Interstate Commerce Commission shall have reasonable ground
for belief that any common carrier is engaged in the carriage
of passenger or freight traffic between given points at less
than the published rates on file, _or is committing any
discriminations forbidden by law_’ (our italics), it may
petition any circuit judge for the issuance of an injunction
summarily prohibiting the practice. Such a remedy would seem
to be prompt, efficient, and adequate. It is the basis of the
universal railway testimony that no further legislation on the
subject is needed, but that the Interstate Commerce Commission
should quit talking and get down to business. …
"That the Elkins law adds nothing to the original statute of
1887 is indisputable. It deals with means, not ends. It
provides motive power, but not intelligent direction, for the
wheels of justice. The law remains absolutely unchanged in its
definition of rights and wrongs."
_W. Z. Ripley,
President Roosevelt’s Railway Policy
(Atlantic Monthly, September, 1905)._
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1905.
International Railway Congress.
The International Railway Congress had its meeting of 1905 at
Washington, on the invitation of the American Railroad
Association. Between three and four hundred American railroad
men were in attendance during the Congress, which lasted from
May 4 to May 13. The delegates from oversea numbered three
hundred and twenty, and included representatives from every
country in the world. Germany, for the first time, was
adequately represented in the Congress; while at no previous
Congress were there so many delegates from Great Britain and
from British colonies.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1906.
Reconstruction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
See (in this Volume)
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1906-1909.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on
the Constitutionality of the "Commodities Clause" of
the Hepburn Act.
The Railroad Monopoly of the Anthracite Coal Trade.
The Act of 1906 (known commonly as the Hepburn Act) which
amended the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (see above, under
date of 1870-1908), contains an important provision which was
specially intended to dissolve the monopolistic combination by
which a group of railroads operating in Pennsylvania have
established control of the mining and marketing, as well as
the transportation of anthracite coal. This was inserted in
the Act on motion of Senator Elkins and is sometimes referred
to as the "Elkins Clause," sometimes as the "Commodities
Clause" of the Railway Rebate Act. This clause declared it to
be unlawful "for any railroad company to transport from any
State to any other State or to any foreign country any article
or commodity other than timber manufactured, mined, or
produced by it, or under its authority, or which it may own in
whole or in part, or in which it may have any interest, direct
or indirect, except such articles or commodities as may be
necessary and intended for its use in the conduct of its
business as a common carrier."
Since 1874 the Constitution of Pennsylvania had declared that
"no incorporated company doing the business of a common
carrier shall, directly or indirectly, prosecute or engage in
mining or manufacturing articles for transportation over its
works; nor shall such company directly or indirectly engage in
any other business than that of common carrier, or hold or
acquire lands, freehold or leasehold, directly or indirectly,
except such as shall be necessary to carry on its business."
But this constitutional prohibition had not sufficed to
restrain the owners of the railways which tap the anthracite
coal district from acquiring practical ownership of so large a
part of its mines as to be able, by combinations and
understandings among their managers, to monopolize the market
of that most important commodity. It was thought that the
power vested in the General Government to regulate the
commerce in coal between Pennsylvania and other States might
be brought into exercise against this anthracite monopoly with
more effect.
On the 1st of May, 1908, the "commodities clause" of the
Hepburn Act became operative, and soon thereafter a suit was
brought in the United Slates Circuit Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, to test its constitutionality. In
this trial of the question the Government met defeat. Two of
the three Judges of the Court, namely Gray and Dallas, filed
opinions against the constitutionality of the enactment, their
colleague, Judge Buffington, dissenting. The case went then on
appeal to the Supreme Court, and there, by a judgment so
nearly unanimous that Judge Harlan alone dissented on a single
point, the decision of the Circuit Court was reversed and the
constitutionality of the law upheld.
