"… It is my equally great love to both nations which makes it
my duty to exercise this right;"
On the 7th of June, M. Michelsen, the Prime Minister, and his
colleagues, gave their resignations to the Storthing,
whereupon that body, by unanimous vote, adopted the following
resolution:
"As all the members of the Council of State have resigned
their offices; as his Majesty the King has declared himself
unable to give the country a new Government; and as the
constitutional kingdom has thus ceased to function, the
Storthing authorizes the members of the Ministry, to-day
resigned, to exercise in the meantime, as the Government of
Norway, the authority vested in the King, in accordance with
Norway’s constitution and existing laws, with the alterations
necessitated by the fact that the Union with Sweden under one
King has ceased on account of the king having ceased to act as
Norwegian King." This action was proclaimed to the people on
the same day. On the 9th the Union flag was lowered from
Norwegian forts and war ships and the Norwegian flag raised in
its place. On the 28th of July with King Oscar’s consent, the
Swedish Riksdag adopted a resolution assenting to the
severance of the Union, on condition that it be approved by a
vote of the people of Norway. Accordingly the question was
submitted to the people on the 13th of August, and all but 184
out of 368,392 votes were given in favor of the separation. A
conference at Karlstadt in September arranged the future
relations of the two kingdoms with success, and the
dissolution was complete. It was formally acknowledged by King
Oscar on October 26th.
{462}
As he made it known that he did not wish any member of his
family to accept the crown of Norway if offered, the Storthing
authorized the Government to open negotiations with Prince
Charles of Denmark, with a view to its acceptance by him, if
its proffer should be sanctioned by a popular vote. Again a
plebiscite was polled and a large majority given in favor of
the proffer of the crown to Prince Charles. The Prince
accepted, with the permission of his grandfather, the Danish
King, and proposed to take the name of Haakon VII. The name
was well chosen for its significance, Haakon VI. having been
the last of the old royal line of Norway, which became extinct
at his death in 1387. The King-elect and his wife entered
Christiania on the 25th of November and took the oath of
fidelity to the Norwegian Constitution on the 27th. In the
following June King Haakon was anointed and crowned with
solemn ceremonies, in the ancient cathedral of Trondhjem, the
capital of the first King who reigned over the whole Norse
realm.
NORWAY: A. D. 1903.
Agreement for Settlement of Claims against Venezuela.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
NORWAY: A. D. 1907.
Treaty with Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia
guaranteeing the Integrity of the Kingdom.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908, and 1908.
NORWAY: A. D. 1908.
Parliamentary Suffrage extended to Women.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
NORWAY: A. D. 1909 (October).
Arbitration of the Frontier Dispute with Sweden.
The maritime frontier dispute between Norway and Sweden,
consequent on their separation, was referred to The Hague
Tribunal, and decided in October, more favorably to Sweden
than to Norway, but the decision was loyally accepted by the
latter.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1901-1902.
Census.
Reduced Representation in Parliament.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.
O.
OBOLENSKI, PRINCE JOHN.
See (in this Volume)
FINLAND: A. D. 1905.
O’CONOR, Sir N.:
British Ambassador to Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904, and 1905-1908.
OCTOBRISTS.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905. and 1907.
ODESSA, Disturbances in.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
OGDEN, Robert C.:
Promoter of the Annual Conference for Education in the South.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1898-1909.
OIL, PETROLEUM:
The Supply and the Waste in the United States.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
OKLAHOMA: A. D. 1904.
Marvelous Growth of Fifteen Years.
"Oklahoma is the Minerva of the States. With her there was no
period of slow settlement. On the day that her borders were
opened to the settler she sprang full-fledged, a vigorous
young commonwealth, into the Union. And on the day that
Congress admits her to Statehood she will take rank with the
foremost of the Western States. Her population of a million
and three hundred thousand—which is the combined population
of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, according to the annual
report of Governor Ferguson for the year ending June 30, 1904,
it is probably somewhat more than that now [1905]—will place
her in advance of at least twenty-one of her sister States,
several of them among the original thirteen. Not counting
Texas, only two States west of the Missouri will be her equal
in number of people—Kansas and California. In old New England,
three States—New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island—could be
combined and still not contain as great a population as this
new commonwealth in the West will have on the first day of its
Statehood.
"No other State ever had such a remarkable growth and
prosperity as Oklahoma. Sixteen years ago last March the
prairie winds blew over wide expanses of plains with no signs
of human habitation on them for miles at a stretch. A month
later, on April 22, 1889, upward of one hundred thousand
persons engaged in the most spectacular race in history--a
race for homes.
See, in Volume V. of this work,
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1889-1890].
That was the day when the first Oklahoma counties were opened
for settlement. … At nightfall of that first day of its
history Oklahoma had a larger population than the State of
Nevada. Towns were surveyed, and sprung up in a night, and in
a week a new empire had been created in the Southwest. A year
later the Iowa, Pottawatomie, and Sac and Fox reservations
were opened for settlement."
_Clarence H. Matson,
Oklahoma
(American Review of Reviews, September, 1905)_.
OKLAHOMA: A. D. 1906-1907.
Joined in Statehood with Indian Territory and
admitted to the Union.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906.
See, also, (in this Volume)
CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA.
OKU, GENERAL.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.
OLD AGE HOMES, in Vienna.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF.
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF.
"OLD BELIEVERS," RUSSIAN.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (APRIL-AUGUST.).
OLDENBURG: A. D. 1906.
Committed to Universal Suffrage.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
OMAR JAN.
See (in this Volume)
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
ONTARIO: A. D. 1901-1902.
Census.
Reduced Representation in Parliament.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ONTARIO: A. D. 1906-1907.
Political Experiments.
The Salaried Leader of Opposition, etc.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1906-1907.
"OPEN DOOR," THE COMING OF THE EPOCH OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
WORLD MOVEMENTS.
{463}
OPIUM PROBLEM: China: A. D. 1900-1906.
Progressive Tariff and Internal Taxation measures to check
the Consumption of the Drug.
The following is from a report on opium production and
taxation in China prepared by Mr. Williams, Chinese secretary
of the United States Legation at Peking, and sent to the State
Department at Washington, in September, 1906:
[Transcriber's note: The following paragraph includes a
variety of spellings and possibly defective type slugs.
The tael was said to be worth 73 cents in gold in 1905.
The weight of the picul is 133½ pounds.]
"Previous to 1900 native opium passing through the maritime
customs at Ichaug had been paying a total charge of taels, 60
per picul exclusive of taxes at the place of production. In
July, 1900, the viceroy, Chang Chih-tung, with a view to
cheeking the consumption of opium in the territory under his
jurisdiction, increased this charge to taels 72 per picul, and
near the close of 1901 increased it again, making it taels 80
per picul. This, with the likin charged in Szechuen, made a
total on the product coming from that province of taels 84.76.
Opium designed for local consumption was still more heavily
taxed, being required to pay taels 90 besides the likin of
Szeehuen, or a total of 94.76 taels per picul. The immediate
result of this action was to greatly increase smuggling and to
drive legitimate traffic to the use of native junks or
roundabout land routes controlled by the native customs or
likin offices, and thus to reduce the receipts of the maritime
customs. Another significant result was the importation of a
small amount of foreign opium to a district where it had been
unknown for many years. In view of these facts, in 1903 the
authorities reduced the tax to a total of 76.75 taels per
picul, including the Szcchuen likin.
"In February, 1904, the same tax was imposed in the province
of Hunan, also in the jurisdiction of the Viceroy Chang
Chih-tung, and in the summer of the same year an agreement was
made with the provincial authorities of the provinces of
Kiangse and Anhui that one consolidated tax, to include both
likin and customs duties, should be levied at a uniform rate
in the four provinces, and to prevent discrimination by the
native customs as against the maritime service it was agreed
that the collection of this consolidated tax should be
intrusted to the imperial maritime customs at Ichang and to
branch offices under its control. The port of Ichang was
chosen because it is at the head of steam navigation on the
Yangtze, for which reason most of the opium from Yunnan and
Szechuen was sent thither for distribution. In 1905 this
arrangement was extended to four other provinces, Kiangse,
Fukien, Kuangtung, and Kuangsi, and the tax increased to taels
134.79 per picul for opium destined to the four inner
provinces and taels 104 for that going to those on the
seaboard. Previous to this latter arrangement, however, after
the experience of 1902, it was seen that unless the tax on
foreign opium should also be increased the effort to stamp out
the vice by heavy taxation would fail, and therefore in 1903
representations were made to the British Government by the
Chinese minister in London looking toward the increase of the
duty upon Indian opium. The reply of the British Government,
as quoted in the Peking Gazette, was that the tax on the
native drug ought to be increased by the same amount as any
addition made to the duty on the foreign article. Upon this a
memorial was submitted to the Imperial Chinese Government,
asking that the customs duty and likin on foreign and native
opium be increased by an equal amount, and the matter was
referred to the proper boards for consideration and report. No
further report has as yet appeared relating to the
negotiations respecting foreign opium. As to the native drug,
the steps to increase the taxes upon it in eight of the
provinces have been related above. The success of this
arrangement has been so pronounced that on the 7th of May this
year (1906) an imperial edict appeared directing that the
system adopted in the eight provinces mentioned above should
be at once extended to all the provinces of China proper and
at a later date, to be hereafter determined, to Turkestan and
Manchuria."
