the subjects of His Britannick Majesty, the
liberty to take fish of every kind, on that part of the
southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray
to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of
Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands,
on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
bays, harbours, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern
coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights of Belleisle,
and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without
prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the
Hudson’s Bay Company. And that the American fishermen shall
also have liberty, for ever, to dry and cure fish in any of
the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part
of the coast of Newfoundland, here above described, and of the
coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion
thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said
fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled,
without previous agreement for such purpose, with the
inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the
United States hereby renounced, for ever, any liberty
heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to
take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any
of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannick
Majesty’s Dominions in America, not included within the
above-mentioned limits: provided, however, that the American
fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours,
for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein,
of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other
purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as
may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing
fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the
privileges hereby reserved to them."
With reference to the present obstruction to American fishing
in Newfoundland waters, the contention of Secretary Root was
set forth in the following propositions:
"1. Any American vessel is entitled to go into the waters of
the Treaty Coast and take fish of any kind.
"She derives this right from the Treaty (or from the
conditions existing prior to the Treaty and recognized by it)
and not from any permission or authority proceeding from the
Government of Newfoundland.
"2. An American vessel seeking to exercise the Treaty right is
not bound to obtain a licence from the Government of
Newfoundland, and, if she does not purpose to trade as well as
fish, she is not bound to enter at any Newfoundland
custom-house.
"3. The only concern of the Government of Newfoundland with
such a vessel is to call for proper evidence that she is an
American vessel, and, therefore, entitled to exercise the
Treaty right, and to have her refrain from violating any laws
of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the Treaty.
"4. The proper evidence that a vessel is an American vessel
and entitled to exercise the Treaty right is the production of
the ship’s papers of the kind generally recognized in the
maritime world as evidence of a vessel’s national character.
"5. When a vessel has produced papers showing that she is an
American vessel, the officials of Newfoundland have no concern
with the character or extent of the privileges accorded to
such a vessel by the Government of the United States. No
question as between a registry and licence is a proper subject
for their consideration. They are not charged with enforcing
any laws or regulations of the United States. As to them, if
the vessel is American she has the Treaty right, and they are
not at liberty to deny it.
"6. If any such matter were a proper subject for the
consideration of the officials of Newfoundland, the statement
of this Department that vessels bearing an American registry
are entitled to exercise the Treaty right should be taken by
such officials as conclusive."
{447}
On the British side, Sir Edward Grey raised two principal
objections to these propositions of Mr. Root: First—that "the
privilege of fishing conceded by Article I of the Convention
of 1818 is conceded, not to American vessels, but to
inhabitants of the United States and to American fishermen;"
second, that "inhabitants of the United States would not now
be entitled to fish in British North American waters but for
the fact that they were entitled to do so when they were
British subjects. American fishermen cannot therefore rightly
claim to exercise their right of fishery under the Convention
of 1818 on a footing of greater freedom than if they had never
ceased to be British subjects. Nor consistently with the terms
of the Convention can they claim to exercise it on a footing
of greater freedom than the British subjects ‘in common with’
whom they exercise it under the Convention. In other words,
the American fishery under the Convention is not a free but a
regulated fishery, and, in the opinion of His Majesty’s
Government, American fishermen are bound to comply with all
Colonial Laws and Regulations, including any touching the
conduct of the fishery, so long as these are not in their
nature unreasonable, and are applicable to all fishermen
alike."
To the first of these objections Mr. Root replied;
"We may agree that ships, strictly speaking, can have no
rights or duties, and that whenever the Memorandum, or the
letter upon which it comments, speaks of a ship’s rights and
duties, it but uses a convenient and customary form of
describing the owner’s or master’s right and duties in respect
of the ship. … The liberty assured to us by the Treaty plainly
includes the right to use all the means customary or
appropriate for fishing upon the sea, not only ships and nets
and boats, but crews to handle the ships and the nets and the
boats. … I am not able to discover that any suggestion has
ever been made of a right to scrutinize the nationality of the
crews." As for the second objection, the American Secretary
appealed to history against it. "The qualification," he said,
"that the liberty assured to American fishermen by the Treaty
of 1818 they were to have ‘in common with the subjects of
Great Britain ’ merely negatives an exclusive right. Under the
Treaties of Utrecht, of 1763 and 1783, between Great Britain
and France, the French had constantly maintained that they
enjoyed an exclusive right of fishery on that portion of the
coast of Newfoundland between Cape St. John and Cape Raye,
passing around by the north of the island. The British, on the
other hand, had maintained that British subjects had a right
to fish along with the French, so long as they did not
interrupt them. The dissension arising from these conflicting
views had been serious and annoying, and the provision that
the liberty of the inhabitants of the United States to take
fish should be in common with the liberty of the subjects of
His Britannic Majesty to take fish was precisely appropriate
to exclude the French construction and leave no doubt that the
British construction of such a general grant should apply
under the new Treaty. The words used have no greater or other
effect. The provision is that the _liberty_ to take fish
shall be held in common, not that the _exercise_ of that
liberty by one people shall be the limit of the exercise of
that liberty by the other."
As between these chief disputants in the matter, the first
result of their exchange of arguments was a ready disposition
to arrange some _modus vivendi_, under which peace might
be kept on the fishing grounds until fresh undertakings could
be planned for a lasting interpretation of the old enigmas in
Article 1 of 1818. But the provincial Government of
Newfoundland resented bitterly the imperial interference with
its measures, charging that it was in violation of a pledge
"given by the late Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords in
1891, to the effect that the colony had been given unlimited
power with respect to its internal affairs." They were
promptly told, however, that what concerned action under a
British treaty went considerably beyond the internal affairs
of their colony.
Considerable correspondence on the terms of the proposed
_modus vivendi_ brought an agreement on the 6th of
October, 1906, set forth in the following communication from
Ambassador Whitelaw Reid to Sir Edward Grey.
"I am authorized by my government to ratify a _modus
vivendi_ in regard to the Newfoundland fishery question on
the basis of the Foreign Office Memorandum, dated the 25th
ultimo, in which you accept the arrangement set out in my
Memorandum of the 12th ultimo, and consent accordingly to the
use of purse seines by American fishermen during the ensuing
season, subject, of course, to due regard being paid in the
use of such implements to other modes of fishery, which, as
you state, is only intended to secure that there shall be the
same spirit of give and take and of respect for common rights
between the users of purse seines and the users of stationary
nets as would be expected to exist if both sets of fishermen
employed the same gear.
"My Government understand by this that the use of purse seines
by American fishermen is not to be interfered with, and the
shipment of Newfoundlanders by American fishermen outside the
3-mile limit is not to be made the basis of interference or to
be penalized; at the same time they are glad to assure His
Majesty’s Government, should such shipments be found
necessary, that they will be made far enough from the exact
3-mile limit to avoid any reasonable doubt.
"On the other hand, it is also understood that our fishermen
are to be advised by my Government, and to agree, not to fish
on Sunday.
"It is further understood that His Majesty’s Government will
not bring into force the Newfoundland Foreign Fishing-Vessels
Act of 1906, which imposes on American fishing-vessels certain
restrictions in addition to those imposed by the Act of 1905,
and also that the provisions of the first part of section 1 of
the Act of 1905, as to boarding and bringing into port, and
also the whole of section 3 of the same Act, will not be
regarded as applying to American fishing-vessels.
"It also being understood that our fishermen will gladly pay
light dues if they are not deprived of their rights to fish,
and that our fishermen are not unwilling to comply with the
provisions of the Colonial Customs Law as to reporting at a
custom-house when physically possible to do so."
To explain the stipulation relative to "purse seines" it
should be said that the New England fishermen claimed to be
driven to the use of them, by the local regulations which
hampered their fishing otherwise.
{448}
As formulated in the note of Ambassador Reid the _modus
vivendi_ was accepted by the British Government and went
into effect. In due time thereafter the two Governments
entered upon a discussion of ways and means for accomplishing
a definite and final settlement of the whole question of
American rights in the Newfoundland fisheries. The outcome was
an agreement signed at Washington on the 27th of January,
1909, to the effect that the following questions shall be
submitted for decision to a Tribunal of Arbitration,
constituted as subsequent articles provide:—
"Question 1.
To what extent are the following contentions or either of them
justified?
"It is contended on the part of Great Britain that the
exercise of the liberty to take fish referred to in the said
Article, which the inhabitants of the United States have for
ever in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, is
subject, without the consent of the United States, to
reasonable regulation by Great Britain, Canada, or
Newfoundland in the form of municipal laws, ordinances, or
rules, as, for example, to regulations in respect of
(1) the hours, days, or seasons when fish may be taken on
the Treaty coasts;
(2) the method, means, and implements to be used in the
taking of fish or in the carrying on of fishing operations
on such coasts;
(3) any other matters of a similar character relating to
fishing; such regulations being reasonable, as being, for
instance—
"(a) Appropriate or necessary for the protection and
preservation of such fisheries and the exercise of the
rights of British subjects therein and of the liberty which
by the said Article 1 the inhabitants of the United States
have therein in common with British subjects;
"(b) Desirable on grounds of public order and morals;
"(c) Equitable and fair as between local fishermen and the
inhabitants of the United States exercising the said Treaty
liberty and not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage
to the former over the latter class.
"It is contended on the part of the United States that the
exercise of such liberty is not subject to limitations or
restraints by Great Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland in the
form of municipal laws, ordinances, or regulations in respect
of
(1) the hours, days, or seasons when the inhabitants of the
United States may take fish on the Treaty coasts, or
(2) the method, means, and implements used by them in
taking fish or in carrying on fishing operations on such
coasts, or
(3) any other limitations or restraints of similar character—
"(a) Unless they are appropriate and necessary for the
protection and preservation of the common rights in such
fisheries and the exercise thereof; and
"(b) Unless they are reasonable in themselves and fair
as between local fishermen and fishermen coming from the
United States, and not so framed as to give an advantage
to the former over the latter class; and
"(c) Unless their appropriateness, necessity,
reasonableness, and fairness be determined by the United
States and Great Britain by common accord and the United
States concurs in their enforcement.