{555}
The following summary of its opinion was given out by the
Supreme Court at the time of the announcement, May 3, 1909:
"(1.) The claim of the government that the provision contained
in the Hepburn act, approved June 29, 1906, commonly called
the Commodities Clause, prohibits a railway company from
moving commodities in interstate commerce because the company
has manufactured, mined, or produced them, or owned them in
whole or in part, or has had an interest direct or indirect in
them, wholly irrespective of the relation or connection of the
carrier with the commodities at the time of transportation, is
decided to be untenable. It is also decided that the provision
of the commodities clause relating to interest, direct or
indirect, does not embrace an interest which a carrier may
have in a producing corporation as the result of the ownership
by the carrier of stock in such corporation irrespective of
the amount of stock which the carrier may own in such
corporation, provided the corporation has been organized in
good faith.
"(2.) Rejecting the construction placed by the government upon
the commodities clause, it is decided that that clause, when
all its provisions are harmoniously construed, has solely for
its object to prevent carriers engaged in interstate commerce
from being associated in interest at the time of
transportation with the commodities transported, and therefore
the commodities clause only prohibits railroad companies
engaged in interstate commerce from transporting in such
commerce commodities under the following circumstances and
conditions:
"(a) When the commodity has been manufactured, mined, or
produced by a railway company, or under its authority, and at
the time of transportation the railway company has not in good
faith before the act of transportation parted with its
interest in such commodity;
"(b) When the railway company owns the commodity to be
transported in whole or in part;
"(c) When the railway company at the time of transportation
has an interest direct or indirect in a legal sense in the
commodity, which last prohibition does not apply to
commodities manufactured, mined, produced, owned, etc., by a
corporation because a railway company is a stockholder in such
corporation.
"Such ownership of stock in a producing company by a railway
company does not cause it as the owner of the stock to have a
legal interest in the commodity manufactured, etc., by the
producing corporation.
"(3.) As thus construed the commodities clause is a regulation
of commerce within the power of Congress to enact. The
contentions elaborately argued for the railroad companies that
the clause, if applied to preexisting rights, will operate to
take property of railroad companies and therefore violate the
due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, were all based upon
the assumption that the clause prohibited and restricted in
accordance with the construction which the government gave
that clause and for the purpose of enforcing which
prohibitions these suits were brought.
"As the construction which the government placed upon the act
and seeks to enforce is now held to be unsound, and as none of
the contentions relied upon are applicable to the act as now
construed, because under such construction the act merely
enforces a regulation of commerce by which carriers are
compelled to dissociate themselves from the products which
they carry and does not prohibit where the carrier is not
associated with the commodity carried, it follows that the
contentions on the subject of the Fifth Amendment are without
merit.
"(4.) The exemption as to timber, etc., contained in the
clause is not repugnant to the Constitution.
"(5.) The provision as to penalties is separable from the
other provisions of the act. As no recovery of penalties was
prayed, no issue concerning them is here presented. It will be
time enough to consider whether the right to recover penalties
exists when an attempt to collect penalties is made.
"(6.) As the construction now given the act differs so widely
from the construction which the government gave to the act,
and which it was the purpose of these suits to enforce, it is
held that it is not necessary, in reversing and remanding, to
direct the character of decrees which shall be entered, but
simply to reverse and remand the case with instructions to
enforce and apply the statute as it is now construed.
"(7.) As the Delaware and Hudson Company is engaged as a
common carrier by rail in the transportation of coal in the
channels of interstate commerce, it is a railroad company
within the purview of the commodities clause, and is subject
to the provisions of that clause as they are now construed."
Six railway companies, namely, the Delaware and Hudson, the
Erie, the Central of New Jersey, the Lackawanna, the
Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley, were involved in the test
suit on which this decision was given; but the ruling will
affect all roads engaged in coal mining. Justice Harlan
dissented from that part of the decision which relates to the
ownership of stock in a producing company; otherwise the
opinion, announced by Justice White, was the opinion of the
entire Bench.
By ruling that "ownership of stock in a producing company by a
railway company does not cause it as the owner of the stock to
have a legal interest in the commodity manufactured, etc., by
the producing company," the court appears to have made further
legislation necessary, if the companies are to be barred from
controlling the production and marketing of the coal through
subsidiary corporations.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &C.:
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907-1909.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907.
Regulative Legislation in the States.