OPIUM PROBLEM: A. D. 1906.
Imperial Edict against the use of Opium.
Undertaking to suppress it in Ten Years.
By a formal edict from the throne, published in September,
1906, the imperial Government of China undertook to eradicate
the use of opium in that empire, and to do so by heroic
measures within ten years. A register was ordered to be made
of every consumer of the drug (estimated at 40 per cent. of
the vast population of the empire) and of the quantity that he
consumes. Those who are under 60 years of age must thereafter
diminish their consumption by not less than twenty per cent,
each year, till they are free of the habit and the use is
stopped. Meantime there would be a public provision of
medicines to assist the cure. To those beyond 60 years in age,
and to the princes, nobles, and magnates of the empire, a
certain relaxation of these rules would be allowed. But all
minor officials under 60 years must drop opium entirely, at
once, and there would be no toleration of an acquirement of
the opium habit thereafter. No further cultivation of the
poppy would be allowed, and, of course, the importation would
be controlled.
Tang Shao Yi, the special Chinese envoy who visited the United
States and England early in 1909, had much to do with this
measure on the part of his Government, and, in addressing a
deputation which called on him in London, had this to say of
the circumstances connected with it:
"He had always taken a deep interest in the anti-opium
movement ever since he was a student in America in the early
seventies. He had never realized, however, that they could
attempt to make such a movement in China till he was sent by
his Government to India in 1905 in connexion with the Lhasa
Convention. While there he had opportunities of studying the
opium question, and he was fortunate enough to make the
acquaintance of the finance secretary, Mr. Baker. From him he
learnt that the Government of India could dispense with the
revenue derived from opium. Nothing was more surprising to him
and nothing gave him greater joy than to hear that. In that
year the question was brought up in England, and when he
returned to China in the winter of 1905 he informed his
Government that the British public was very ‘anti-opium’ and
also that the Indian Government was not at all anxious for the
revenue derived from opium. Therefore, he told his Government
that it was for the Chinese themselves to put a stop to the
opium trade, and that they must not rely upon others. He had
already got regulations in his head and the Government asked
him to draw up certain rules to put a stop to the opium curse.
{464}
In order not to be too radical, he suggested that three years
should be allowed for putting an end to it, but the Cabinet
said that was too radical, and, although he suggested six
years, the final decision of the Government was to make it ten
years. He said that unless they put a stop to it in two or
three years they might as well let this generation die out.
They fully appreciated the co-operation of gentlemen in
England, and he begged that they would keep up the agitation
not only for their own sakes but for the sake of the Chinese
people. The Chinese people wanted to be reminded that they
were opium smokers and that they must give up the practice.
Some scepticism had been expressed as to the genuineness of
the movement in China, but he was sure that the people there
were in earnest, and he trusted that his Government and people
would not disappoint Great Britain."
OPIUM PROBLEM: A. D. 1909.
Progress in the Opium Reform.
An official report on the progress of the opium reform in
China, by Mr. Max Müller, Councillor of the British Legation
at Peking, was published as a Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 4967),
early in January, 1910. In communicating the report to the
Foreign Office, Sir N. Jordan wrote:
"This report shows that considerable progress continues to be
made in the task which the Chinese Government undertook three
years ago. There has undoubtedly been a very sensible
diminution in the consumption and cultivation of opium, and a
public opinion has been formed which will greatly strengthen
the hands of the Government and the provincial authorities in
the drastic measures which they contemplate taking in the near
future. … That the end, however, is so near as many of the
official pronouncements would seem to indicate is, I venture
to think, very doubtful. We have full and reliable information
about only two of the provinces—Shansi and Yunnan—and the
annexes to Mr. Max Müller’s report furnish eloquent testimony
of the good work that has been done in both. At the opposite
extreme stand Shensi, Kansu, Hupei, and Szeehuan, in all of
which comparatively little has been accomplished to check
either the consumption or cultivation of the drug. The
last-named province, which is by far the largest producing
area in the Empire, will furnish the supreme test of the
success or failure of the programme of total prohibition, and
as the order has gone forth that no poppy is to be sown this
autumn the issue on which so much depends is doubtless being
fought out as this report is being written."
OPIUM PROBLEM:
International Opium Commission, in Session at Shanghai,
February, 1909.
On the suggestion of Bishop Brent, of the Philippines, the
Government of the United States took the initiative in
bringing about the appointment of an International Commission
to investigate matters connected with the use of and traffic
in opium. The Commission, composed of delegates from China,
Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Turkey, and
the United States, met at Shanghai on the 1st of February,
1909, and was in session until the 26th of that month, under
the presidency of Bishop Brent. Its study of the subject
appears to have been made difficult and definite conclusions
prevented by the lack of trustworthy Chinese statistics of the
production of opium in the Empire itself, and of other
important facts. The results of four weeks of investigation
and discussion were embodied in nine resolutions, the first of
which recognized the sincerity of the endeavor of the Chinese
Government to eradicate the great evil from its dominion, in
these words: "The Commission recognizes the unswerving
sincerity of the Government of China in its efforts to
eradicate the production and consumption of opium throughout
the Empire, the increasing body of public opinion among the
Chinese by whom these efforts are supported, and the real,
though unequal, progress already made in a task of the
greatest magnitude."
Of the further resolutions, one urged upon all governments the
importance of drastic measures to control the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of morphia and other noxious
derivatives of opium; another recommended scientific
investigation of so-called opium remedies; a third said all
countries should adopt reasonable measures to prevent the
shipment of opium or its derivatives to any country which
prohibits their entry. By the terms of the remaining
resolutions the delegates were urged to influence as far as
possible their own governments to take steps for the gradual
suppression of opium smoking in their own territories
respectively; to further examine into their systems for the
regulation of the traffic, in the light of the experience of
other countries; to enter into negotiations with China to
insure the adoption of effective and prompt measures to
prohibit opium traffic in those concessions and settlements.
Finally, the conference recommended that each government apply
its pharmacy laws to its subjects in consular districts,
concessions, and settlements in China.
In some quarters the outcome of the meeting was sharply
criticised as being empty of any practical fruit, and England
was accused of having rendered it so, under the influence of
the Indian opium trade. But the State Department at Washington
gave expression to a very different view. There it was pointed
out that the Commission had been one of inquiry, only; that
its instructions had been "to study the opium problem and
report as to the best and most feasible means of solving it,"
and that this programme was executed "to the entire
satisfaction of the Governments concerned." Bishop Brent, who
presided over the Shanghai meeting, declared in his inaugural
address:
"It devolves upon me to pronounce with emphasis that this is a
commission, and as those who are informed—as all of you must
be in matters that pertain to international affairs of this
kind—a commission is not a conference. The idea of a
conference was suggested, but it seemed wise to choose this
particular form of action rather than a conference, because,
for the present at any rate, we are not sufficiently well
informed and sufficiently unanimous in our attitude to have a
conference with any great hope of immediate success."
{465}
As between China and Great Britain there is an opium problem
which does not affect other parties. An important part of
British Indian revenue is derived from the opium trade, and
the Government of India can hardly be expected to throw it
carelessly away, not knowing with certainty that it will not
be picked up as gain for somebody else. In 1906, when China
opened her campaign against opium, she entered into an
agreement with England that her own production of opium should
be reduced to extinction within ten years, and that the
importation from India (under former commercial treaties),
then amounting to 51,000 chests annually, should be reduced at
the rate of 5100 chests per year. It seems to have been the
lack of definite evidence as to the effective fulfilment of
this agreement which made the British attitude at Shanghai a
halting one.
The United States Government has not suffered the movement
against opium to rest where it was left by the Shanghai
Commission, but has asked the governments represented in that
Commission to send delegates to a formal International
Conference at The Hague.
OPIUM PROBLEM:
The Philippine Islands, taking Instruction from the Japanese
in Formosa.
A committee appointed by the Philippine Commission, to
investigate methods of dealing with the sale and use of opium,
included an American army officer, Major Carter, a Filipino
physician, Dr. Albert, and the missionary bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, Bishop Brent. The following is
from a summary of the committee’s report, published in _The
Outlook_ of March 4, 1905:
"Although the Committee visited and studied Java, Cochin
China, the Straits Settlements, and various places in China,
including Hong-kong, it really found the solution of the
question in the Japanese administration of Formosa. …
"It is not surprising that the Committee recommend what is
practically an adaptation of the Formosan system for the
Philippines. For the maintenance of this system it is
indispensable that the ‘opium and the traffic therein be made
a strict Government monopoly immediately.’ That is the first
provision. ‘Second, prohibition, except for medicinal
purposes, after three years. Third, only licensees, who shall
be males and over twenty-one years of age, shall be allowed to
use opium until prohibition goes into effect. Fourth, all
venders or dispensers of opium, except for medical purposes,
shall be salaried officials of the Government. Fifth, every
effort shall be made
(a) to deter the young from contracting the habit by pointing
out its evil effects and by legislation,
(b) to aid in caring for and curing those who manifest a
desire to give up the habit, and
(c) to punish and, if necessary, to remove from the islands
incorrigible offenders.’"