"Question 2.
Have the inhabitants of the United States, while exercising
the liberties referred to in said Article, a right to employ
as members of the fishing crews of their vessels persons not
inhabitants of the United States?
"Question 3.
Can the exercise by the inhabitants of the United States of
the liberties referred to in the said Article be subjected,
without the consent of the United States, to the requirements
of entry or report at custom-houses or the payment of light or
harbour or other dues, or to any other similar requirement or
condition or exaction?
"Question 4.
Under the provision of the said Article that the American
fishermen shall be admitted to enter certain bays or harbours
for shelter, repairs, wood, or water, and for no other purpose
whatever, but that they shall be under such restrictions as
may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing
fish therein or in any other manner whatever abusing the
privileges thereby reserved to them, is it permissible to
impose restrictions making the exercise of such privileges
conditional upon the payment of light or harbour or other
dues, or entering or reporting at custom-houses or any similar
conditions?
"Question 5.
From where must be measured the ‘3 marine miles of any of the
coasts, bays, creeks or harbours’ referred to in the said
Article?
"Question 6.
Have the inhabitants of the United States the liberty under
the said Article or otherwise to take fish in the bays,
harbours, and creeks on that part of the southern coast of
Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands, or
on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from Cape
Ray to Quirpon Islands, or on the Magdalen Islands?
"Question 7.
Are the inhabitants of the United States whose vessels resort
to the Treaty coasts for the purpose of exercising the
liberties referred to in Article 1 of the Treaty of 1818
entitled to have for those vessels, when duly authorized by
the United States in that behalf, the commercial privileges on
the Treaty coasts accorded by agreement or otherwise to United
States trading vessels generally?"
Of the remaining articles of the Agreement, IV. and V. provide
for the determination of future questions that may arise, and
for the composition of the Tribunal of Arbitration, which is
to be chosen from the members of the Permanent Court at The
Hague.
The agreement above was formulated at a conference in
Washington between Secretary Root, Ambassador Bryce,
Honourable A. B. Aylesworth, Canadian Minister of Justice, and
Attorney-General Kent of Newfoundland. In March the following
were chosen from the general membership of the Permanent Court
at The Hague to constitute the Tribunal for this arbitration,
namely:
Dr. Luis Maria Drago, Argentina;
Jonkheer de Savornin Lohmnan, Netherlands;
Judge George Gray, United States; and
Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Chief Justice of Canada, with
Dr. H. Lammasch, of Vienna, to be umpire on points of
disagreement.
The case for the United States was delivered to the British
Embassy at Washington, and that for Great Britain to the
American Embassy at London, on the 4th of October. A little
later it was announced that the _modus vivendi_ of 1908
had been renewed until the termination of the arbitration
proceedings.
{449}
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1907.
Imperial Conference at London.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1908-1909 (November-May).
Six Months of Political Deadlock.
From November, 1908, until the following May an extraordinary
deadlock resulted from a tie between rival parties in the
House of Assembly. The situation, as described by a
correspondent of the London _Times_, was as follows:
"Each side has 18 seats. Neither, therefore, can elect a
Speaker, much less undertake the control of public business,
when Parliament meets. Sir Robert Bond, who carried 32 seats
against 4 in 1900 and 30 seats against 6 in 1904, returns with
only half the House—18 men. In the former contests Sir Edward
Morris, who now leads the Opposition against him, had been a
member of his Cabinet and his ‘right-hand man,’ and the
November results prove that Morris’s withdrawal was a serious
injury to Bond. Morris went out a year or so previously owing
to a disagreement as to raising the rate of wages on public
works, and, being the leading Roman Catholic politician of the
Island, had 14 seats, of that creed, as a solid block in
Bond’s party during all this period. It was therefore felt,
when he resigned, that this ‘solid 14’ would be broken, and
this conclusion proved correct, because Morris carried half of
them in spite of the open and avowed hostility of many of the
priests in the diocese of St. Johns."
Sir Robert Bond retained the Prime Ministry until the end of
February, 1909, when, having failed to obtain a dissolution of
Parliament and a new election from the Governor, Sir William
Macgregor, he resigned. Sir Edward Morris then took office,
and the continued deadlock made it necessary, in a few weeks,
to command a dissolution and call a new election, which was
held on the 8th of May. It broke the tie of parties
effectually, Sir Edward Morris carrying 26 seats, against 10
filled by the partisans of Sir Robert Bond.
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1909.
A Year of Misfortune and Depression.
Scant earnings from the Fisheries and from Whaling.
Attitude of the people toward Confederation with Canada.
"The Fisheries represent fully eighty per cent. of the
exports, and in order to understand the financial stringency
which has now fairly settled down upon ‘Our Cousin to the
East’ it must be borne in mind that while the catch of fish
remains about the same from year to year, the price has been
steadily increasing for the past ten years, until last year it
was double what it was a decade ago. But this year the price
has suddenly fallen to what it was at the beginning of the
decade. In other words, the value of last season’s catch will
be just about half what it was the season before; and, instead
of the merchants receiving $7,800,000 for their fish, they
will receive considerably less than $4,000,000; and the
individual fisherman who at the former price was barely able
to earn $350 will receive this year probably less than $175,
on which to support himself and family for the year, and to
provide himself with an outfit for the next season’s work.
Many of course will not receive that much. … Although other
industries are springing up in Newfoundland, the codfishery
remains the great staple and dependence of the population—the
vast majority of which are fishermen, born and bred, who do
not readily adapt themselves to other methods of earning a
living. The present depression is widespread and far-reaching,
and every form of industry and trade, business and commerce in
the Colony is suffering seriously thereby. The latest ill
report comes from Bay of Islands, to the effect that the
winter herring fishery on the west coast—the scene of the
present controversy with the United States—is a failure. Last
spring’s seal fishery was not up to the average, and owing to
many accidents to the fleet, necessitating heavy outlay for
repairs, the promoters have realized much less than they
otherwise would have secured. The whale fishery, also, which a
few years ago had assumed enormous proportions, and was
yielding handsome returns, has now almost reached the
vanishing point. To complete the sum of the Colony’s
misfortunes comes the partial suspension of [iron] mining
operations at Bell Island, during the winter months, at the
very time when the men need employment most, and when, as a
result of the lack of it, they will probably emigrate to other
countries.
"This combination of misfortune is not only causing distress
among all classes of citizens, but the government will also
keenly feel the loss of revenue; for a conservative estimate
of the reduction in the customs revenue for the current fiscal
year puts the figures at $450,000; in other words, that the
revenue will not exceed $2,000,000.
"The great drawback in Newfoundland institutions is the
disproportion between the big machinery of government and the
small population to be governed. A local politician has aptly
described it as ‘the trappings of an elephant on the back of a
rat.’"
_Edwin Smith,
The Land of Baccalhos
(Canadian Magazine, July, 1909)._
Another writer in the same number of The _Canadian
Magazine_ discusses the opposition in Newfoundland to union
with the Dominion of Canada as follows: "The political leader
who should to-day appeal to the Newfoundland electorate on the
question of Confederation would be disastrously defeated. But
on the day when the leader of a party in the Island Colony
makes up his mind to risk temporary defeat for the purpose of
accomplishing Confederation, that day brings union between
Newfoundland and Canada within the horizon of the proximate
future. That leader must—unless the financial exigencies of
the Island bring him extraneous aid—face an arduous campaign
of education, but it will be a campaign crowned with victory.
"These are the impressions left on my mind by a visit to St.
John’s made with the object of studying the political deadlock
and the causes which led up to it. … The residents of the
outports—all settlements except St. John’s are known as
outports—are opposed to Confederation because they have been
told that it would mean a heavy increase in their taxes; that
their windows, all their domestic animals and all their
personal property would be taxed. If this wrong impression
were dispelled by a campaign of education, and they understood
that instead of higher taxation Confederation would mean the
opening up of the country, bonuses for the fishermen, and new
markets for the fish in Canada and abroad through the services
of Canadian Commercial agents, instead of opponents of union
they would become its advocates."
{450}
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1909. (July-August).
The Imperial Defence Conference.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY AND NAVAL.
NEW HEBRIDES: Arrangement between England and France.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
NEW PROTECTION, The.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: THE NEW PROTECTION.
NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.:
Fined for unlawful Rebates.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1897.
Leadership in the Administrative Control of Tuberculosis.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: TUBERCULOSIS.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900-1903.
Beginning of Tenement House Reform.
By a steady process, accelerated in the last ten years, the
congested tenement districts of New York have become one great
aggregation of sunless and airless rooms. Immense buildings
have gone up by the thousands, five, six, and seven stories
high, in which practically no provision for ventilation has
been made; and in which the occupants are undergoing a slow
process of asphyxiation. Nor are these disadvantages confined
to the submerged proletariat. The New York tenement system is
pervasive. … Two-thirds of the total population of New York,
or 2,500,000 out of 3,500,000, live in tenement houses, a
proportion which is increasing every day. …
"It was not until Governor Roosevelt’s appointment of the De
Forest Tenement House Commission in 1900 that the necessary
remedial legislation took practical shape. This act itself was
the result of many years’ struggle against corrupt
politicians,—Tammany Hall, the self-appointed guardian of the
poorer classes, has been a bitter enemy of tenement
reform,—and against vested interests. Its long delay had
greatly exaggerated the problem; for meanwhile the conditions
described had accumulated in appalling Volume. The commission,
however, was of high civic character, and was composed of men,
several of whom had made an exhaustive study of the tenement
problem. The law which was passed as a result of their
investigation was the first sweeping and effective tenement
measure since the enactment in 1867 of the first tenement
house act. The newly elected Low administration found the
enforcement of this statute one of its most important
responsibilities. The law created a new branch of municipal
service,—the tenement house department; and gave the tenement
commission, in the shape of an elaborate code of housing laws,
important supervision over the building of new tenements and
the maintenance of old."