"Never in the history of railroad legislation have our
transportation systems run counter to a campaign so
comprehensive, wide-spread, and disturbing as the general
trend of ‘regulation’ in almost every State Legislature in
session during 1907. It seems as if a legislative tempest
against the railroads had been unloosed simultaneously in more
than thirty States upon a given signal. The welcome accorded
it by our lawmakers is inexplicable, unless we are prepared to
admit that our Government, as has been charged frequently, is
one of impulse. On this hypothesis it is readily understood.
{556}
"Thirty-five States, in all, attempted to enact laws reducing
freight or passenger rates, establishing railroad commissions,
increasing the powers of existing commissions, regulating car
service, demurrage, safety appliances, block signals, free
passes, capitalization, liability for accidents to employees,
hours of labor, blacklisting, strikes, etc. … Uniformity was
sought without discrimination or foresight. Railroads in
densely populated districts and those in sparsely settled
rural localities were given alike a two-cent rate. Worse than
this: roads of different earning power in the same State were
assigned a level rate. The prosperous and well-established
road and the struggling pioneer were bracketed,—to sink or
swim.
"But all of their work was not wasted. Real constructive
legislation was enacted in many States in regard to corporate
control, safety appliances, block signals, working hours,
rights of employees, railroad mergers, valuation,
capitalization, publication of rate schedules, etc., while in
the States of South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin the rate question was given fair and temperate
consideration. …
"An analysis of the general results shows that passenger fares
were either actually reduced or affected in twenty-one States:
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Two-cent rates now prevail in Arkansas, Indiana,
Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin; and in Ohio, since 1906; two-and-one-half-cent
rates in Alabama and North Dakota. North Carolina has
established a two-and one-quarter-cent rate; West Virginia, a
two-cent rate for railroads over fifty miles in length; Iowa,
a sliding scale of from two to three cents per mile; Michigan,
a two, three, and four cent rate; Kansas, Maryland, and
Mississippi, two-cent rates for mileage books; the railroad
commissions of Georgia and South Dakota have been authorized
to establish a two-cent and a two-and-one-half-cent rate,
respectively; and Oklahoma specifies in its new constitution a
maximum charge of two cents for passenger fare. Virginia’s
Corporation Commission has adopted a two-cent rate for trunk
lines, a three-cent rate for minor roads and a
three-and-one-half-cent rate on one or two lines.
"Freight charges were lowered in many States. The Commodity
Freight Rate law of Minnesota is probably the most scientific
and equitable, and is being used by many Western roads as a
basis. Commissions in other States have adopted it as a model.
"Laws prohibiting free passes were enacted in Alabama,
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and
Texas.
"Eleven States created railroad commissions: Colorado,
Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Sixteen others
gave increased power to existing commissions, apart from rate
regulation: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and
Wisconsin."
_Robert Emmett Ireton,
The Legislatures and the Railways
(Review of Reviews, August, 1907)._
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907.
Limitation of Working Hours for Trainmen.
An Act of Congress passed in January, 1907, prohibits railways
engaged in interstate and foreign commerce from requiring or
permitting those of their employés who have to do with the
movement of trains to work more than sixteen hours
consecutively, or more than an aggregate of sixteen in each
twenty-four hours, and requires that when an employé shall
have worked for sixteen hours there shall follow a period of
rest of not less than ten hours before he shall resume his
duties. Certain exceptions are made to provide for accidents,
the failure of trains to make their regular schedules,
connections, etc. Violation of the act is declared to be a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of from $100 to $1,000, and
the Interstate Commerce Commission is charged with the duty of
enforcing the law.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907.
Strike on roads west of Chicago averted
by Federal Intermediation.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1907-1908.
Limitation of State Authority in matters
of Interstate Commerce.
Serious collisions between Federal and State authority which
occurred in 1907, in the States of Alabama, North Carolina,
and Minnesota, on questions relating to interstate railways
and their commerce, were cleared by important decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States, rendered in the spring of
1908. The States in question had enacted laws which had the
effect of intimidating railway companies and their agents from
appealing to Federal courts, by the severity of the penalties
they imposed. Suits undertaken in consequence against the
State officials acting under these laws raised the question
which was carried to the Federal Supreme Court. The bearing of
the judgment rendered by that Court in the Minnesota case,
Justice Harlan alone dissenting, is indicated by two passages
from it, as follows:
"The provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the
rates, either for freight or passengers, by imposing such
enormous fines and possible imprisonment as a result of an
unsuccessful effort to test the validity of the laws
themselves, are unconstitutional on their face, without regard
to the question of the insufficiency of those rates."