OPIUM PROBLEM: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
Act to Prohibit the Importation and Smoking of Opium.
A stringent Act prohibitory of the importation and use of
opium for any other than medicinal purposes passed the Senate
of the United States on the 2d of February, 1909, having
already been adopted by the other House. Smoking opium is
positively forbidden; no one can bring it into the country
without facing a fine of from fifty to five thousand dollars
and imprisonment for two years; the mere possession of opium,
a preparation of, or derivative therefrom, is to be deemed
sufficient evidence to authorize conviction. For medicinal
purposes, opium may be brought in under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of the Treasury.
OPSONINS.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: OPSONINS.
ORANGE FREE STATE:
End of the Republic.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES.
ORGANIC STATUTES, The.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ORMANIAN:
Armenian Patriarch.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
OSAKA, The Burning of.
A large part of the city of Osaka, in Japan, was destroyed by
fire in August, 1909. "Had it not been for the canals the
region of destruction would have been even more extensive.
Citizens by the thousand fled into the surrounding country,
leaving the city to its fate. By the time the flames had spent
their force more than 12,000 houses had gone up in smoke,
leaving more than 100,000 people homeless. Most of the
municipal, government, and other important buildings of the
city were destroyed. Great numbers of people are ruined, as
the Japanese carry no insurance, as a rule. The amount of
insurance involved, however, is about 5,000,000 yen.
Fortunately, the number of casualties was not great. About a
dozen were killed by falling timbers, and several were more or
less injured."
OSCAR II., King of Sweden and Norway:
Surrender of the Crown of Norway.
See (in this Volume)
NORWAY: A. D. 1902-1905.
OSMEÑA, SERGIO:
President of the Philippine Assembly.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
OSTWALD, W.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES (CHEMISTRY)
OXFORD UNIVERSITY:
Rhodes Scholarships.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY:
Tutorial Classes organized for Working People.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
P.
PACKING-HOUSE INVESTIGATION.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: PURE FOOD LAWS: UNITED STATES.
PALMA, TOMAS ESTRADA:
President of Cuba.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1901-1902 and 1902.
PALMA, TOMAS ESTRADA:
Resignation of the Presidency of Cuba.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1906 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
PAN-AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES.
PAN-ANGLICAN CONGRESS, 1909.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1903.
Secession from Colombia.
Recognized Independence.
Treaty with the United States for the Building
of the Panama Canal.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1904.
Constitution of the Republic.
First Election.
The Constitution of the new Republic was promulgated on the
16th of February, 1904, and the election of President and
three Vice-Presidents took place, resulting in the choice of
the following:
President, Dr. Manuel Amador;
first vice-president, Dr. Pablo Arosemena;
second vice-president, Don Domingo de Obaldia;
third vice-president, Dr. Carlos Mendoza.
{466}
The third article of the Constitution declares: "The territory
of the Republic is composed of all the territory from which
the State of Panama was formed by the amendment to the Granada
constitution of 1853, on February 27, 1855, and which was
transformed in 1886 into the Department of Panama, together
with its islands, and of the continental and insular
territory, which was adjudged to the Republic of Colombia in
the award made by the President of the French Republic on
September 11, 1900. The territory of the Republic remains
subject to the jurisdictional limitations stipulated or which
may be stipulated in public treaties concluded with the United
States of North America for the construction, maintenance, or
sanitation of any means of interoceanic transit.
"The boundaries with the Republic of Colombia shall be
determined by public treaties."
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1906.
Visit of President Roosevelt.
"For the first time in the history of the United States," said
President Roosevelt, when he landed at Colon, November 14,
1906, preliminary to a visit and inspection of the Panama
Canal, "it has become advisable for a President of the United
States to step on territory not beneath the flag of the United
States." He received a most hospitable welcome and
entertainment in the young republic.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1906.
Participation in Third International Conference of
American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF: A. D. 1909.
Pending Tripartite Treaty with Colombia and the United States.
See (in this Volume)
COLOMBIA: A. D. 1906-1909.
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1901-1902.
The Second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty between the United States
and Great Britain.
Its Ratification.
After the rejection by the British Government of the
Amendments made by the Senate of the United States to the
Interoceanic Canal Treaty negotiated in February, 1900, by Mr.
John Hay, United States Secretary of State, with the British
Ambassador at Washington, Lord Pauncefote negotiations on the
subject were renewed, with results of success in removing
objections on both sides.
See, in Volume VI. of this work,
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
The new Treaty was signed by Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote at
Washington on the 18th of November, 1901, and ratifications
were exchanged on the 21st of February, 1902. In the preamble
of the Treaty its purpose is declared to be "to facilitate the
construction of a ship-canal to connect the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, by whatever route may be considered expedient,
and to that end to remove any objection which may arise out of
the Convention of the 19th April, 1850, commonly called the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, to the construction of such canal under
the auspices of the Government of the United States, without
impairing the ‘general principle’ of neutralization
established in Article VIII of that Convention." The
agreements and stipulations to this end are as follows:
"Article I.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the present Treaty
shall supersede the afore mentioned Convention of the 19th
April, 1850.
"Article II.
It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the
auspices of the Government of the United States, either
directly at its own cost, or by gift or loan of money to
individuals or Corporations, or through subscription to or
purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the
provisions of the present Treaty, the said Government shall
have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction,
as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation
and management of the canal.
"Article III.
The United States adopts, as the basis of the neutralization
of such ship canal, the following Rules, substantially as
embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th
October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that
is to say:
"1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of
commerce and of war of all nations observing these Rules, on
terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no
discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or
subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic,
or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be
just and equitable.
"2. The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of
war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within
it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to
maintain such military police along the canal as may be
necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.
"3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor
take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly
necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the canal
shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance
with the Regulations in force, and with only such intermission
as may result from the necessities of the service. Prizes
shall be in all respects subject to the same Rules as vessels
of war of the belligerents.
"4. No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions
of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of
accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the
transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch.
"5. The provisions of this Article shall apply to waters
adjacent to the canal, within 3 marine miles of either end.
Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such
waters longer than twenty-four hours at any one time, except
in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as
possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not
depart within twenty-four hours from the departure of a vessel
of war of the other belligerent.
"6. The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works
necessary to the construction, maintenance, and operation of
the canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes
of this Treaty, and in time of war, as in time of peace, shall
enjoy complete immunity from attack or injury by belligerents,
and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness as part of
the canal.
"Article IV.
It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of
the international relations of the country or countries
traversed by the before mentioned canal shall affect the
genera principle of neutralization or the obligation of the
High Contracting Parties under the present Treaty.
{467}
"Article V.
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the
United States, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty: and the
ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington or at London at
the earliest possible time within six mouths from the date
hereof."
_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the
United States, transmitted to Congress, December, 1902._
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1902.
Undertaking of the United States endorsed by
the Second Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1903.
Purchase of the Franchises and Property of the Bankrupt
French Company.
Treaty with Colombia for the Building of the Canal rejected
by the Colombian Senate.
Secession of Panama.
Recognition of the Independence of Panama.
Treaty with the new Republic for the Building and
Control of the Canal.
President Roosevelt’s narrative of events.
The transactions that were preliminary to the undertaking of
the construction of an interoceanic canal through the Isthmus
of Panama, by the Government of the United States, are
narrated down to March, 1901.
See (in Volume VI. of this work)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC.
At that time the proposed Nicaragua route was principally
contemplated, for the reason that the rights in Panama held by
the bankrupt French Company of Lesseps (see, in Volume IV.,
PANAMA CANAL) seemed unobtainable, on any terms which the
American Government could accept. A commission appointed by
President McKinley to investigate the situation had reported
to that effect in November, 1900, and had recommended the
building of a canal on the Nicaragua route. The effect of this
report, and of the manifest disposition of the American
Congress to authorize the building of a Nicaragua ship canal,
was to draw from the French company an offer of its Panama
franchises and entire property for the sum of $40,000,000.
After long debate this offer was accepted, and negotiations
were opened with the Republic of Colombia for the necessary
treaty rights. Meantime the Hay-Pauncefote treaty with Great
Britain, which the American Senate had amended in a manner
objectionable to the British Government, was modified to the
satisfaction of the latter, and the enterprise was cleared of
questions except those between Colombia and the United States.