_B. J. Hendrick,
A Great Municipal Reform
(Atlantic Monthly, November, 1903)._
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900-1909.
Subways and Tunnels.
It was not until 1900 that the building of subways for city
transit in New York was begun. The first line, from the City
Hall to Kingsbridge and the Bronx Park, was opened in 1904.
During its construction plans for its extension southerly and
under East River into Brooklyn were adopted, and contracts
were let. The original work was executed under an arrangement
with a company known as the McDonald Syndicate, whereby the
City gave its credit to secure the requisite funds and would
acquire the ownership of the subway and road at the end of
fifty years. In 1902 the interests of the McDonald Syndicate
were transferred to a new corporation, the Interborough Rapid
Transit Company, which ultimately acquired a general control
of the city railway service, and ran a crooked career to
results of disaster, so far as the public was concerned. In
1905 the Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners, then exercising
authority in this region of municipal affairs, under the New
York State Rapid Transit Act of 1891, approved plans for an
extensive additional system, comprehending as many as nineteen
routes, with various "spurs," and the Board of Estimate and
Apportionment consented to the execution of the plan.
The East River Tunnel to Brooklyn was finished early in 1908,
and the first two tubes of four Hudson Tunnels, connecting
Manhattan Island with New Jersey was opened in the last week
of February, the same year. This first pair of the Hudson
Tunnels realized a project which had been undertaken as far
back as 1878 and which had undergone two financial failures,
in 1882 and 1892. In 1902 its remains and its charter were
passed on to a third courageous company, organized by Mr.
William Gibbs McAdoo, who became the master-spirit of bold
enterprise at New York in this engineering field. In 1903 Mr.
McAdoo organized another company for the undertaking of a
connection of the Pennsylvania Railroad in Jersey City with
downtown New York, and also for connecting the uptown and
downtown tunnels by means of a north and south line along the
New Jersey water-front, so as to connect the Lackawanna, Erie,
and Pennsylvania Railroads with the tunnel system, and thereby
be able to give to their passengers an uptown and downtown
railway delivery.
The second pair of Hudson River tubes (the downtown link)
forming this New York and Jersey City Tunnel were opened on
the 19th of July, 1909. Writing of the event a few days before
its occurrence, the New York Evening Post summed up the
existing and prospective conditions of entrance to and exit
from the island of Manhattan by under-river passages as
follows:
"Since the city entered its rapid transit boom and the
practicability of sub-river tunnels was demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the leading engineers of the world, fourteen
such tubes have been under construction here. Four of them are
in operation. The downtown link of the Hudson Company’s system
will add two more, and the remaining eight are to be opened in
the course of the next two years, according to present plans.
{451}
"After the opening of the downtown Hudson tunnels, the
travelling public will look forward to the operation of the
other eight tubes, as follows: Two Pennsylvania Railroad
tunnels beneath the Hudson River and four under the East
River, meeting in Manhattan at the great terminal station now
nearing completion, between Thirty-first and Thirty-third
Streets, along Seventh Avenue; the pair of Steinway-Belmont
tunnels, deriving their name from the originator of the
franchise and the present controlling influence, running from
Forty-second Street to Long Island City and held practically
by the same men who control the operation of the
Manhattan-Bronx subway (the Interborough Company).
"The Pennsylvania tubes under the North (Hudson) River are
practically completed, and await only the finishing of the
depot, while the East River tubes, though a little behind hand
on account of difficulties met in the form of treacherous rock
ledges, are within possibly a year of opening. The
Steinway-Belmont tunnels are completed, and will be ready for
operation as soon as the company makes a satisfactory
arrangement with the Public Service Commission."
An official party in a passenger car went through the
Pennsylvania Railroad’s tubes between New Jersey and Long
Island on the 18th of November.
Work on a Fourth Avenue Subway in Brooklyn was begun November
13.
The Hudson Terminal at Cortlaudt and Church Streets is one of
the most interesting structures in the world. Below the street
is the terminal station, where all the trains "downtown"
arrive and depart. This station is wholly below tide level. It
is surrounded by a cofferdam of reinforced concrete 8 ft.
thick, 400 ft. long, and 177 ft. wide, and is sunk 95 ft. deep
to solid rock. Forty feet below the street is the track floor.
Twenty feet below the street is the great "Concourse," where
all traffic is collected and distributed to the various train
platforms underneath. On the Concourse the Pennsylvania, the
Lehigh Valley, and the Erie Railroads have ticket offices,
where tickets to any part of America may be bought. This
Concourse, which is about 1½ acres in extent, is one of the
show places of New York. Above the street level are two great
office buildings, each 22 stories in height, and containing
approximately 27 acres of rentable area.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1901-1903.
Municipal Elections.
Tammany’s Loss and Recovery of the Government.
Tammany Hall suffered defeat in the municipal election of
1901, the Honorable Seth Low, formerly a notable Mayor of
Brooklyn and latterly President of Columbia University, being
carried into the Mayor’s office by a roused movement of reform
which fused the elements of opposition to the corrupting
Tammany power. Unfortunately the Mayor’s term of office had
been shortened to two years by the charter amendment of the
previous year, and the term was too brief for much depth and
thoroughness of reform; but the city was greatly cleansed
during those two years. When the next election came, in 1903,
Tammany had rallied its hungry forces and secured a highly
respectable nominee for Mayor, in the person of Honorable
George B. McClellan, son of the famous General of the Civil
War. Mayor Low, renominated by a second Fusion of opponents to
Tammany, experienced defeat.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1904 (June).
The Burning of the Steamer Slocum.
A catastrophe of such horror as to be historical attended the
burning of the excursion steamer _General Slocum_, at New
York, on the 15th of June, 1904. The boat left a New York dock
in the morning with a Sunday-school picnic party aboard
numbering about eleven hundred,—nearly all women and children.
While passing through that part of the East River known as
Hell Gate, within the New York City limits, fire was
discovered in the forward part of the vessel. It was then
flood tide, and the eddies and currents in those waters are
very strong. The captain decided that it would be folly to
attempt to land on either shore, or to beach his boat. He
therefore headed the _Slocum_ for an island two miles up
stream. As the boat went forward at full steam, the
fore-and-aft draught thus created fanned the flames and
hastened her destruction. On the discovery of the fire by the
passengers, the wildest panic ensued. It was found that the
life-preservers with which the _Slocum_ was equipped were
worthless. No attempt was made to lower boats or life-rafts.
The crew were engaged in trying to cope with the fire, but
their efforts were futile. Within twenty minutes, the boat
went to her doom, and of the women and helpless children who
had embarked so gaily an hour before, more than nine hundred
were drowned or burned to death. Hundreds were saved by the
heroic efforts of policemen, river men, and the nurses on
North Brother Island, the seat of New York’s hospital for
contagious diseases, where the _Slocum_ was finally
beached. Most of those who met this awful death had come from
a single densely populated district of New York’s great "East
Side." In some cases, whole families were wiped out.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905.
Institution of the Bureau of Municipal Research.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: NEW YORK CITY.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905.
The Municipal Election.
Especial excitements were given to the municipal election of
this year in New York by the appearance in it of William R.
Hearst, proprietor of several newspapers in the country which
are foremost representatives of the recklessly sensational
journalism called "yellow." The methods by which these papers
won a great circulation include much that can hardly be
described otherwise than as demagoguism, and many groups and
classes of people who are restlessly discontented in life,
whether reasonably or otherwise, had learned to look on Mr.
Hearst as a champion of human rights. This prepared material
from which to organize a personal following that took the
character, for a time, of a formidable political organization,
incorporated under the name of the Independence League; and
the great wealth which Mr. Hearst had inherited, and which his
prosperous newspapers replenished, was spent lavishly in
exploiting, supporting, and controlling the organization. His
political ambitions aimed high, and the mayoralty of New York
City, for which his Independence League nominated him in 1905,
was by no means the contemplated end.
The Tammany Democracy gave its nomination to George B.
McClellan, son of the famous General, while the Republican
party named William M. Ivins, a prominent lawyer of the city.
The canvas was a heated one, and as it progressed the League
of Mr. Hearst was seen to be dangerously large. As a
consequence. Republicans who feared its control of the City
government even more than they feared that of Tammany, threw
their votes for McClellan, giving him a plurality of about
3500 over Hearst, and leaving Mr. Ivins far behind.
{452}
Frauds were claimed and the election contested by Hearst and
his supporters, who secured, by order of a Justice of the
Supreme Court of the State, a recounting of the ballots in
four election districts, with the result of a gain of
seventeen votes for Mr. Hearst. Appeal was then taken to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for an order directing
not only a recount but a recanvass of votes. Such an order was
granted, but set aside by the Court of Appeals, to which the
question went then; the court of last resort reversing, also,
the order under which the four boxes had been recounted. The
assertion of fraud was still maintained with vehemence, and
the legitimacy of Mayor McClellan’s title to the office he
filled was denied for more than a year. The Legislature then
passed an Act directing a recanvass and recount of the entire
ballots of the election, which had been preserved under seal.
This was a labor of months, performed under the direction of
Judge Lambert, of the Supreme Court. It gave a gain of 1094
votes to Hearst and a gain of 231 to McClellan, leaving a net
gain of 863 to Hearst, and diminishing McClellan’s plurality
in the total vote to 2791. The validity of his election was
thereupon declared.