"If the act which the State Attorney-General seeks to enforce
be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in
proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the
superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that
case stripped of his official or representative character and
is subjected in his person to the consequences of his
individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him
any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of
the United States."
{557}
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908.
Decision in Armour Packing Company Case.
A decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of
the United States vs. the Armour Packing Company covered cases
in which identical proceedings were pending against three
other packing companies and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
Railroad Company. The packing company had contracted with the
railway company for a rate from the Mississippi to New York,
to continue for seven months, soon after which the railway
company filed, published, and posted a much higher rate,
continuing, however, to give transportation to the packing
company, on through bills of lading to foreign ports for the
lower rate of the contract. The Supreme Court sustained the
Circuit Court in deciding this to be in violation of the law
against discrimination in rates, since that law, being in
force when the contract was made, was necessarily "read into
the contract" and "became part of it."
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908 (April).
Passage of Act relating to the Liability of Common Carriers
by Railroad to their Employés in Certain Cases.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908 (November).
Supreme Court Decision in Case of Virginia Railroads
vs. the State Corporation Commission of Virginia.
"Justice Holmes today [November 30, 1908] announced the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case
of the Virginia railroads versus the state corporation
commission of Virginia, calling into question the order of the
commission fixing a uniform rate of two cents a mile for
carrying passengers in the state. The decision reversed the
decision of the United States circuit court for the eastern
division of Virginia on the technical ground that the
railroads should have appealed from the commission’s order to
the supreme court of Virginia before seeking the intervention
of the federal courts. In effect the court directs that the
railroad companies take their case to the state court of last
resort and that in order to prevent injustices through the
possible application of the statute of limitations, the case
be retained on the docket of the United States circuit court,
by which it was originally decided favorably to the roads."
_Washington Despatch to the Associated Press._
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1908-1909.
The Missouri River Rate Case.
Permanent Injunction against
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
By an order made on the 24th of June, 1908, the Interstate
Commerce Commission forbade the charging of a through rate on
first class matter, by the railroads, from the Atlantic
seaboard to the Missouri River ($1.47 per hundred pounds),
which equalled the rate charged from the Atlantic to the
Mississippi (87 cents) plus the rate from the Mississippi to
the Missouri (60 cents). In other words, the Commission sought
to impose a through rate to the Missouri which would be nine
cents per hundred pounds less than the sum of the rates
charged on two parts of the same distance. The western railway
companies affected by the order applied to the United States
Circuit Court, at Chicago, for a permanent injunction to
restrain its enforcement. The injunction was granted on the
24th of August, 1909, Judges Grosscup and Kohlsaat
concurring in the decision, Judge Baker dissenting.
"The question raised," said Judge Grosscup, in rendering the
opinion, "in its larger aspects is not so much a question
between the shippers and the railroads as between the
commercial and manufacturing interests of Denver and of the
territory east of the Mississippi River on the one side, and
the commercial and manufacturing interests of the Missouri
River cities on the other. …
"We are not prepared to say the commission has not the power
to enter upon a plan looking toward a system of rates wherein
the rates for longer and shorter hauls will taper downward
according to distance, providing such tapering is both
comprehensively and symmetrically applied—applied with a
design of carrying out what may be the economic fact, that, on
the whole, it is worth something less per mile to carry
freight long distances than shorter distances.
"But it does not follow that power of that character includes
power, by the use of differentials, to artificially divide the
country into trade zones tributary to given trade and
manufacturing centres, the commission in such cases having as
a result to predetermine what the trade and manufacturing
centres shall be; for such power, vaster than any one body of
men has heretofore exercised, though wisely exerted in
specific instances, would be putting into the hands of the
commission the general power of life and death over every
trade and manufacturing centre in the United States."