The next ensuing events can be told in the words of President
Roosevelt’s report of them to Congress, in his Message at the
opening of the session convened on the 7th of December, 1903:
"By the act of June 28, 1902," wrote the President, "the
Congress authorized the President to enter into treaty with
Colombia for the building of the canal across the Isthmus of
Panama; it being provided that in the event of failure to
secure such treaty, after the lapse of a reasonable time,
recourse should be had to the building of a canal through
Nicaragua. It has not been necessary to consider this
alternative, as I am enabled to lay before the Senate a treaty
providing for the building of the canal across the Isthmus of
Panama. This was the route which commended itself to the
deliberate judgment of the Congress, and we can now acquire by
Treaty the right to construct the canal over this route. The
question now, therefore, is not by which route the isthmian
canal shall be built, for that question has been definitely
and irrevocably decided. The question is simply whether or not
we shall have an isthmian canal.
"When the Congress directed that we should take the Panama
route under treaty with Colombia, the essence of the
condition, of course, referred not to the Government which
controlled that route, but to the route itself; to the
territory across which the route lay, not to the name which
for the moment the territory bore on the map. The purpose of
the law was to authorize the President to make a treaty with
the power in actual control of the Isthmus of Panama. This
purpose has been fulfilled.
"In the year 1846 this Government entered into a treaty with
New Granada, the predecessor upon the Isthmus of the Republic
of Colombia and of the present Republic of Panama, by which
treaty it was provided that the Government and citizens of the
United States should always have free and open right of way or
transit across the Isthmus of Panama by any modes of
communication that might be constructed, while in return our
Government guaranteed the perfect neutrality of the
above-mentioned Isthmus with the view that the free transit
from the one to the other sea might not be interrupted or
embarrassed. The treaty vested in the United States a
substantial property right carved out of the rights of
sovereignty and property which New Granada then had and
possessed over the said territory. The name of New Granada has
passed away and its territory has been divided. Its successor,
the Government of Colombia, has ceased to own any property in
the Isthmus. A new Republic, that of Panama, which was at one
time a sovereign state, and at another time a mere department
of the successive confederations known as New Granada and
Colombia, has now succeeded to the rights which first one and
then the other formerly exercised over the Isthmus. But as
long as the Isthmus endures, the mere geographical fact of its
existence, and the peculiar interest therein which is required
by our position, perpetuate the solemn contract which binds
the holders of the territory to respect our right to freedom
of transit across it, and binds us in return to safeguard for
the Isthmus and the world the exercise of that inestimable
privilege. The true interpretation of the obligations upon
which the United States entered in this treaty of 1846 has
been given repeatedly in the utterances of Presidents and
Secretaries of State. …
"Attorney-General Speed, under date of November 7, 1865,
advised Secretary Seward as follows: ‘From this treaty it can
not be supposed that New Granada invited the United States
to become a party to the intestine troubles of that
Government, nor did the United States become bound to take
sides in the domestic broils of New Granada. The United States
did guarantee New Granada in the sovereignty and property over
the territory. This was as against other and foreign
governments.’
{468}
"For four hundred years, ever since shortly after the
discovery of this hemisphere, the canal across the Isthmus has
been planned. For two score years it has been worked at. When
made it is to last for the ages. It is to alter the geography
of a continent and the trade routes of the world. We have
shown by every treaty we have negotiated or attempted to
negotiate with the peoples in control of the Isthmus and with
foreign nations in reference thereto our consistent good faith
in observing our obligations; on the one hand to the peoples
of the Isthmus, and on the other hand to the civilized world
whose commercial rights we are safeguarding and guaranteeing
by our action. We have done our duty to others in letter and
in spirit, and we have shown the utmost forbearance in
exacting our own rights.
"Last spring, under the act above referred to, a treaty
concluded between the representatives of the Republic of
Colombia and of our Government was ratified by the Senate.
This treaty was entered into at the urgent solicitation of the
people of Colombia and after a body of experts appointed by
our Government especially to go into the matter of the routes
across the Isthmus had pronounced unanimously in favor of the
Panama route. In drawing up this treaty every concession was
made to the people and to the Government of Colombia. We were
more than just in dealing with them. Our generosity was such
as to make it a serious question whether we had not gone too
far in their interest at the expense of our own; for in our
scrupulous desire to pay all possible heed, not merely to the
real but even to the fancied rights of our weaker neighbor,
who already owed so much to our protection and forbearance, we
yielded in all possible ways to her desires in drawing up the
treaty. Nevertheless the Government of Colombia not merely
repudiated the treaty, but repudiated it in such a manner as
to make it evident by the time the Colombian Congress
adjourned that not the scantiest hope remained of ever getting
a satisfactory treaty from them. The Government of Colombia
made the treaty, and yet when the Colombian Congress was
called to ratify it the vote against ratification was
unanimous. It does not appear that the Government made any
real effort to secure ratification.
"Immediately after the adjournment of the Congress a
revolution broke out in Panama. The people of Panama had long
been discontented with the Republic of Colombia, and they had
been kept quiet only by the prospect of the conclusion of the
treaty, which was to them a matter of vital concern. When it
became evident that the treaty was hopelessly lost, the people
of Panama rose literally as one man. Not a shot was fired by a
single man on the Isthmus in the interest of the Colombian
Government. Not a life was lost in the accomplishment of the
revolution. The Colombian troops stationed on the Isthmus, who
had long been unpaid, made common cause with the people of
Panama, and with astonishing unanimity the new Republic was
started. The duty of the United States in the premises was
clear. In strict accordance with the principles laid down by
Secretaries Cass and Seward … the United States gave notice
that it would permit the landing of no expeditionary force,
the arrival of which would mean chaos and destruction along
the line of the railroad and of the proposed canal, and an
interruption of transit as an inevitable consequence. The de
facto Government of Panama was recognized in the following
telegram to Mr. Ehrman:
"‘The people of Panama have, by apparently unanimous movement,
dissolved their political connection with the Republic of
Colombia and resumed their independence. When you are
satisfied that a de facto government, republican in form and
without substantial opposition from its own people, has been
established in the State of Panama, you will enter into
relations with it as the responsible government of the
territory and look to it for all due action to protect the
persons and property of citizens of the United States and to
keep open the isthmian transit, in accordance with the
obligations of existing treaties governing the relations of
the United States to that territory.’
"The Government of Colombia was notified of our action by the
following telegram to Mr. Beaupré:
"‘The people of Panama having, by an apparently unanimous
movement, dissolved their political connection with the
Republic of Colombia and resumed their independence, and
having adopted a Government of their own, republican in form,
with which the Government of the United States of America has
entered into relations, the President of the United States, in
accordance with the ties of friendship which have so long and
so happily existed between the respective nations, most
earnestly commends to the Governments of Colombia and of
Panama the peaceful and equitable settlement of all questions
at issue between them. He holds that he is bound not merely by
treaty obligations, but by the interests of civilization, to
see that the peaceful traffic of the world across the Isthmus
of Panama shall not longer be disturbed by a constant
succession of unnecessary and wasteful civil wars.’
"When these events happened, fifty-seven years had elapsed
since the United States had entered into its treaty with New
Granada. During that time the Governments of New Granada and
of its successor, Colombia, have been in a constant state of
flux.
[The President then gives a list, by date, of 53 more or less
serious disturbances of the public peace on the Isthmus which
United States consuls had reported to the Government at
Washington between May, 1850, and July, 1902. From this he
proceeds:]
"The above is only a partial list of the revolutions,
rebellions, insurrections, riots, and other outbreaks that
have occurred during the period in question; yet they number
53 for the 57 years. It will be noted that one of them lasted
for nearly three years before it was quelled; another for
nearly a year. In short, the experience of over half a century
has shown Colombia to be utterly incapable of keeping order on
the Isthmus. Only the active interference of the United States
has enabled her to preserve so much as a semblance of
sovereignty. Had it not been for the exercise by the United
States of the police power in her interest, her connection
with the Isthmus would have been sundered long ago. In 1856,
in 1860, in 1873, in 1885, in 1901, and again in 1902, sailors
and marines from United States war-ships were forced to land
in order to patrol the Isthmus, to protect life and property,
and to see that the transit across the Isthmus was kept open.
In 1861, in 1862, in 1885, and in 1900, the Colombian
Government asked that the United States Government would land
troops to protect its interests and maintain order on the
Isthmus. …
{469}
"The control, in the interest of the commerce and traffic of
the whole civilized world, of the means of undisturbed transit
across the Isthmus of Panama has become of transcendent
importance to the United States. We have repeatedly exercised
this control by intervening in the course of domestic
dissension, and by protecting the territory from foreign
invasion. In 1853 Mr. Everett assured the Peruvian minister
that we should not hesitate to maintain the neutrality of the
Isthmus in the case of war between Peru and Colombia. In 1864
Colombia, which has always been vigilant to avail itself of
its privileges conferred by the treaty, expressed its
expectation that in the event of war between Peru and Spain
the United States would carry into effect the guaranty of
neutrality. There have been few administrations of the State
Department in which this treaty has not, either by the one
side or the other, been used as a basis of more or less
important demands. It was said by Mr. Fish in 1871 that the
Department of State had reason to believe that an attack upon
Colombian sovereignty on the Isthmus had, on several
occasions, been averted by warning from this Government. In
1886, when Colombia was under the menace of hostilities from
Italy in the Cerruti case, Mr. Bayard expressed the serious
concern that the United States could not but feel, that a
European power should resort to force against a sister
republic of this hemisphere, as to the sovereign and
uninterrupted use of a part of whose territory we are
guarantors under the solemn faith of a treaty.