A more successful and far more notable independent candidacy
than that of Mr. Hearst, in the New York City election of
1905, was conducted for the purpose of retaining Mr. William
Travers Jerome in the office of District Attorney for the
county of New York. He had been carried into the office on a
fusion ticket, four years before, and had performed its
important duties with a courage, a force, an independence and
a rectitude that were beyond praise. The machines of the
parties would not nominate him for reëlection; but an
extraordinary rally of the friends of good government in all
parties put him into the field, with an emergency organization
that sufficed to carry him triumphantly through. He was elected
by a plurality of about 16,000. So striking a proof of the
political popularity which a high quality of public service
can win has not often been given.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Undertaking of Works for a Water Supply from
the Catskill Mountains.
In 1905 the City of New York procured authority from the
Legislature to construct the works necessary for an adequate
supply of water, additional to that which had been drawn for
many years from the Croton River for old New York and from the
Ridgewood system for Brooklyn. The source determined on was
in the Catskill Mountains, including several streams, called
creeks,—namely Esopus, Rondout, Schoharie, and Catskill,—
having a total water shed of 885 square miles, and estimated
to furnish about 770 millions of gallons daily, even in dry
years. The plan of the project in its entirety contemplates
the construction of eight great reservoirs for storing and
controlling the waters derived from these streams. The first
to be built and the largest of such reservoirs is named the
Ashokan, on Esopus Creek, about 14 miles west of the Hudson
River at Kingston, near Brown’s station on the Ulster and
Delaware Railway. Work on this was begun in 1907. It is being
constructed in the form of two basins, having a united length
of about twelve and a half miles, lying between hills which
are connected by numerous massive dams. The dams necessary to
complete the enclosure of the water have a total length of
more than five miles.
In a straight line the distance from the Ashokan Reservoir to
New York is 86 miles; but the windings of the course that will
have to be given to the great aqueduct from the reservoir to
the city will add six miles to its length. The aqueduct is to
pass from the western to the eastern side of the Hudson at
Storm King Mountain, through a tunnel in solid rock, far
beneath the river bed. From Breakneck on the western shore it
will cross a corner of the Croton watershed to a filter site,
and to two final reservoirs, the Kensico and the Hill View. In
connection with both Ashokan and Kensico reservoirs the plan
of the system contemplates an aeration of the water, by
flinging it to the air in thousands of fountain jets.
In the parts of the great concrete aqueduct that can be built
in an open cut its dimensions are seventeen feet of height and
seventeen and a half feet of width. Where it traverses tunnels
the width is reduced to thirteen feet. Its delivery of water
to New York is calculated to add 500,000,000 of gallons daily
to the water supply of the city. The undertaking as a whole is
claimed to be the greatest that any city has yet engaged in,
while the engineering work involved is said to be second only
in magnitude to that of the Panama Canal.
_Alfred D. Flinn,
The World's Greatest Aqueduct
(The Century Magazine, September, 1909)._
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1907 (April).
Great Peace Congress.
See (in this Volume)
WAR: THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1909.
Unearthing of Corruptions in the Custom House.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1909 (June).
The Wall Street Investigation, so-called.
Report on the Operations of the Stock Exchange and
other Exchanges.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1909.
Renewed Struggle against Tammany, with Partial
but Substantial Success.
Although Tammany elected its candidate for Mayor in the
municipal election of 1909, its domination was practically
overthrown by the defeat of its nominees for all other offices
of importance in the City Government. A coalition of the
Republicans with anti-Tammany Democrats and other
organizations had presented a fusion ticket headed by a
prominent and much-trusted business man, Mr. Otto T. Bannard.
William R. Hearst entered the field again, as an independent
nominee, and Tammany named Judge William J. Gaynor, who had
been one of its opponents, as a Democrat, in the past. Judge
Gaynor was elected by a plurality of 73,016, the vote cast for
mayor being: Gaynor 250,678; Bannard 177,662; Hearst 153,843.
The City Comptroller, four of the five borough presidents, and
the President of the Board of Aldermen, were elected by the
Fusionists. By the election of Mr. McAneny to be President of
the Borough of Manhattan (the old New York City), a very
eminent political reformer and one of great force, was brought
into the City Government. As president of the energetic City
Club, which became a power in reform politics under his lead,
and as secretary of the National Civil Service Reform League,
Mr. McAneny had given abundant proof of his capacity and his
earnestness in work for good government.
{453}
By controlling twelve of the sixteen votes in the important
Board of Estimate, the opponents of Tammany stripped that
organization of all power over public "jobs." As the fact was
expressed exultingly in one of the journals of New York on the
day after election, "after January 1 Charles F. Murphy and his
associates no longer will say who shall have public
franchises; they, too, will no longer fix the budget, sell the
city’s bonds, and pay political debts with salary increases.
In other words, the Tiger has lost his grip on the city’s
purse-strings, and this fact, perhaps, more than any other,
has turned his den into a cavern of gloom."
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1909.
Proposed New Charter, not acted on in the Legislature.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: NEW YORK CITY.
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1909-1910.
The Shirtwaist Makers’ Strike.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909-1910.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY:
Legislative Investigation.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD CASE.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1899-1909.
The Barge Canal under Construction.
On the 8th of March, 1899, Theodore Roosevelt, then Governor
of New York, appointed a committee of private citizens, for
service without pay, in studying and reporting on the policy
to be adopted by the State of New York in dealing with its
canals. The appointed chairman of the committee was General
Francis Vinton Greene, and the following account of the
recommendations made by the committee is taken from a paper on
the subject contributed by General Greene to Volume XIII. of
the Publications of the Buffalo Historical Society, published
in December, 1909:
"The other members were Major Thomas W. Symons of the Corps of
Engineers, United States Army, then stationed at Buffalo in
charge of river and harbor improvements, Honorable Frank S.
Witherbee of Port Henry in the Champlain district, Honorable
George E. Green, State Senator from Binghamton in the southern
tier of counties, Honorable John N. Scatcherd of Buffalo, and
the two state officials most intimately connected with the
administration of canals, viz., Honorable Edward A. Bond,
State Engineer, and Honorable John N. Partridge,
Superintendent of Public Works.
"The request of the Governor was simply that we should study
the canal problem and advise him. … We devoted the greater
part of the year 1899 to a study of the subject, and made our
report to the Governor under date of January 15, 1900. … The
Governor promptly transmitted the report to the Legislature,
adopting the conclusions and recommendations which it
contained, and advising that legislation be enacted to carry
them into effect. This was done in successive years … ;
finally the project was ratified and adopted by an
overwhelming vote of the people in the election of 1903. …
"As to our conclusions and recommendations, the first question
to be decided was whether or not the canals should be entirely
abandoned. It was claimed by many that canal transportation
was antiquated and altogether out of date; that ‘the
railroads, with their large capital and scientific management,
their durable roadbeds, powerful locomotives, larger cars,
greater train loads, greater speed, and more certainty of
delivery, will be able now or in the early future to reduce
the cost of transportation below what is possible on the
canals.’ If it should seem probable that the railroads could
accomplish this, then it would be manifestly unwise and
improper to expend any more public money upon the canals.
"From a consideration of all [the] facts we reached our first
conclusion—which, like all the other portions of our report,
was unanimously adopted—to wit, ‘That the canals connecting
the Hudson river with Lakes Erie, Ontario and Champlain should
not be abandoned, but should be maintained and enlarged.’
"The next point to be considered was, to what extent should
they be enlarged, what size of vessel they should be adapted
to carry, and what would be the estimated cost of
construction.
"As to the proper size of the enlarged canal, widely different
views were held by engineers and by economists. Some contended
that the nine foot canal authorized in 1894 was sufficiently
large; others brought forward the supposed advantages of a
ship canal large enough to carry ocean-going steamers without
breaking bulk from Duluth to Liverpool, or any other port;
others contended that a canal of intermediate size would be
found to be the most economical, would cost the least amount
of money for the results produced, and would, in fact, produce
a lower freight rate than either the small canal on the one
hand, or the ship canal on the other.
"To these questions we gave the most careful study. The ship
canal had many glittering attractions, and there was a large
sentiment along the lakes which had found expression in Deep
Waterways conventions, which had been held in recent years and
had advocated a water route of either 21 or 28 feet depth from
Lake Erie to the Atlantic ocean. … But a careful examination
of the facts led us to the conclusion that while a ship canal
of 21 or 28 feet depth would cost enormously more than a barge
canal of say, 12 feet depth, it would not produce as low a
freight rate. …
"Having rejected the ship canal project, we had then to
consider what size of enlarged canal we should recommend. In
any event, we were satisfied that the route of the canal
should be changed so as to use the waterways of the Seneca and
Oneida rivers, Oneida lake and the Mohawk river in place of
the present route; but the question was whether the depth of
the canal should be 9 feet, capable of carrying a boat with
cargo capacity of 450 tons, or a depth of 12 feet, carrying a
boat with a cargo capacity of about 1,000 tons. With such data
as we could obtain in the short time at our disposal, and
without adequate surveys, we estimated the cost of the smaller
project at a little more than $21,000,000, and of the larger
project at a little less than $59,000,000.
{454}
"Our conclusion was in these words: ‘In our judgment, arrived
at after long consideration, and with some reluctance, the
State should undertake the larger project on the ground that
the smaller one is at best a temporary makeshift, and that the
larger project will permanently secure the commercial
supremacy of New York, and that this can be assured by no
other means.’ …
"We made a fourth recommendation in the following words:
"‘That the money for these improvements should be raised by
the issue of eighteen-year bonds in the manner prescribed by
the State Constitution, and that the interest and principal of
these bonds should be paid out of taxes specifically levied,
for benefits received, in the counties bordering in whole or
in part on the canals, the Hudson river and Lake Champlain;
such taxes to be levied in proportion to the assessed
valuation of the real and personal estate in such counties.