In the dissenting opinion of Judge Baker he said: "The
question is not whether a lawful power or authority has been
shown to have been wrongly exercised, but whether there is any
law at all for the power or authority claimed and exercised."
He found the necessary law, and added: "If Congress cannot
constitutionally make a general declaration that the rates
shall be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory and then
trust an executive body to hear evidence and decide questions
of fact respecting reasonableness and just discrimination, the
power of Congress over rates would be worthless."
In September it was announced that the Commission would appeal
from the injunction to the Supreme Court.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1909.
The Seventh Transcontinental Line.
The seventh transcontinental line of railway in America, the
Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul system, was announced as
completed on the 1st of April, 1909. As its name indicates, it
is an extension of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul system
by a line fourteen hundred miles long from Mobridge, South
Dakota, to Seattle and Tacoma, in the State of Washington.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1909.
Fines imposed on the New York Central Railroad Company.
Fines aggregating $134,000, imposed on the New York Central
Railway Company by the United States Circuit Court for the
Southern District of New York for rebates granted to the
American Sugar Refining Company in violation of law, were
affirmed in February, 1909, by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and were paid on the 12th of May.
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1909 (May-June).
The Georgia Railroad Strike.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
{558}
RAILWAYS: A. D. 1910.
Special Message of President Taft
touching Interstate Commerce.
The important Special Message addressed to Congress by
President Taft on the 7th of January, 1910, recommending
amendatory legislation on the two subjects of interstate
commerce and the combinations called "trusts," opened with the
following statement:
"In the annual report of the Interstate Commerce Commission
for the year 1908 attention is called to the fact that between
July 1, 1908, and the close of that year sixteen suits had
been begun to set aside orders of the commission (besides one
commenced before that date), and that few orders of much
consequence had been permitted to go without protest; that the
questions presented by these various suits were fundamental,
as the constitutionality of the act itself was in issue, and
the right of Congress to delegate to any tribunal authority to
establish an interstate rate was denied; but that perhaps the
most serious practical question raised concerned the extent of
the right of the courts to review the orders of the
commission; and it was pointed out that if the contention of
the carriers in this latter respect alone were sustained, but
little progress had been made in the Hepburn act toward the
effective regulation of interstate transportation charges. In
twelve of the cases referred to, it was stated, preliminary
injunctions were prayed for, being granted in six and refused
in six.
"‘It has from the first been well understood,’ says the
commission, ‘that the success of the present act as a
regulating measure depended largely upon the facility with
which temporary injunctions could be obtained. If a railroad
company, by mere allegation in its bill of complaint,
supported by ex-parte affidavits, can overturn the results of
days of patient investigation, no very satisfactory result can
be expected. The railroad loses nothing by these proceedings,
since if they fail it can only be required to establish the
rate and to pay to shippers the difference between the higher
rate collected and the rate which is finally held to be
reasonable. In point of fact it usually profits, because it
can seldom be required to return more than a fraction of the
excess charges collected.’
"In its report for the year 1909 the commission shows that of
the seventeen cases referred to in its 1908 report, only one
had been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States,
although five other cases had been argued and submitted to
that tribunal in October, 1909.
"Of course, every carrier affected by an order of the
commission has a constitutional right to appeal to a Federal
Court to protect it from the enforcement of an order which it
may show to be _prima facie_ confiscatory or unjustly
discriminatory in its effect; and as this application may be
made to a court in any district of the United States, not only
does delay result in the enforcement of the order, but great
uncertainty is caused by contrariety of decision. The
questions presented by these applications are too often
technical in their character and require a knowledge of the
business and the mastery of a great Volume of conflicting
evidence which is tedious to examine and troublesome to
comprehend. It would not be proper to attempt to deprive any
corporation of the right to review by a court of any order or
decree which, if undisturbed, would rob it of a reasonable
return upon its investment or would subject it to burdens
which would unjustly discriminate against it and in favor of
other carriers similarly situated. What is, however, of
supreme importance is that the decision of such questions
shall be as speedy as the nature of the circumstances will
admit, and that a uniformity of decision be secured so as to
bring about an effective, systematic, and scientific
enforcement of the commerce law, rather than conflicting
decisions and uncertainty of final result.