"The above recital of facts establishes beyond question:
First, that the United States has for over half a century
patiently and in good faith carried out its obligations under
the treaty of 1846; second, that when for the first time it
became possible for Colombia to do anything in requital of the
services thus repeatedly rendered to it for fifty-seven years
by the United States, the Colombian Government peremptorily
and offensively refused thus to do its part, even though to do
so would have been to its advantage and immeasurably to the
advantage of the State of Panama, at that time under its
jurisdiction; third, that throughout this period revolutions,
riots, and factional disturbances of every kind have occurred
one after the other in almost uninterrupted succession, some
of them lasting for months and even for years, while the
central government was unable to put them down or to make
peace with the rebels; fourth, that these disturbances instead
of showing any sign of abating have tended to grow more
numerous and more serious in the immediate past; fifth, that
the control of Colombia over the Isthmus of Panama could not
be maintained without the armed intervention and assistance of
the United States. In other words, the Government of Colombia,
though wholly unable to maintain order on the Isthmus, has
nevertheless declined to ratify a treaty the conclusion of
which opened the only chance to secure its own stability and
to guarantee permanent peace on, and the construction of a
canal across the Isthmus.
"Under such circumstances the Government of the United States
would have been guilty of folly and weakness, amounting in
their sum to a crime against the Nation, had it acted
otherwise than it did when the revolution of November 3 last
took place in Panama. This great enterprise of building the
interoceanic canal can not be held up to gratify the whims, or
out of respect to the governmental impotence, or to the even
more sinister and evil political peculiarities, of people who,
though they dwell afar off, yet, against the wish of the
actual dwellers on the Isthmus, assert an unreal supremacy
over the territory. The possession of a territory fraught with
such peculiar capacities as the Isthmus in question carries
with it obligations to mankind. The course of events has shown
that this canal can not be built by private enterprise, or by
any other nation than our own; therefore it must be built by
the United States.
"Every effort has been made by the Government of the United
States to persuade Colombia to follow a course which was
essentially not only to our interests and to the interests of
the world, but to the interests of Colombia itself. These
efforts have failed; and Colombia, by her persistence in
repulsing the advances that have been made, has forced us, for
the sake of our own honor, and of the interest and well-being,
not merely of our own people, but of the people of the Isthmus
of Panama and the people of the civilized countries of the
world, to take decisive steps to bring to an end a condition
of affairs which had become intolerable. The new Republic of
Panama immediately offered to negotiate a treaty with us. This
treaty I herewith submit. By it our interests are better
safeguarded than in the treaty with Colombia which was
ratified by the Senate at its last session. It is better in
its terms than the treaties offered to us by the Republics of
Nicaragua and Costa Rica. At last the right to begin this
great undertaking is made available. Panama has done her part.
All that remains is for the American Congress to do its part
and forthwith this Republic will enter upon the execution of a
project colossal in its size and of well-nigh incalculable
possibilities for the good of this country and the nations of
mankind.
"By the provisions of the treaty the United States guarantees
and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.
There is granted to the United States in perpetuity the use,
occupation, and control of a strip ten miles wide and
extending three nautical miles into the sea at either
terminal, with all lands lying outside of the zone necessary
for the construction of the canal or for its auxiliary works,
and with the islands in the Bay of Panama. The cities of
Panama and Colon are not embraced in the canal zone, but the
United States assumes their sanitation and, in case of need,
the maintenance of order therein; the United States enjoys
within the granted limits all the rights, power, and authority
which it would possess were it the sovereign of the territory
to the exclusion of the exercise of sovereign rights by the
Republic. All railway and canal property rights belonging to
Panama and needed for the canal pass to the United States,
including any property of the respective companies in the
cities of Panama and Colon; the works, property, and personnel
of the canal and railways are exempted from taxation as well
in the cities of Panama and Colon as in the canal zone and its
dependencies. Free immigration of the personnel and
importation of supplies for the construction and operation of
the canal are granted. Provision is made for the use of
military force and the building of fortifications by the
United States for the protection of the transit.
{470}
In other details, particularly as to the acquisition of the
interests of the New Panama Canal Company and the Panama
Railway by the United States and the condemnation of private
property for the uses of the canal, the stipulations of the
Hay-Herran treaty are closely followed, while the compensation
to be given for these enlarged grants remains the same, being
ten millions of dollars payable on exchange of ratifications;
and, beginning nine years from that date, an annual payment of
$250,000 during the life of the convention."
_President's Message,
December 7, 1903._
The text of the Treaty with Panama may be found in the Volume
of "Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United
States" for 1904, pp. 543-551.
In the view of a good many critics who are not of a captious
disposition, the conduct of the Government of the United
States in these transactions was not as unquestionable as it
appeared to President Roosevelt. Professor Coolidge, of
Harvard University, in his candid and broadly studied work on
"The United States as a World Power" (prepared originally in
the form of lectures delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris),
remarks that "to forbid the landing of Colombian troops was to
stretch the meaning of the old American right to maintain
order along the line of the railway to an extent hardly
justifiable in dealing with a friendly nation, and the haste
with which the administration at Washington recognized the
independence of the new republic and concluded a treaty with
it appeared to many people indecent. The truth was the
Americans did not feel that they were dealing with a friendly
nation."
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1904-1905.
Beginning and Organization of the Work of Construction.
"The treaty between the United States and the Republic of
Panama, under which the construction of the Panama Canal was
made possible, went into effect with its ratification by the
United States Senate on February 23, 1904. The canal
properties of the French Canal Company were transferred to the
United States on April 23, 1904, on payment of $40,000,000 to
that company. On April 1, 1905, the Commission was
reorganized, and it now consists of Theodore P. Shonts,
chairman, Charles E. Magoon, Benjamin M. Harrod, Rear-Admiral
Mordecai T. Endicott, Brigadier General Peter C. Hains, and
Colonel Oswald H. Ernst. John F. Stevens was appointed chief
engineer on July 1 last. Active work in canal construction,
mainly preparatory, has been in progress for less than a year
and a half. During that period two points about the canal have
ceased to be open to debate. First, the question of route; the
canal will be built on the Isthmus of Panama. Second, the
question of feasibility; there are no physical obstacles on
this route that American engineering skill will not be able to
overcome without serious difficulty, or that will prevent the
completion of the canal within a reasonable time and at a
reasonable cost. This is virtually the unanimous testimony of
the engineers who have investigated the matter for the
Government. The point which remains unsettled is the question
of type, whether the canal shall be one of several locks above
sea level, or at sea level with a single tide lock. On this
point I hope to lay before the Congress at an early day the
findings of the Advisory Board of American and European
Engineers, that at my invitation have been considering the
subject, together with the report of the Commission thereon;
and such comments thereon or recommendations in reference
thereto as may seem necessary.
"The American people is pledged to the speediest possible
construction of a canal, adequate to meet the demands which
the commerce of the world will make upon it, and I appeal most
earnestly to the Congress to aid in the fulfillment of the
pledge. Gratifying progress has been made during the past year
and especially during the past four months. The greater part
of the necessary preliminary work has been done. Actual work
of excavation could be begun only on a limited scale till the
Canal Zone was made a healthful place to live in and to work
in. The isthmus had to be sanitated first.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: PANAMA CANAL.
This task has been so thoroughly accomplished that yellow
fever has been virtually extirpated from the Isthmus and
general health conditions vastly improved. The same methods
which converted the island of Cuba from a pest hole, which
menaced the health of the world, into a healthful place of
abode, have been applied on the Isthmus with satisfactory
results. There is no reason to doubt that when the plans for
water supply, paving, and sewerage of Panama and Colon and the
large labor camps have been fully carried out, the Isthmus
will be, for the Tropics, an unusually healthy place of abode.
The work is so far advanced now that the health of all those
employed in canal work is as well guarded as it is on similar
work in this country and elsewhere.
"In addition to sanitating the Isthmus, satisfactory quarters
are being provided for employees and an adequate system of
supplying them with wholesome food at reasonable prices has
been created. Hospitals have been established and equipped
that are without superiors of their kind anywhere. The country
has thus been made fit to work in, and provision has been made
for the welfare and comfort of those who are to do the work.
During the past year a large portion of the plant with which
the work is to be done has been ordered. It is confidently
believed that by the middle of the approaching year a
sufficient proportion of this plant will have been installed
to enable us to resume the work of excavation on a large
scale."
_President's Message to Congress,
December 5, 1905._
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
Prosecution and progress of the work.