These taxes will amount to about 10 cents per $100 of assessed
valuation annually during the period of eighteen years.’
"Our object in making this recommendation was to disarm the
opposition of the non-canal counties. … We also submitted
statistics in tabular and graphic form showing that the
valuation of the river and canal counties was 90% of the
entire valuation of the State. In any event, they would bear
90% of the expense, and it was thought wise to suggest that
they bear the entire expense so as to remove every ground of
alleged injustice in taxing the counties which claimed to
derive no benefit.
"This recommendation was not adopted by the Legislature, nor
submitted to the people. …
"At the election the non-canal counties voted against the
project by large majorities, St. Lawrence county, for
instance, being 12 to 1 against it, and Steuben county, 10 to
1 against it; but, on the other hand, the canal counties voted
in favor of it by almost equally large majorities, New York
being 9 to 1 in favor of it; Kings, 8 to 1; Queens, 5 to 1,
and Erie, nearly 5 to 1. For some unexplained reason Monroe
county, in which Rochester is situated, and Onondaga county,
in which Syracuse is situated, voted against it. The
overwhelming vote, however, in the counties at the two
terminals, New York and Buffalo, made a majority of 245,312 in
the entire State in favor of the project, and a total vote of
1,100,708.
"Our fifth and final recommendation was as follows:
"That the efficiency of the canals depends upon their
management quite as much as upon their physical size, and that
no money should be spent for further enlargement unless
accompanied by measures which will accomplish the following
results:
"(a) The removal of all restrictions as to the amount of
capital of companies engaged in transportation on the canals,
and the encouragement of large transportation lines for
handling canal business, in place of hampering them, as has
hitherto been the case.
"(b) The use of mechanical means of traction, either steam or
electricity, in place of draft animals; and the use of
mechanical power in place of hand power for operating the
gates and valves, and moving boats in locks.
"(c) The organization of the force engaged on the public works
of the State on a more permanent basis, so as to afford an
attractive career to graduates of scientific institutions,
with the assurance that their entry into the service, their
tenure of office, and their promotion will depend solely on
their fitness, as determined by proper and practical tests.
"(d) A revision of the laws in regard to the letting of public
contracts by the State, so as to make impossible a repetition
of the unfortunate results of the $9,000,000 appropriation.
"Legislation has already been adopted to carry into effect (a)
and (c); the adopted plans for the canal are in accordance
with (b); and the specific form of contract which we
recommended in connection with (d) was not adopted, but
another form of contract was adopted which will practically
accomplish the same result.
"It only remains to speak of the cost of the project. With
such data as we had available and with such surveys as were
possible during the year 1899, we estimated the cost of the
project we recommended at $58,894,668 for the Erie Canal and
$2,642,120 for the Oswego and Champlain canals, making a total
of $61,536,788. This contemplated a canal with 12 feet depth
and suitable locks for carrying a barge of approximately 1,000
tons capacity from Buffalo to the Hudson river, but as to the
Oswego and Champlain canals, it recommended only the
completion of the work already undertaken to provide for boats
of six feet draft. … It was ultimately determined to enlarge
the Champlain and Oswego canals to the same size as the main
canal between Buffalo and the Hudson river, and also to
include the dredging of a 12 foot channel in the Hudson river,
which we had anticipated would be done by the Federal
Government. This enlargement of the project very materially
increased the cost, and in the interval between the time of
our report and the completion of the detailed report of the
State Engineer, the prices of labor and materials had very
largely advanced. In order to cover all possible
contingencies, the State Engineer carried his estimate to
$101,000,000, and this was the amount appropriated by the
Legislature and ratified by the people at the election of
1903."
_Francis Vinton Greene,
The Inception of the Barge Canal Project
(Buffalo Historical Society Publications, Volume 13)._
The first six contracts for the construction of the Barge
Canal were let in April, 1905. The state of the work at the
end of the year 1909 was announced by Governor Hughes in his
Message to the next Legislature as follows:
"The contracts in force for the Barge Canal improvement amount
in total price to $48,229,467, and the contract value of the
work performed to December 1, 1909, was $15,821,275. It is
estimated by the State engineer and surveyor that during 1910
work will be completed amounting to $16,000,000, and it is
expected that the work for the entire length of the Barge
Canal system will be under contract by April 1, 1910. At the
present rate of progress, it is said that it is not
unreasonable to expect that the Barge Canal system will be
completed by the end of the year 1914. It is further stated
that the work is being carried on within the original
estimates. This enterprise should be pushed to completion as
speedily, as economically, and efficiently as possible."
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1901-1909.
Legislation developing the Parole System
of dealing with Convicts.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY: INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.
{455}
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1905-1906.
Legislative Investigation of Life Insurance Companies and the
State Superintendency of them.
Startling Disclosures.
Remedial Legislation.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.
The Epoch of Governor Hughes.
The Special Significance of his Administration.
His Exemplary Fidelity to Fundamental Political Principles.
His Public Support against Hostile Party-Managers.
The election of 1906 is likely to be marked in the political
history of New York as the introduction of an epoch,—the Epoch
of Governor Hughes. The State has had a number of very notable
Governors, in both early and late times,—Governors who left a
deep and lasting impression of themselves on its history, and
who have been large contributors to its prestige and influence
as the Empire State of the American Union; but Governor Hughes
is of a type so different from any of his predecessors, and
his conduct of the Governor’s high office has been so
distinctive in principle and method, that his administration
can hardly fail, in the retrospect, to take on a special
significance of its own.
As counsel to the Legislative Committee which investigated the
scandals of life-insurance management in 1905-1906 (see, in this
Volume, INSURANCE, LIFE), the conduct of the investigation by
Mr. Charles Evans Hughes drew public attention, and made him
known so favorably that when in the autumn of 1906 the
Republican Party of the State had special need of a personally
attractive candidate for Governor, an unmistakable expression
of popular opinion directed the choice to him. The
Independence League which Mr. William R. Hearst had rallied
and organized, and which had served him the previous year in
his candidacy for the mayoralty of New York (see, above, NEW
YORK CITY: A. D. 1905), had been recruited so successfully
throughout the State, and had absorbed so much of some
elements of the Democratic Party, that the latter made terms
of combination with it, and adopted Mr. Hearst as its
gubernatorial nominee. The combination was one which the
ordinary forces acting for the Republican Party could hardly
hope to overcome; but the recent prestige of Mr. Hughes might
call out reinforcements that would save the day. It was not
willingly that the professional managers of the party
consented to his nomination, and it was not willingly that he
accepted it. He was heartily a Republican in politics, but
never active in its affairs, being devoted to his profession
and plainly reluctant to be turned aside at all from the
career it had just fairly opened before him. But he yielded,
as the party managers did, to a call from the public of the
party, and the result of the election afforded proof of the
reality and sincerity of the call. Hughes alone on the State
ticket of the Republicans was elected; Hearst alone on the
ticket of the Democratic-Independence-League combination was
defeated. Governor Hughes was thus placed, on the 1st of
January, 1907, at the head of an administration in which every
other elective office was filled by his political opponents.
This political aloneness of Governor Hughes in his office
would have mattered very little, however, if his own party
surroundings in it had been friendly and sympathetic; but very
quickly it was seen that he had conceptions of official duty
which those who controlled the machine-like "organization" of
the party, with consequent powers of influence over its
representatives in the legislature and in other official
places, could in no wise comprehend. With a degree of
precision and decision hardly matched by another executive,
this Governor had studied, constitutionally and ethically, and
had defined to himself, the obligations and limitations of his
office, and had resolved them into principles of action from
which he never swerved. In one particular, especially, this
held him to a course which some former governors had adhered
to in the main, but none, perhaps, with a consistency as firm.
In the use of two powers confided to the Governor, that of the
veto in legislation and that of appointment to many State
offices, there had always been more or less of giving and
taking between the Executive, on one side, and the Legislature
and the controlling leaders of party organization on the
other. A Governor actuated by personal motives, of ambition or
other self-interest, would use these powers freely, in
bargaining for or enforcing his desires; and a Governor who
cared for public interests alone would sometimes feel driven
to secure measures needful to that end at some price of
concession in appointments and in the approval of bills, or
some coercive use of the veto whip. Governor Hughes would do
neither, and his attitude in this matter stands out so
conspicuously as to mark in itself an epoch of great example
in the right exercise of executive power.
No Governor has ever interested himself more earnestly in the
work of the Legislature, with a watchful eye to the needs,
interests, and rights of the public and to the demands of good
government on every side. No Governor has ever taken a more
active and effective part in the production of important
legislation, and none has ever put his stamp on more of such
legislation within the same time. But all that he has done in
that line of executive duty has been strictly by
recommendation and by argument, addressed first to the
Legislature and then to the public behind it; never by any
other means. Legislatures have been coerced irresistibly into
compliance with his recommendations, by public opinion,
wakened by the Governor’s voice; never directly by him. There
has been no departure from the principle of action which he
stated once in these words: "I have not attempted, through the
use of political patronage or political machinery to coerce
anybody, and I don’t propose to do so. But under the
constitution, it is my privilege and my duty to recommend
legislation. If I mean what I say when I recommend, I ought to
be able to tell why it is recommended, and my constituency is
not the Legislature, and not any particular part of the
people, but my constituency is the people of the State, and I
propose, therefore, whenever I make a recommendation, and
there is any question about it, to tell as forcibly, as fully
and as frankly as possible why I stand for it. If it is wrong,
you will know it all the sooner; if it is right, you will give
it the support it deserves. I call that American government,
and if we had a little less trading, a little less wirepulling
and bulldozing, we would prosper to a far greater degree."