"For this purpose I recommend the establishment of a court of
the United States composed of five judges designated for such
purpose from among the circuit judges of the United States, to
be known as the ‘United States Court of Commerce,’ which court
shall be clothed with exclusive original jurisdiction over the
following classes of cases:
"(1.) All cases for the enforcement, otherwise than by
adjudication and collection of a forfeiture or penalty, or by
infliction of criminal punishment, of any order of the
Interstate Commerce Commission other than for the payment of
money.
"(2.) All cases brought to enjoin, set aside, annul, or
suspend any order or requirement of the Interstate Commerce
Commission.
"(3.) All such cases as under section 3 of the act of February
19, 1903, known as the ‘Elkins Act,’ are authorized to be
maintained in a circuit court of the United States.
"(4.) All such mandamus proceedings as under the provisions of
section 20 or section 23 of the Interstate Commerce law are
authorized to be maintained in a circuit court of the United
States.
"Reasons precisely analogous to those which induced the
Congress to create the Court of Customs Appeals by the
provisions in the tariff act of August 5, 1909, may be urged
in support of the creation of the Commerce Court."
Further recommendations of the Message are summarized in the
following:
Pooling arrangements as to rates to be allowed under direct
supervision of the commission.
The commission to be empowered to pass upon freight
classifications.
The commission to be empowered to hold up new rates or
classifications by railroads until an inquiry can be made as
to their reasonableness. If found to be unreasonable, the
commission may forbid the increase.
Shippers to be given the choice of established routes on
through freight.
From and after the passage of the amendments, it is provided
that no railroad shall acquire any stock or interest in a
competing line, except that where a road already owns 50 per
cent, or more of the stock of another road, it may complete
the purchase of all the stock. Also in cases where one road is
operating another under a lease of more than twenty-five
years’ duration, it shall have a right to acquire the demised
road. Allowing these acquisitions of stock does not exempt any
road from prosecution under the Anti-Trust law.
Stocks must be issued at par value for money paid in or for
property or services, rates at full value, under an inquiry by
the Federal authority, who shall supervise all stock and bond
issues.
----------RAILWAYS: End--------
RAISULI, The Moorish Brigand.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.
RALLIÉS.
A political party in France said to be made from fragments
from the former Bonapartists, Orleanists, and Boulangerists.
RAMSAY, Sir William.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: RADIUM; also,
NOBEL PRIZES.
RATE REGULATION, Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908.
{559}
RAYLEIGH, Lord.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
REBATE RESTRICTION, Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908,
and 1903 (February).
RECIPROCITY TREATY: United States and Newfoundland:
The Hay-Bond Treaty.
Its Amendment to Death by the United States Senate.
See (in this Volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902-1905.
RECLAMATION OF ARID LANDS.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
RED CROSS SOCIETY, The American National.
By an Act of Congress passed in 1904, the American National
Red Cross was incorporated under the laws of the District of
Columbia and brought directly under Government supervision.
Its charter provided that five members of its Board of
Incorporators were to be chosen from the Departments of State,
War, Navy, Treasury, and Justice. Its accounts were to be
audited by the disbursing officer of the War Department. The
entire support, however, aside from the income from a small
endowment, comes from the dues of individual members and
voluntary contributions. The election of Mr. Taft, then
Secretary of War, as the first president of the reorganized
Red Cross, emphasized its new relationship to the Federal
Government and its new position as a body of really National
scope. At the annual meeting of the Society in December, 1908,
Mr. Taft, then President-elect of the United States, consented
to be reelected to the presidency of the Red Cross
organization in the United States.
Throughout all the many calamities of the past decade, from
earthquake, volcanic eruption, fire, flood, war, famine, and
pestilence, the Red Cross Society has always been instant in
readiness for effective humane service, from almost every
civilized country of the world, and for any call to any
quarter of the globe. In the United States it has lately
undertaken a continuous and permanent service in connection
with the anti-tuberculosis crusade.
RED CROSS SOCIETY:
In Japan, before and during the Russo-Japanese War.