Mr. John L. Stevens was in charge of the work on the Canal, as
Chief Engineer, until April 1, 1907, when he resigned, and it
was then determined by the Government to place it under the
direction of an army engineer. The officer chosen for the
service was Lieutenant-Colonel George W. Goethals, of the
Engineer Corps, with Major Gaillard and Major Siebert as
assistant engineers, and this arrangement has been justified
amply by results. At the same time a final determination was
arrived at, against the placing of any part of the work under
contract; and this, too, has been approved by experience in
the undertaking since. Shortly before the occurrence of these
changes Mr. Shonts had resigned the chairmanship of the Canal
Commission, to take the presidency of the Interborough Co. of
New York, and Colonel Goethals became Chairman of the
Commission as well as Chief Engineer.
{471}
In June, 1906, the original design of a sea-level canal
throughout, with no locks, was dropped, after much
consideration and under weighty engineering advice. As
described very tersely and clearly by an English writer on the
subject, the new plan for locks is worked out as follows:
"Beginning at deep water in Limon Bay, on the Caribbean coast,
there will be a tide-water channel 500 ft. wide and 6.70 miles
long to Gatun. At Gatun there will be the vast dam, the ascent
of which will be effected by means of two flights of locks. In
each flight there will be three locks, each 1,000 ft. long,
110 ft. wide, and 41.3 ft. deep on the sills. These will give
access to a lake formed by the impounded waters of the Chagres
river, with a surface level 85 ft. above mean tide level.
Through this lake will extend a channel from 500 ft. to 1,000
ft. wide for 23.59 miles to Bas Obispo, the entrance to the
Culebra cut. Thence through that cut there will be a channel
300 ft. wide for 8.11 miles to Pedro Miguel, the surface level
being the same as that of the lake. At Pedro Miguel there will
be a dam with twin locks, side by side, by which descent of 30
ft. will be made to a smaller lake 55 ft. above tide-water.
This lake, only 0.97 of a mile long, will be traversed by a
channel 500 ft. wide to Miraflores, where there will be
another dam, with twin flights of locks, two locks in each
flight, bringing the canal down to tide level; and from
Miraflores a channel 500 ft. wide will extend 8.31 miles to
deep water in the Bay of Panama. The channel will nowhere,
save on the lock sills, be less than 45 ft. deep, and the
locks at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores will be of the same
dimensions as those at Gatun."
This altered plan received much persistent criticism,—so
persistent that, in January, 1909, after the election of Mr.
Taft to the Presidency of the United States, but before his
assumption of the office, the President-elect, who, as
Secretary of War, had been the responsible administrator of
the undertaking, went to the Isthmus with a selected committee
of engineers, who were asked to examine and report on the
plans and methods of the work. Their reports, made in
February, endorsed both. In communicating them to Congress the
President characterized them as showing that "the only
criticism that can be made of the work on the isthmus is that
there has sometimes been almost an excess of caution in
providing against possible trouble. As to the Gatun dam
itself, they show that not only is the dam safe, but on the
whole the plan already adopted would make it needlessly high
and strong, and accordingly they recommend that the height be
reduced by twenty feet, which change in the plans I have
accordingly directed." Of the engineers who made the report he
remarked that they "are of all the men in their profession,
within or without the United States, the men who are on the
whole best qualified to pass on these very questions which
they examined." The membership of the committee or board was
as follows: Frederic P. Stearns, James D. Schuyler, Arthur P.
Davis, Isham Randolph, Henry D. Allen, John R. Freeman, and
Allen Hazen.
The engineers reported that "as the Gatun earth dam was the
central point of discussion, they gave it under instructions
from Mr. Taft first consideration in the light of all new
evidences," and they added "that the type of dam under
consideration is one which meets with our unanimous approval."
Dams and locks, lock gates and all other engineering
structures involved in the lock-canal project, are "feasible
and safe," according to the engineers, "and can be depended
upon to perform with certainty their respective functions."
Considering the cost and time of construction of a sea-level
canal as compared with the lock type, they held that "most of
the factors which have operated to increase the cost of the
lock canal would operate with similar effect to increase the
cost of the sea-level canal, and at the present time there are
additional factors of even greater importance to be considered
as affecting the time of completion and cost of a sea-level
canal." One of these they found in the Gamboa dam. If work on
this were to be started as soon as possible, they asserted it
"could not be completed until after the time required for the
completion of the lock-canal." Further than this, they said
that "a change in the type would result in abandoning work
which represents large expenditure." They claimed that by the
change the river Chagres and the rivers on the Isthmus
tributary thereto, "instead of being allies, would be enemies
of the canal, and floods in them would greatly interfere with
the work."
Replying to the criticism that "the canal region is liable to
earthquake shocks, and that a sea-level canal would be less
subject to injury by earthquakes than a lock canal," they
asserted that "dams and locks are structures of great
stability and little subject to damage by earthquake shocks,"
but that even if they could regard earthquakes as a source of
serious damage to any type of canal on the Isthmus, "their
effect upon the dams, locks and regulating works proposed for
the sea-level canal would be much the same as upon similar
structures of the lock canal."
Finally, they said: " We see no reason why the canal should
not be completed, as estimated by the chief engineer, by
January 1, 1915; in fact, it seems that a somewhat earlier
date is probable, if all goes well."
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1909.
Prohibition in the Canal Zone.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: CASUAL OCCURRENCES OF SALOON SUPPRESSION.
PAN-AMERICAN EXPOSITION.
See (in this Volume)
BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.
PAN-AMERICAN RAILWAY:
Resolution of Third International Conference
of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
PANICS, Monetary, of 1903 and 1907.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.
PAN ISLAMISM.
See (in this Volume)
SENUSSIA; also _Egypt_: A. D. 1905-1906.
PANKHURST, MRS. EMELINE.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
PANLUNG, THE CAPTURE OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
PAN-LUN-SHAN REDOUBT, CAPTURE OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
{472}
----------PAPACY: Start--------
PAPACY: A. D. 1902.
Secession of the Independent Filipino Church.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.
PAPACY: A. D. 1903 (July-August).
Death of Pope Leo XIII.
Election of Pius X.
The Papal seat became vacant by the death of Pope Leo XIII. on
the 20th of July, 1903. The Conclave of Cardinals for the
election of his successor assembled on the 31st of the month,
and its choice of Cardinal Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, was
made known on August 3d. The new Pope assumed the name of Pius
X.
PAPACY: A. D. 1904.
Papal Prohibition of Civil Interference with
the Election of the Roman Pontiff.
The Civil Veto, in all forms, denounced.
In the first year of his pontificate, on the 20th of January,
1904, Pope Pius X. pronounced the following denunciation and
prohibition of every kind of intrusion of civil authority or
influence in the election of a Roman pontiff: "When first, all
unworthy as we are, we ascended this chair of Peter, we deemed
it a most urgent duty of our apostolic office to provide that
the life of the Church should manifest itself with absolute
freedom, by the removal of all extraneous interference, as her
divine Founder willed that it should manifest itself, and as
her lofty mission imperatively requires.
"Now if there is one function above all others in the life of
the Church which demands this liberty it is certainly that
which is concerned with the election of the Roman pontiff;
_for when the head is in question, the health not of one
member alone but of the whole body is involved_ (Gregory
XV. Constit. Aeterni Patris in proem).
"To this full liberty in the election of the Supreme Pastor is
opposed first of all that civil _Veto_ which has been
more than once brought forward by the rulers of some states,
and by which it is sought to exclude somebody from the supreme
pontificate. If this has happened sometimes, it has never been
approved by the apostolic see. On the contrary the Roman
pontiffs, in their enactments on the conclave, have been in
nothing perhaps more emphatic or more earnest than in their
efforts to exclude the interference of all extraneous powers
from the sacred senate of the Cardinals summoned to elect the
pontiff. …
"But, and experience has shown it, the measures hitherto taken
for preventing the civil _Veto_, or _Exclusive_,
have not served their purpose, and on account of the changed
circumstances of the times the intrusion of the civil power in
our day is more clearly than ever before destitute of all
foundation in reason or equity, therefore we, by virtue of the
apostolic charge entrusted to us, and following in the
footsteps of our predecessors, after having maturely
deliberated, with certain knowledge and by our own motion, do
absolutely condemn the civil _Veto_, or _Exclusive_
as it is also called, even when expressed under the form of a
mere desire, and all interventions and intercessions
whatsoever, decreeing that it is not lawful for anybody, not
even the supreme rulers of states, under any pretext, to
interpose or interfere in the grave matter of the election of
the Roman pontiff.
"Wherefore, in virtue of holy obedience, under threat of
divine judgment and pain of excommunication _latae
sententiae_ reserved in a special manner to the future
pontiff, we prohibit all and single the Cardinals of holy
Roman Church, and likewise the secretary of the Sacred College
of Cardinals and all others who take part in the conclave to
receive, even under the form of a simple desire, the office of
proposing the _Veto_ or _Exclusive_, or to make
known this _Veto_ in whatever manner it may have come to
their knowledge, to the Sacred College of Cardinals either
taken as a whole or to the individual fathers Cardinals,
either by writing, by word of mouth, whether directly and
proximately, or indirectly and through others. And it is our
will that this prohibition be extended to all the
interventions above mentioned, and to all other intercessions
whatsoever, by which the lay powers, of whatsoever grade and
order, endeavor to intrude themselves in the election of the
pontiff.