{456}
The Legislature of New York has been honored by this
highminded and respectful treatment of it, which the
highminded among its members have appreciated; but these have
been at most times a minority. The majority, obedient to
resentful party "bosses," have acted sullenly with him when
the lash of public opinion has driven them to his side, and
defiantly against him when they dared. His obstinate
antagonists have found a reflection hard to obtain.
The most signal showing of the attitude of the public toward
antagonists of Governor Hughes in the Legislature occurred in
connection with a bill, recommended by the Governor in 1907,
for the amendment of a disgraceful existing law relative to
race-track gambling. The State Constitution, as revised in
1894, prohibits all forms of gambling, and declares that "the
Legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses
against any of the provisions of this section." In 1895 an
Act (known as the Percy-Gray Law) was got through the
Legislature, professedly in obedience to this mandate of the
Constitution, which verbally prohibited betting on races, but
penalized it only by providing that the loser of a race-track
bet might sue the winner and recover twice the amount of his
bet, while betting and gambling in other places were punished
heavily by imprisonment and fine. This scandalous favor to the
race-track interests carried a bribe at the same time to the
farmers of the State, in the form of a cunning provision of
the Act, which appropriated five per cent. of the gross
receipts of racing associations to the benefit of agricultural
societies. Repeated attempts to correct so contemptuous a
violation of the Constitution had failed; but Governor Hughes
renewed the attempt, with a feeling of reverence for Law and
for the honor of the State which could not tolerate defeat.
When the amending Bill that he recommended was put in suspense
by a tie vote in the Senate, the Governor called a special
session of the Legislature, and brought the question before
the people in speeches which made a mighty stir. The racing
interests in the State were so powerful that they almost
defied defeat, and all their influence came into play.
Meantime a special election to fill a vacancy in the Senate
was pending in Western New York, and the issue on the
race-track gambling bill was fought out there, with the
Governor in the field, contending for an honest enforcement of
the constitutional law of the State. The result of the
election gave support to that contention, and when, at the
special session, the Bill in question was again called up in
the Senate, as it could be, it was passed by a majority of
one. The Republican senators who voted against it were most of
them retired to private life by their constituents at the
senatorial elections of the ensuing fall.
Almost everything of importance in New York legislation since
Governor Hughes entered office has had its origin in his
recommendations, and has been carried by the weight of public
backing which belief in him calls out, against resisting
influences that would ordinarily have prevailed. This was
notably the fact in the case of the Public Service Commissions
Act of 1907 (See (in this Volume) PUBLIC UTILITIES), which
established an effective supervision and regulation of
corporations engaged in public services, by placing over them
two commissions, appointed by the Governor, one with
jurisdiction in New York City, the other in the remainder of
the State, both armed with large powers. The services covered
are those of railways, gas and electric light and power
companies, and the authority established over them extends not
only to their rates, but to their capitalization, their issues
of stock and bonds, their franchises, the labor conditions
under them, their equipment, and the sufficiency and quality
of the service they render. The excellence of the Act has been
proved by its working, in the hands of the commissions
appointed by Governor Hughes.
In the checking of improper legislation by his vetoes,
especially against encroachments on local rights of
self-government, and against special enactments that intrude
on general laws, Governor Hughes has been a teacher of
political principles, as importantly as in the legislative
advice which it is part of his constitutional duty to render.
He taught a great lesson to every legislative body and every
executive in the Union, when he disapproved a highly popular
bill which prescribed a fixed rate of railway passenger fares
at two cents per mile, on the ground that it was not a matter
to be dealt with summarily,—without careful investigation and
determination of the facts involved. So consistent, so
forceful, so effective a teacher, in fact, by precept and high
example, of the fundamentals of principle in political action,
has rarely appeared in any country.
That Governor Hughes was renominated and reelected in 1908 for
a second term was again by reason of a public insistence which
neither he nor the hostile manipulators of caucus-work in his
party could resist. If the election had not been coincident in
time with a presidential election the "bosses" of the party
would have refused the nomination to him at any cost. They
were able to secure a convention of delegates that would
eagerly have made that refusal; but when the Governor was
persuaded to say that he would accept renomination, they dared
not imperil the national interests of the party by flouting
demands which came from every quarter of the land. He had
become so national a figure that interest in his reelection
was nation-wide.
On the powerful movement in New York to break down the
practical exclusion of the people from the choosing of
candidates for office, which Governor Hughes inspired.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES:
DIRECT PRIMARY NOMINATIONS.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
Work of Reforestation.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1907.
The Gift of Letchworth Park.
A noble gift to the State was made in January, 1907, by the
Honorable William Pryor Letchworth, a gentleman of distinction
in benevolent work, officially as president for many years of
the State Board of Charities, and privately, at the same time,
as a profound student of and writer on, some of the gravest of
the problems of philanthropy, especially that of the treatment
of the insane. The home of Mr. Letchworth for many years has
been on a great estate which embraces the finest and most
famous scenery of the Upper Genesee River, lying on both sides
of the cañon [canyon] down which the river plunges in three
successive falls.
{457}
The thousand acres of the estate enclose all three of the
falls. This magnificent domain, preserved in all its natural
beauty and improved with careful taste by half a century of
Mr. Letchworth’s care, has been conveyed in trust to the
State, under the future custody of The American Scenic and
Historic Preservation Society, to be forever, after the death
of Mr. Letchworth, a Public Park. A generous citizen has thus
saved from destructive uses a piece of scenery which has
hardly its equal for picturesque and varied beauty in another
part of the State.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1907.
Enactment of the Public Utilities Law.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1907-1909.
Creation of the Probation System.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY: PROBATION.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
Gas Company’s Refund.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
Historical Commemorations.
The Champlain and the Hudson-Fulton.
Three notable events of the far past were notably commemorated
in New York during the summer and autumn of 1909. The
tercentenary year of Champlain’s discovery, in July, 1609, of
the Lake which bears his name, was signalized by a week of
historical pageants, fêtes, and gatherings for speech and
ceremony, on and around the lake, beginning on the 4th of
July. France, England, Canada, and the United States were
represented in the addresses and exercises of the occasion, by
the British and French Ambassadors, the Postmaster-General of
the Dominion, President Taft and ex-Secretary Root, Governor
Hughes of New York and Governor Prouty of Vermont. A large
number of Indians took part in the pageants, occupying a
floating island constructed for the occasion on the lake, and
representing scenes of Indian life and warfare, the story of
Hiawatha, and other reminders of the time when men of their
race were the lords of the region of Lake Champlain. The
occasion was made one of great interest.
Still more of interest was given to the double commemoration,
in September, of Hendrick Hudson’s exploration of Hudson River
and of Robert Fulton’s first practically successful
undertaking of steamboating, on that river. The celebration of
the event first named was timed appropriately on its third
centennial anniversary. That of the second was belated by two
years; but the two were most fitly connected. The people of
Holland joined heartily in the Hudson commemoration, building
and sending over to New York an exact replica of Hudson’s
little ship, the _Halve Maen_, or Half Moon, in which his
voyage was made. Fulton’s steamboat, the _Clermont_, was
also reproduced for the occasion, and the two small, quaint
vessels, strikingly in contrast with the monster battle ships
and ocean liners that surrounded them, lent a singular
interest to the affair. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, Mexico, Cuba, and the Argentine Republic
accepted invitations to take part in the naval parades which
formed a grand feature of the celebration, and an imposing
assembly of great ships of war was shown. Eight days, from
Saturday, September 25th, until the following Saturday, were
filled with church services, school exercises, historical
exhibitions and processions, military and naval parades,
aquatic sports, carnival doings, aeroplane flights, banquets
to foreign guests, etc., at New York City, after which the
_Half Moon_ and the _Clermont_ proceeded up the
river and the celebration was continued in various towns.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
Defeat of the Direct Primary Bill.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES:
DIRECT PRIMARY NOMINATION.
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909-1910.
Munificent Gifts of Land on the Hudson
for Park Purposes offered.
In his annual Message to the Legislature, January 5, 1910,
Governor Hughes announced the details of a munificent project
of gifts proffered to the State for the purpose of creating a
noble State Park on and near the Hudson River. Mrs. Mary W.
Harriman, widow of the late E. H. Harriman, offered to convey
to the State a tract of about ten thousand acres of land in
Orange and Rockland counties, to be held in perpetuity as a
State park; offering further to give the State $1,000,000 in
trust, to be used for the purchase of land lying between the
tract mentioned and the Hudson River, so that the park may
have the advantage of a river frontage. Other gifts for
similar purposes amounting to $1,625,000 were announced as a
result of the activity of the Palisades Park Commission, from
residents of New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. John D.
Rockefeller and J. Pierpont Morgan each subscribed $500,000;
Margaret Olivia Sage, William K. Vanderbilt, George F. Baker,
James Stillman, John D. Archbold, Frank A. Munsey, Henry
Phipps, E. T. Stotesbury, E. H. Gary, and George W. Perkins
gave $50,000 each: Helen M. Gould and V. Everit Macy
contributed $25,000 each, and Ellen F. James and Arthur C.
James jointly gave a similar amount. These subscriptions were
secured upon conditions stipulating, among other things, that
New York State shall appropriate $2,500,000 for the acquiring
of land and the building of roads and general park purposes;
that the State of New Jersey shall contribute a fair share,
and that the State discontinue work on the new State prison at
Great Bear Mountain in Rockland County, where preliminary work
on the site for a new $2,000,000 structure has been under way
for several months.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1886-1893.
Extension of the Suffrage to Women.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1896-1908.
Twelve Years of Local Option.
The working of the Law.
Warning to the Liquor Trade.
The Vote of Women.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: NEW ZEALAND.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1902.
Colonial Conference at London.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1903.
The Maori King a Colonial Minister.
The old fierce conflict of the Maoris with the English
colonists in New Zealand would seem to have been effectually
ended, since the Maori King accepted a seat in the colonial
Cabinet, as a responsible Minister, in 1903.