"The Red Cross Society of Japan is by no means merely a copy
of the Red Cross societies of Europe, as its name would seem
to indicate; for the idea of assisting the wounded soldiers
and allaying the suffering caused by war arose spontaneously
in Japan. …
"In 1867, two years before the Restoration, when Japan was
considered a savage country by the West, and when she
possessed neither railways nor telegraphs, machinery, etc.,
Count Sano, an enthusiastic humanitarian, was sent by the
Shogun to the Exhibition in Paris, where he had the
opportunity of studying the Red Cross societies of various
countries. Again, in 1873, when this gentleman was ambassador
in Vienna, he carefully observed the Red Cross Society, and
especially its activity during the Franco-German War of 1870.
When the Civil War of 1877 broke out in Japan, Count Sano was
back in his native country, and he conceived the idea of
forming a society after the model of the European Red Cross
societies. The nobility of Japan received his ideas most
favourably, and a society was founded which was called
Hakuaisha (Benevolent Society). …
"The Mikado countenanced the objects of the Society and
assisted it in every way. From 1887 onward he gave it a yearly
contribution of 5,000 yen, to which in 1888 a gift of 100,000
yen was added. After the Chino-Japanese War, the Mikado’s
yearly contribution was increased to 10,000 yen, in
recognition of the progress which the Society had made and of
the great assistance which it had given during that campaign.
Besides this sum he contributes yearly 5,000 yen to the Red
Cross Society for the patients, and from time to time makes
generous gifts to the Society. The motto of the Japanese Red
Cross Society is ‘Pay your debt to your country by helping its
soldiers’; and this motto has quickly made the Society
immensely popular throughout the country. …
"The war with China of 1894-1895 demonstrated the excellence
of the Japanese Red Cross Society, and proved at the same time
its best advertisement, for at the end of 1895 there were more
than 160,000 members. Since the Society had proved its immense
practical utility, the number of its members rose by leaps and
bounds, and at the end of 1898 there were 570,000 members, and
the yearly receipts had reached 1,582,622 yen; at present it
must count about 1,000,000 members, and must have an income of
at least 3,000,000 yen, or about £300,000 per annum, a truly
enormous sum for a country like Japan, where a yen goes about
as far as ten shillings go in Great Britain. The latest
available figures give the following record: Number of
members, 920,000; funds in hand, £794,000; annual income,
£231,000."
_O. Eltzbacher,
The Red Gross Society of Japan
(Contemporary Review, September, 1904)._
REDEMPTORISTS: Forbidden to teach in France.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1903.
REFERENDUM, Initiative and Recall:
In Switzerland.
According to a report on the subject made to the State
Department at Washington, in June, 1902, by the United States
Minister to Switzerland, the Honorable Arthur S. Hardy, down
to that time, "since the referendum has been in force, 226
Federal laws and resolutions have been enacted, of which 40
were submitted to the people, 14 by the compulsory and 26 by
the optional referendum. The people have exercised the
initiative five times since its adoption in 1891, rejecting
the measures proposed four out of five times."
REFERENDUM, Initiative and Recall:
In the United States.
"The first State to adopt a constitutional amendment providing
for the initiative and referendum was South Dakota in 1898.
Next came Utah (1900) with an amendment which is not
self-executing, and the Legislature has not so far passed the
necessary enabling act. Oregon followed in 1902, Montana in
1906, and Oklahoma in 1907. South Dakota, Oregon, and Oklahoma
have also extended the constitutional amendments so as to
provide for the initiative and referendum in municipal
corporations. Maine, Missouri, and North Dakota are soon to
vote upon constitutional amendments embodying the initiative
and referendum for State matters; and Maine proposes to extend
this right to municipal corporations concerning their local
affairs.