"Finally we vehemently exhort, in the same words as those used
by our predecessors, that in the election of the pontiff,
_they pay no attention whatever to the appeals of secular
princes or other worldly considerations_ … but solely with
the glory of God and the good of the Church before their eyes,
give their votes to him whom they judge in the Lord better
fitted than the others to rule the Universal Church fruitfully
and usefully. It is our will also that these our letters,
together with the other constitutions of the same kind, be
read in the presence of all in the first of the congregations
wont to be held after the death of the pontiff; again after
entrance into the conclave; also when anybody is raised to the
dignity of the purple, with the addition of an oath binding to
the religious observance of what is decreed in the present
constitution."
PAPACY: A. D. 1904.
Amenities between the Vatican and the Quirinal.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1904.
PAPACY: A. D. 1904.
Increased Participation of Catholics in the Italian Elections.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1904 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
PAPACY: A. D. 1905.
Relaxation of the Withdrawal of Italian Catholics from
Political Action.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906 .
PAPACY: A. D. 1905-1906.
The Separation of Church and State in France.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906.
Anti-Clerical Movement in Spain.
Proposed Associations Law.
See (in this Volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1905-1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February).
Encyclical "Vehementer Nos," to the Prelates, Clergy, and
People of France, concerning the Separation Law.
The following are passages from the Encyclical known, from its
opening words in the Latin text as "Vehementer Nos," which
Pope Pius X. addressed to the French nation on the 19th of
February, 1906, after the adoption of the Law separating the
Church from the State:
"To the Archbishops, Bishops, Clergy and People of France. …
Venerable Brethren, Well-Beloved Sons, Health and Apostolic
Benediction.
{473}
"Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and our heart
overflows with grief when our thoughts dwell upon you. How,
indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the
promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old
ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates
for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her
and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of
the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all
right-minded men, for it is as disastrous to society as it is
to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised
nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy
followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren,
it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses
as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to
time at religion by the public authority. You have seen the
sanctity and inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by
legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the
schools and hospitals laicised; clerics torn from their
studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to
military service; the religious congregations dispersed and
despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the
last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all
know have followed—the law ordaining public prayers at the
beginning of each Parliamentary session and of the assizes has
been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed
on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious
character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and
emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion
banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy,
and, in a word, from all public establishments. These measures
and others still which, one after another, really separated
the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly
made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the
authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.
"On the other hand, the Holy See has spared absolutely no
means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in
warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and
in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the
immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their
separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France
the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It had then
reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those
politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last
to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain—the
attentions, good offices and efforts of our predecessor and
ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in
effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance
of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all
who think rightly. …
"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis
absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on
the principle that the State must not recognize any religious
cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to
God; for the Creator of man is also the founder of human
societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our
own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a
public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, it is an
obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the
action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during
this life only, which is but the proximate object of political
societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea
that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object, which
is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have
run its course. …
"When the State broke the bonds of the Concordat and separated
itself from the Church it ought, as a natural consequence, to
have left her her independence and allowed her to enjoy
peacefully that liberty granted by the common law which it
pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done.
We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously
restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the
Church under the domination of the civil power. …
"With the existence of the association of worship, the Law of
Separation hinders the pastors from exercising the plenitude
of their authority and of their office over the faithful, when
it attributes to the Council of State supreme jurisdiction
over these associations and submits them to a whole series of
prescriptions not contained in common law, rendering their
formation difficult and their continued existence more
difficult still; when, after proclaiming the liberty of public
worship, it proceeds to restrict its exercise by numerous
exceptions; when it despoils the Church of the internal
regulation of the churches in order to invest the State with
this function; when it thwarts the preaching of Catholic faith
and morals and sets up a severe and exceptional penal code for
clerics—when it sanctions all these provisions and many others
of the same kind in which wide scope is left to arbitrary
ruling, does it not place the Church in a position of
humiliating subjection and, under the pretext of protecting
public order, deprive peaceable citizens, who still constitute
the vast majority in France, of the sacred right of practising
their religion? …
"In addition to the wrongs and injuries to which we have so
far referred, the Law of Separation also violates and tramples
under foot the rights of property of the Church. In defiance
of all justice, it despoils the Church of a great portion of a
patrimony which belongs to her by titles as numerous as they
are sacred; it suppresses and annuls all the pious foundations
consecrated, with perfect legality, to divine worship and to
suffrages for the dead. The resources furnished by Catholic
liberality for the maintenance of Catholic schools, and the
working of various charitable associations connected with
religion, have been transferred to lay associations in which
it would be idle to seek for a vestige of religion. In this it
violates not only the rights of the Church, but the formal and
explicit purpose of the donors and testators. It is also a
subject of keen grief to us that the law, in contempt of all
right, proclaims as property of the State, departments or
communes, the ecclesiastical edifices dating from before the
Concordat. True, the law concedes the gratuitous use of them
for an indefinite period, to the associations of worship, but
it surrounds the concession with so many and so serious
reserves that in reality it leaves to the public powers the
full disposition of them. Moreover, we entertain the gravest
fears for the sanctity of those temples, the august refuges of
the Divine Majesty and endeared by a thousand memories to the
piety of the French people. …
{474}
"Hence, mindful of our Apostolic charge and conscious of the
imperious duty incumbent upon us of defending and preserving
against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the
sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, we do, by virtue
of the supreme authority which God has confided to us, and on
the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted
in France for the separation of Church and State as deeply
unjust to God, whom it denies, and as laying down the
principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and
condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations,
and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine
constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her
liberty; as destroying justice and trampling under foot the
rights of property which the Church has acquired by many
titles, and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We
reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of
this Apostolic See, to our own person, to the Episcopacy and
to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, we
protest solemnly and with all our strength against the
introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law,
declaring that it can never be alleged against the
imprescriptible rights of the Church."
_Pope Pius X.,
Encyclical Letter
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1906)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1906.
Commands forbidding French Catholics to conform to the
Separation Law or the Associations Law.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906.
Pacific Relations between State and Church in Mexico.
See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1906.
PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (March).
Declaration of the new French Ministry on
the Church Separation Law.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (JANUARY-MARCH).
PAPACY: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State in France.
Further Measures and Proceedings.
The Encyclical Gravissimo.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
PAPACY: A. D. 1907.
Effects of the Separation Law in France.
The Catholics lose all Legal Organization.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
PAPACY: A. D. 1907 (September).
Mandates of the Encyclical on Modernism.
The following passages contain the essential mandates of the
Encyclical on Modernism, issued on the 8th of September, 1907:
"The office divinely committed to us of feeding the Lord’s
flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ,
namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of
the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane
novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so
called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of
the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body;
for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race,
there have never been lacking ‘men speaking perverse things’
(Acts xx., 30), ‘vain talkers and seducers’ (Tit. i., 10),
‘erring and driving into error’ (II. Tim. iii., 13). Still, it
must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the
cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly,
who are striving, by arts entirely new and full of subtlety,
to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can,
to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore we may
no longer be silent, lest we should seem to fail in our most
sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser
counsels, we have hitherto shown them should be attributed to
forgetfulness of our office.
"That we may make no delay in this matter is rendered
necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error
are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies;
they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her
very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous the less
conspicuously they appear. We allude, venerable brethren, to
many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far
more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who,
feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of
philosophy and theology, nay, more, thoroughly imbued with the
poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and
lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers, …
not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with
sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.
"Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can
justly be surprised that we number such men among the enemies
of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal
disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is
acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their
conduct. Nor, indeed, will He err in accounting them the most
pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as we
have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation
not from without, but from within; hence the danger is present
almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury
is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of
her. Moreover, they lay the axe not to the branches and
shoots, but to the very root; that is, to the faith and its
deepest fibres. And having struck at this root of immortality,
they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so
that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold
their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further,
none is more skilful, none more astute than they in the
employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the
parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that
they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is
their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind
from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward
with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the
fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that
they lead a life of the greatest activity of assiduous and
ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they
possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality.
Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very
doctrines have given such a bent to their minds that they
disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and, relying
upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of
truth that which is in reality the result of pride and
obstinacy.
{475}
"Once, indeed, we had hopes of recalling them to a better
sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as
our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last
we have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public
reproof. But, you know, venerable brethren, how fruitless has
been our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it
was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a
matter which concerned them alone, we might perhaps have
overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at
stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime,
we must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole
Church in their true colors those men who have assumed this
bad disguise.