{458}
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1905.
Government Ownership and Long-leasing of Land.
Its working.
Government Loans to Farmers.
The land system of New Zealand, as it was in 1895, is
described in Volume VI. of this work (see NEW ZEALAND). It has
since been carried farther on social-paternalistic lines, by
extensive expropriations or compulsory sales of large estates
to the Government, and by the institution of public loans of
capital to farmers at a moderate rate of interest. The
operation and result are thus described in a recent work:
"So far the government has lent to the farmers about
$20,000,000, but it has saved them $20,000,000 in interest,
because as soon as it came into the field with its cheap
loans, interest rates dropped everywhere. You see Shylock has
fled from these shores and will not return. The government has
never lost a cent in these loans. Reform proceeded next, with
a land tax graduated to an ascending scale, to discourage
land-grabbing, and land speculation; so that the more land a
man owns the higher is the tax-rate upon it. Thus for farms of
ordinary size the rate is two cents in every $5 of assessed
valuation; but on estates of more than $25,000 the rate
increases in regular ratio to the maximum of six cents for
every $5, except for absentee owners. They must pay fifty per
cent. more than residents. You can see that in New Zealand the
chance for fine old families and landed gentry is slim. No
doubt the theory of these things is extremely reprehensible,
but the practice is excellent. What with seizing the big
estates, and what with the graduated land tax, the size of
holdings has been so reduced that of 115,713 landowners in
1905 only 22,778 came under the operations of the augmented
land tax. The others, having small properties, paid the
smallest rate. Under the land purchase act the government has
seized 691,594 acres, mostly hunting fields and uncultivated
family inheritances. These have been partitioned into small
farms and are occupied by actual settlers. Under the operation
of all the new land laws together, the produce of New Zealand
has trebled, and the New Zealand farmer has become the most
prosperous in the world."
_Charles E. Russell,
The Uprising of the Many,
chapter 29
(copyright, 1907, by Doubleday, Page & Co., New York, 1907)._
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1906.
The Democratizing of Competition.
Labor Group Coöperation.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1906-1909.
The Liberal Party and the Liberal Ministry.
Their years of Great Power.
Their Strength shaken in the latest Election.
Its Method and Result.
The new Ministry of Sir Joseph Ward.
In June, 1906, the Liberal Party in New Zealand experienced a
great loss, in the death of Mr. Richard J. Seddon, its strong
leader, and the Prime Minister of Government for some time
past. His place was taken temporarily by Mr. Hall-Jones, until
Sir Joseph Ward, then absent from the country, returned and
received the chief ministerial seat. Since 1893 the Liberal
Party had derived large majorities in Parliament from each
triennial election. The Liberal Administration had advanced
accordingly, says a recent letter to the London _Times_,
"under the banner of labour legislation, new land laws, and
State Socialism, and was strengthened in its position by the
general prosperity of the country and the expenditure of large
sums of borrowed money upon public works. At the end of last
Session, it was still at the head of affairs with a majority
(including the four Maori members) of no fewer than 46.
"In the meantime, however, the guiding hand of Mr. Seddon, the
great apostle of New Zealand democracy, had been removed from
the scene, the harsh working of the Compulsory Arbitration Act
had begun to alienate the sympathies of both employers and
workers; the anti-freehold tendencies of the present
Administration were effecting a change of feeling in the
country constituencies, and the drop in the prices of some of
our staple products, combined with the stringency in the local
money market, began to act as a check on our commercial
prosperity. Finally, the Government made some tactical
blunders." Hence the Opposition, at the Parliamentary election
of November, 1908, was greatly strengthened, though the
ascendancy of the Liberals was still maintained. The conduct
of the election and its result are described by the
correspondent already quoted, as follows: "An election in New
Zealand is conducted in a most orderly manner. The
distribution of literature, the wearing of badges, and any
touting for votes from electors on their way to the polls or
in front of the polling booths are strictly prohibited by law.
A half-holiday has to be observed in shops and offices, and
factory owners must allow their _employés_ time off to
vote. The publichouses remain closed from noon until the polls
are closed, the closing hour being in the country 6 P. M., and
in the cities 7 P. M. Time was, in the very early days, when
the polling booths were in some cases located between two
drinking saloons that did a roaring trade, and the result was
much loud disputation, bad language, and fighting. Nowadays
all that is changed, and women can walk into the polling
booths with complete unconcern. For the 76 seats 213
candidates had been nominated. Of these 114 claimed to be
Ministerialists and 52 Oppositionists, while 46 were
Independents, among whom were a few Socialists and Independent
Labourites. The result of the first ballot was that 34
Government supporters, 16 Opposition candidates, and three
Independents were elected by absolute majorities. In 23
constituencies the candidates at the head of the poll failed
to secure absolute majorities of the total votes polled, and
it became necessary to hold second ballots, the number of
these being practically double what was estimated by the Prime
Minister. … Twenty-two of these were held a week later, and
resulted in a further strengthening of the Opposition party.
One—in a widely scattered country constituency—has yet to be
held. The Government secured 12 of the seats, the Opposition
nine, and Independent Labour one. …
"The result of the elections, as a whole, is greatly to
strengthen the Opposition, and correspondingly to weaken the
Government. The next most noticeable feature about it is the
unusual change it has made in the _personnel_ of the
House of Representatives. While not a single Opposition member
of the last Parliament who stood has lost his seat, no fewer
than 17 followers of the Ministry have been relegated to
private life; while the new Parliament will contain 27 new
members out of 76.
{459}
The position of parties, with one second ballot yet to be
decided, is—Government, 45; Opposition, 25; Independent, 4;
Independent Labour, 1. At the end of last Session (excluding
Maori members) the Government were 59 strong, while the
Opposition, including one Independent, numbered only 17. Thus,
whereas in the last Parliament the Government could reckon on
a majority of 42, they cannot now be absolutely sure of a
majority of more than 15 of the European members on certain
issues. There are four Maori members still to be elected, and
as these generally vote with the party in power the assured
Ministerial majority will be 19. This should be amply
sufficient to enable Sir Joseph Ward to continue in power for
the full term of the Parliament—three years."
Early in January, 1909, the Ministry was reconstructed, the
Premier, Sir Joseph Ward, burdening himself with the
portfolios of Finance, Defence, Lands, Agriculture, and the
Post Office. This was said to be made necessary by the
inexperience in office of the new Ministers whom he called to
his side.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1907 (April-May).
Imperial Conference at London.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
Working of the Compulsory Arbitration Law.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: NEW ZEALAND.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1908.
Population.
The population of the Dominion of New Zealand on December 31,
1908, was estimated as follows:
Europeans 960,000;
Maoris, 49,000;
Cook Islanders, 12,000.
There was an increase of Europeans during the year of 31,000,
being at the rate of 3.36 percent. The excess of immigration
over departures was 14,000—a record; while the natural
increase was 17,000. The death-rate was 9.57 per thousand, as
compared with 10.95 in 1907; and the birth-rate was 27.45 per
thousand, as compared with 27.30.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Labor Strike caused by Legislation making "Miners’ Disease"
a ground of Compensation from Employers.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909.
Announcement of Railway-Building Policy.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: NEW ZEALAND.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909.
Act establishing compulsory Military Training.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY: NEW ZEALAND.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909.
The Prime Minister’s testimony to the good working
of Woman Suffrage.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909 (July-August).
Imperial Defence Conference.
Offer of a "Dreadnought" to the Imperial Navy.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY AND NAVAL.
NIAGARA FALLS:
Preservation of their "Scenic Grandeur."
An Act of Congress, designed "to preserve the scenic grandeur"
of Niagara Falls, approved in June, 1906, authorized the
Secretary of War to grant permits for the diversion of water
for the creation of power to an aggregate amount not exceeding
15,600 cubic feet a second, and to grant permits for the
transmission of power from Canada to an aggregate quantity not
exceeding 160,000 horsepower. The then Secretary of War, Mr.
Taft, since elected President of the United States, after
careful investigations and hearings, granted permits for the
diversion of the maximum amount of water under the act and for
the admission of the maximum quantity of power. In reporting
his decision Mr. Taft explained why he believed that the
diversion authorized could be made without harm to the Falls:
"I have reached," he said, "the conclusion that with the
diversion of 15,600 cubic feet on the American side and the
transmission of 160,000 horse power from the Canadian side,
the scenic grandeur of the Falls will not be affected
substantially or perceptibly to the eye. With respect to the
American falls this is an increase of only 2,500 cubic feet a
second over what is now being diverted and has been diverted
for many years, and has not affected the Falls as a scenic
wonder. With respect to the Canadian side, the water is drawn
from the river in such a way as not to affect the American
falls at all, because the point from which it is drawn is
considerably below the level of the water, at the point where
the waters separate above Goat Island, and the Waterways
Commission and Dr. Clark agree that the taking of 13,000 cubic
feet from the Canadian side will not in any way affect or
reduce the water going over the American falls. The water
going over the Falls on the Canadian side of Goat Island is
about five times the Volume of that which goes over the
American falls. … If the amount withdrawn on the Canada side
for Canadian use were 5,000 cubic feet a second, which it is
not likely to be during the three years’ life of these
permits, the total to be withdrawn would not exceed ten per
cent, of the Volume of the stream, and, considering the
immense quantity which goes over the Horseshoe Falls, the
diminution would not be perceptible to the eye."
See, also, provisions of "WATERWAYS TREATY,"
in this Volume, under CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
NIAGARA MOVEMENT, The.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES.
NICARAGUA.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA.
NICHOLAS II., TSAR OF RUSSIA.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA.
NICHOLS, ERNEST FOX:
President of Dartmouth University.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
NICOLSON, SIR ARTHUR:
British Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
Convention with Russia.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
NIEL, M.:
The head of the Confédération Générale du Travail in France.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1884-1909.
NIGERIA.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: FRENCH CENTRAL.
NIGHT RIDERS, of the Tobacco Farmers’ Union.
See (in this Volume)
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1905-1909.
NILE BARRAGE.
See (in this Volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1902 (DECEMBER).
{460}
NOBEL PRIZES.
By the will of Alfred Bernard Nobel, the distinguished Swedish
engineer and chemist, pupil of John Ericsson and inventor of
dynamite and other explosives, five great prizes, averaging
nearly $40,000 each in value, were instituted, for annual
reward to persons who shall severally have made the most
important discovery or invention in the domain of physics,
chemistry and physiology or medicine; to the writer who has
produced in literature the most distinguished work of an
idealistic tendency, and to the person who has most or best
promoted the fraternity of nations, the abolition or reduction
of standing armies and the formation and increase of peace
congresses. The award of the two prizes first named to be made
by the Royal Academy of Science in Stockholm; the third by the
Caroline Medical-Chirurgical Institute in Stockholm; the
fourth by the Swedish Academy in the same city; the fifth by
the Storthing or Parliament of Norway.
The presentation of prizes on the first award was made with
impressive ceremonies on the 10th of December, 1901, that
being the fifth anniversary of Mr. Nobel’s death. Each year
since, the awards have been made on that anniversary day. The
recipients have been as follows:
PHYSICS.
1901
William Conrad Roentgen,
professor of physics at the University of Munich.
1902
Divided equally between Henrik Anton Lorentz, professor
of physics at the University of Leyden, and Peter Zeeman,
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam.
1903
Half to Antoine Henri Becquerel, professor of physics
at the École Polytechnique and at the Museum d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, France, member Institut Française, and half
to Pierre Curie, professor of physics at the University of
Paris (Sorbonne) and teacher in physics at the Paris Municipal
School of Industrial Physics and Chemistry, and his wife, Marie
Sklodovska Curie, preceptress at the Higher Normal School
for Young Girls at Sevres.
1904
Lord Rayleigh, professor of natural philosophy,
Royal Institution of Great Britain, London.
1905
Philippe Lenard, professor of physics at the
physical Institute of Kiel.
1906
J. J. Thomson, professor of experimental physics
at the University of Cambridge.
1907
Albert A. Michelsen, professor of physics at the
University of Chicago.
1908
Professor Gabriel Lippman of the University of Paris.
1909
G. Marconi, Italy, and
Professor Ferdinand Braun of Strassburg.
MEDICINE.
1901
Emil Adolf von Behring, professor of hygiene and
medical history at the University of Marburg, Prussia.
1902
Ronald Ross, professor of tropical medicine at the
University college of Liverpool.
1903
Niels Ryberg Finsen, professor of medicine,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
1904
Ivan Petrovic Pawlow, professor of physiology in the
Military Academy of Medicine, St. Petersburg.
1905
Robert Koch, member of the
Royal Academy of Science, Berlin.
1906
Professors Ramon y Cajal and Camillo Golgi of the
Pavia university, Italy.
1907
Charles L. A. Laveran of the Pasteur Institute in Paris.
1908
Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Berlin and Professor Elie Metchnikoff
of the Pasteur Institute, Paris.
1909
Professor E. T. Kocher, Switzerland.
CHEMISTRY.
1901
Jakob Hendrik van’t Hoff, professor of chemistry
in the University of Berlin.
1902
Emil Fischer, professor of chemistry
in the University of Berlin.
1903
Svante August Arrhenius, professor at
the University of Stockholm.
1904
Sir William Ramsay, professor of chemistry
in the University college, London.
1905
Adolf von Baeyer, professor of chemistry at Munich.
1906
H. Moissan, professor of chemistry at the Sorbonne, Paris.
1907
Eduard Buchner, professor of chemistry in the
agricultural high school of Berlin.
1908
Professor Ernest Rutherford of the
University of Manchester, England.
1909
Professor W. Ostwald of Leipsic.
LITERATURE.
1901
Rene Francois Armand Sully-Prudhomme,
member of the French Academy.
1902
Theodor Mommsen, professor of history at
the University of Berlin.
1903
Bjornstjerne Bjornson, author, Norway.
1904
Half to Frederic Mistral of France and
half to José Echegaray of Spain.
1905
Henryk Sienkiewicz, the author of "Quo Vadis?"
1906
Professor Giosue Carducci of Bologna, Italy.
1907
Rudyard Kipling of England.
1908
Professor Rudolf Eucken of the University of Java.
1909
Selma Lagerlof, Sweden.
PEACE.
1901
Divided equally between Henri Dunant, founder of the
International Red Cross Society of Geneva, and Frederic Passay,
founder of the first French peace association, the
"Société Française pour l’Arbitrage Entre Nations."
1902
Divided equally between Elie Ducommum, secretary of
the international peace bureau at Bern, and Albert Gobat,
chief of the interparliamentary peace bureau at Bern.
1903
William Randal Cremer, M. P., secretary of the
International Arbitration league, London.
1904
The Institute of International Right, a scientific
association founded in 1873 in Ghent, Belgium.
1905
Baroness Bertha von Suttner for her literary work
written in the interest of the world’s peace movement.
1906
Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States,
for the part he took in bringing the Russo-Japanese war to
an end. Money set apart by the president for the establishment
of a permanent industrial peace commission.
1907
Divided equally between Ernesto T. Moneta, president of
the Lombardy Peace union, and Louis Renault, professor of
international law at the University of Paris.
1908
K. P. Arnoldsen of Sweden and M. F. Bajer of Denmark.
1909
Baron d’Estournelles de Constant, Paris,
and M. Beernaert, Holland, ex-Premier.
[For a contemporary list see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates]
NODZU, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.
NOGI, GENERAL.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and
1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
NOMINATIONS, Political:
By Direct Primary Vote.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.
NOMINAVIT NOVIS CONTROVERSY.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
NORD ALEXIS, GENERAL.
See (in this Volume)
HAITI: A. D. 1902 and 1908.
{461}
NORDENSKJÖLD, DR. OTTO:
Commanding Swedish Antarctic Expedition.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
NORDEZ, BISHOP LE.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1900.
NORTHCOTE, LORD:
On the Australian Land and Immigration Questions.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: AUSTRALIA.
NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY CASE, THE.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
NORTH SEA AND BALTIC AGREEMENTS.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADIAN: A. D. 1896-1909.
Their Rapid Settlement.
The "American Invasion."
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1896-1909.
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADIAN: A. D. 1901-1902.
Census.
Increased Representation in Parliament.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: 1901-1902.
NORWAY: A. D. 1902-1905.
Result of the Consular Question.
Secession from the Union of Crowns with Sweden.
Acceptance by King Oscar of his virtual Deposition.
Election of Prince Charles of Denmark to the Throne.
The discontent of Norway in its union with Sweden, especially
because it could have no distinct national representation,
consular or diplomatic, in foreign countries, is described in
Volume VI. of this work.
See (in this Volume)
SWEDEN AND NORWAY.
In 1902 a Swedish-Norwegian Consular Commission was appointed
to investigate the practicability of separate consuls for each
of the united kingdoms, with joint diplomatic representation.
The Commission produced a report very favorable to the
proposition. Prolonged negotiations followed, between
representatives of the two governments, and the outlines of a
system under which Norway should acquire a separate consular
service were definitely settled and accepted formally by the
King, on the 21st of December, 1903. When it came, however, to
the definite framing of laws for carrying the plan into
effect, irreconcilable disagreements arose. Several details of
the arrangement which Sweden insisted on implied a precedence
and superiority of standing for that kingdom in the union of
crowns which offended Norwegian pride. The Norwegian
Government objected to having its selection of consuls made
subject to the approval of the Foreign Minister of the dual
monarchy. It objected to having the King, in his commission to
them, entitled "King of Sweden and Norway"; and it rejected
the Swedish proposals on other points. When the Government of
Sweden replied that, while it might be willing to consider
some modifications of its proposals, it must maintain the
important parts of them, the Norwegian Government announced
that it had no further statements to make, indicating that
negotiation in the matter was at an end. Thereupon, on the 7th
of February, 1905, the King made public the following
statement:
"Under the present circumstances I do not see that I can
resolve otherwise than to approve of what the Foreign Minister
has proposed; but I cannot refrain from expressing to both my
peoples my hearty desire that the two kingdoms, which have now
been united for nearly a century, will never let any
difference of opinion be hurtful to the Union itself. This
Union is in truth the safest guarantee for the independence,
the security and the happiness of both my peoples."
Feeble health now compelled King Oscar to yield the functions
of royalty to his son, and the Crown Prince visited
Christiania, as Regent, to confer personally with the leaders
in Norwegian affairs. The outcome of his visit was the
resignation of the Ministry of M. Hagcrup on the 1st of March,
the formation of a new Cabinet, under M. Michelsen, and the
announcement by the latter that the Government would
steadfastly maintain the sovereignty of Norway, as an
independent kingdom, according to the words of its
constitution, the realization of which must depend on the
strength and will of the Norwegian people. All attempts in the
next three months to overcome or much modify the attitude of
Norway were unsuccessful. In May, the Storthing passed an
independent Consular Bill and laid it before King Oscar, who
had resumed his duties, and the King refused to sanction it,
saying: "The Crown Prince, as Regent, in Joint Council of
State of April 5, has already shown the only way in which this
important question can be advanced and all difficulties most
likely removed, viz., through negotiation. I entirely agree
with this view, and do not for the time being find it
expedient to sanction this law, which means an alteration of
the existing joint consular service which cannot be severed
except by mutual arrangement. … When I now refuse to sanction
this law I do so in accordance with the right conferred upon
the King."
See in Volume I. of this work