"But since the modernists (as they are commonly and rightly
called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present
their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into
one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to
appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in
reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, venerable
brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one
group, and to point out the connection between them, and thus
to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors and to
prescribe remedies for averting the evil. …
"Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open
advance, our predecessor, Leo XIII., of happy memory, worked
strenuously, especially as regards the Bible, both in his
words and his acts. But, as we have seen, the modernists are
not easily deterred by such weapons; with an affectation of
submission and respect they proceeded to twist the words of
the Pontiff to their own sense, and his acts they described as
directed against others than themselves. And the evil has gone
on increasing from day to day. We therefore, venerable
brethren, have determined to adopt at once the most
efficacious measure in our power, and we beg and conjure you
to see to it that in this most grave matter nobody will ever
be able to say that you have been in the slightest degree
wanting in vigilance, zeal or firmness. And what we ask of you
and expect of you we ask and expect also of all other pastors
of souls, of all educators and professors of clerics, and in a
very special way of the superiors of religious institutions.
"I.
In the first place, with regard to studies, we will and ordain
that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred
sciences, it goes without saying that if anything is met with
among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an
excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of
probability, we have no desire whatever to propose it for the
imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. ‘Aeterni
Patris’). And let it be clearly understood above all things
that the scholastic philosophy we prescribe is that which the
Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and we, therefore,
declare that all the ordinances of our predecessor on this
subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be
necessary, we do decree anew and confirm and ordain that they
be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have
been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their
observance, and let this apply also to the superiors of
religious institutions. Further, let professors remember that
they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical
questions, without grave detriment.
"On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is
to be solidly raised. Promote the study of theology, venerable
brethren, by all means in your power, so that your clerics on
leaving the seminaries may admire and love it, and always find
their delight in it. For in the vast and varied abundance of
studies opening before the mind desirous of truth everybody
knows how the old maxim describes theology as so far in front
of all others that every science and art should serve it and
be to it as handmaidens. …
"With regard to profane studies, suffice it to recall here
what our predecessor has admirably said: ‘Apply yourselves
energetically to the study of natural sciences: the brilliant
discoveries and the bold and useful applications of them made
in our times, which have won such applause by our
contemporaries, will be an object of perpetual praise for
those that come after us’ (Leo XIII. Alloc., March 7, 1880).
But this do without interference with sacred studies, as our
predecessor in these most grave words prescribed: ‘If you
carefully search for the cause of these errors, you will find
that it lies in the fact that in these days, when the natural
sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty
studies have been proportionately neglected; some of them have
almost passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a
half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that
they are fallen from their old estate, they have been
disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors (_loco
cit_.). We ordain, therefore, that the study of natural
science in the seminaries be carried on under this law.’
"II.
All these prescriptions and those of our predecessor are to be
borne in mind whenever there is question of choosing directors
and professors for seminaries and Catholic Universities.
Anybody who in any way is found to be imbued with modernism is
to be excluded without compunction from these offices, and
those who already occupy them are to be withdrawn. The same
policy is to be adopted towards those who favor modernism,
either by extolling the modernists, or excusing their culpable
conduct, by criticizing scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by
refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its
depositories; and towards those who show a love of novelty in
history, archaeology, Biblical exegesis, and finally towards
those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer them
to the profane. In all this question of studies, venerable
brethren, you cannot be too watchful or too constant, but most
of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule the students
are modeled after the pattern of their masters. Strong in the
consciousness of your duty, act always prudently, but
vigorously.
"Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and
selecting candidates for holy orders. Far, far from the clergy
be the love of novelty. God hates the proud and the obstinate.
For the future the doctorate of theology and canon law must
never be conferred on anybody who has not made the regular
course of scholastic philosophy, if conferred, it shall be
held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the
Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics,
both secular and regular, of Italy, concerning the frequenting
of the universities, we now decree to be extended to all
nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic institute
or university must not in the future follow in civil
universities those courses for which there are chairs in the
Catholic institutes to which they belong. If this has been
permitted anywhere in the past, we ordain that it be not
allowed for the future. Let the Bishops who form the governing
board of such Catholic institutes or universities watch with
all care that these our commands be constantly observed.
{476}
"III.
It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings
infected with modernism or favorable to it from being read
when they have been published, and to hinder their publication
when they have not. No book or paper or periodical of this
kind must ever be permitted to seminarists or university
students. The injury to them would be equal to that caused by
immoral reading—nay, it would be greater, for such writings
poison Christian life at its very fount. The same decision is
to be taken concerning the writings of some Catholics, who,
though not badly disposed themselves, but ill instructed in
theological studies and imbued with modern philosophy, strive
to make this harmonize with the faith, and, as they say, to
turn it to the account of the faith. The name and reputation
of these authors cause them to be read without suspicion, and
they are, therefore, all the more dangerous in preparing the
way for modernism.
"To give you some more general directions, venerable brethren,
in a matter of such moment, we bid you do everything in your
power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict,
any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. …
"IV.
But it is not enough to hinder the reading and the sale of bad
books: it is also necessary to prevent them from being
printed. Hence, let the Bishops use the utmost severity in
granting permission to print. Under the rules of the
Constitution ‘Officiorum,’ many publications require the
authorization of the ordinary, and in some dioceses it has
been made the custom to have a suitable number of official
censors for the examination of writings. We have the highest
praise for this institution, and we not only exhort, but we
order that it be extended to all dioceses."
_Pope Pius X.,
The Doctrines of the Modernists
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, October, 1907)._
See (in this Volume)
TYRREL, FATHER GEORGE.
PAPACY: A. D. 1907-1909.
Revision of St. Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Bible,
known as "the Vulgate."
"In May, 1907, an announcement was made of the Pope's
intention to revise the Latin Bible, and the work has already
made such progress that the time has come to record not only
the main lines upon which the revision is being carried out
but also the actual completion of its preliminary
preparations. … Pius X. … offered the honourable though costly
and arduous task to the learned Order of the Benedictines, by
whom it was accepted. A commission of revision was appointed,
with Abbot Gasquet, the President of the English Benedictines,
as its head, and the International College of the Order at San
Anselmo in Rome was chosen as the headquarters of their work.
It is here that Abbot Gasquet and his fellow-workers have
already made a good start upon the vast labour which their
Order has undertaken.
"The object of the Commission, according to the Pope’s
definite instructions, is to determine and restore as far as
possible the original text of St. Jerome’s Latin translation
made in the fourth century. How far St. Jerome’s translation
represents the Hebrew or Greek is another question which may
be the subject some day for future criticism and another
commission. … Pius X. has made it clear to the Commission that
he desires their work of revision to be conducted on the most
modern and scientific lines, and that neither money nor labour
should be spared to make it as thorough as possible. An
exhaustive search will be made through all the libraries of
Europe in the hope of finding hitherto unrecognized
manuscripts of the Vulgate. Already there are 15 collaborators
at work in different centres, collating the best-known and most
important manuscripts with the Clementine text, while another
commission, with its assistants, is making a thorough
examination of the libraries and cathedral archives of Spain
in search of fresh material. …
"The method of work is as follows. For the purpose of
collation copies of the Clementine text have been printed;
each page being left blank for two-thirds of its surface, the
text being printed on the remaining third with no capital
letters, no stops, no word divided, so as to resemble
manuscript as far as possible. When a reviser wishes to
collate any manuscript he has only to correct this print like
an ordinary proof-sheet and so reproduce every difference of
the manuscript before him.
"The printing of these copies of the Vulgate, which are to
form the basis of the collations, with the preparation of the
texts and correction of proofs—no light matter—has been the
work of the first year. Three hundred and sixty copies have
been printed in all, one hundred upon the best hand-made
paper, two hundred upon ordinary book paper, and sixty upon
thin paper for the purpose of postage abroad. The Pope himself
has defrayed the rather heavy cost of this production. Besides
the printing of this Bible considerable progress has been made
during the past year with the preparation of a hand list of
all the Latin Biblical MSS. in the libraries of Europe, which,
when completed, will be of great use to the revisers. As the
collators finish their work in the various libraries or
archives where Biblical manuscripts are found, they send their
annotated copies to San Anselmo, where they are bound up and
added to a collection which, when complete, will form a vast
library of all the different versions of the Bible. Seven
important collations have already been made, and at the
present rate of work the number of these Volumes will increase
very rapidly."
_Rome Correspondence of the London Times,
July 21, 1909._
PAPACY: A. D. 1908.
The new Apostolic Constitution of the Curia.
A change of far-reaching and great importance in the
ecclesiastical constitution of the Roman Church was decreed by
Pope Pius X. this year, by the promulgation of a new Apostolic
Constitution of the Curia. It reorganized the numerous
Congregations or departments of the Vatican Government which
had exercised the judicial functions of the Curia for some
generations past. The Pope now restores these functions to an
ancient ecclesiastical court, the Rota, which had fallen out
of use. The Rota is constituted as an international court,
before which questions between priest and bishop, bishop and
diocese, and the like, will have their hearing, and from which
there is appeal to a tribunal of last resort, the Segnatura,
composed of Cardinals alone.
{477}