{560}
In 1907 Iowa and South Dakota each enacted a general law under
which cities may, if they so choose, have charters embodying
the general features of the ‘commission plan of government,’
and acquire with them the right to have the initiative, the
referendum, and the recall. In South Dakota the Constitution
specifically gives to the people the right of the initiative
and referendum, but in Iowa no mention thereof is made in the
Constitution. The Supreme Court of Iowa, however, has held
that the statute conferring the right upon cities of a certain
class to adopt a commission plan of government which included
the initiative, referendum, and recall was constitutional, as
the State Constitution did not specifically forbid the
granting of these rights. In Texas cities of a designated size
can be incorporated by special act, and since Galveston
obtained its new form of government several cities of Texas
have been given charters by special acts, some embodying the
initiative, referendum, and recall, others one or two of these
rights, and some none of them or only in a modified form. The
recall is the most recent of the three new measures of relief.
Los Angeles in 1903 seems to have been the first city to have
made the recall a part of its city charter. In 1905 San Diego,
San Bernardino, Pasadena, and Fresno, California, followed. In
1906 Seattle joined the list, and in 1907 there were added
Everett, in Washington, and six other California cities—Santa
Monica, Alameda, Long Beach, Vallejo, Riverside and San
Francisco. No State has a constitutional provision for the
recall."
_The Outlook,
August 15, 1908._
On the 25th of May, 1908, the Initiative and Referendum League
of America addressed a memorial to Congress, asking for the
passage of a Bill which had been introduced in the Senate
(Senate Bill No. 7208), "For a modern system whereby the
voters of the United States may instruct their National
Representatives," and, further, for the passage of Senate
Joint Resolution No. 94, "asking the States to establish the
machinery for taking a referendum vote on national issues
whenever Congress shall so direct."
REGENERADORES.
See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
REGGIO:
Its Destruction by Earthquake.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: ITALY.
REGIE, The San Domingo.
See (in this Volume)
SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1901-1905.
REGINA:
Capital of the Province of Saskatchewan.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1905.
REID, George Houston:
Premier of Australia.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1903-1904.
REID, Sir Robert T.:
Lord Chancellor of England.
See (in this Volume)
England: A. D. 1905-1906.
REINSCH, Paul S.:
Delegate to Third International Conference
of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
Its Limitations in Russia.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA. A. D. 1905 (APRIL-AUGUST), and 1909 (JUNE).
RELIGIOUS TEACHING, in State Supported Schools:
The Controversy.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1903;
CANADA: A. D. 1905;
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 and 1906.
RENAULT, Louis.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
RENNENKAMPF, General.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (SEPTEMBER-MARCH).
REPATRIATION OF THE BOERS.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1903.
REPUBLIC, The Rescue of the Steamship.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL.
RESCHAD, Mohammed:
Raised to the Turkish Throne.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
RESEARCH, Original.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: CARNEGIE INSTITUTION.
RESOURCES, Conservation of Natural.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
REVAL, Disorders in.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
REVOLUTION, Persia.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA.
REVOLUTION, Turkish.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.
REYES, Rafael:
President of Colombia.
See (in this Volume)
COLOMBIA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1906-1909.
RHODES, CECIL J.:
His death.
His continued Influence in South Africa.
His Policy carried on by Dr. Jameson.
See(in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1904.
RHODES, CECIL J.:
His Will, endowing Scholarships at Oxford for Students in the
British Colonies and the United States.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.
RHODESIA: A. D. 1908.
Report of the British South Africa Company.
The annual report of the directors of the British South Africa
Company, presented at a meeting of shareholders in London in
February, 1909, contained the following statements:
"During 1908 there has been a remarkable improvement in the
circumstances of Rhodesia. This improvement has been evident
in every department of trade and industry, and is reflected in
the returns of administrative receipts, railways, mines and
land. It was pointed out last year what an important effect
even a slight increase in general prosperity would exercise
upon the whole financial position, and the figures now
available show that this view was correct. The administrative
revenue of Southern Rhodesia during the year 1908-1909 will
suffice to cover administrative expenditure without any call
whatever upon the commercial income of the company; the
shortages of the railway companies in respect of the same
period will be less by £100,000 than in 1907-1908; during the
year ending 31st March, 1910, large additional revenue will be
derived from the carriage from the port of Beira of the
materials and stores for the extension of the railway into the
Congo territory. … The negotiations for the extension
northwards of the Rhodesian Railway system have been brought
to a successful conclusion. With the coöperation of the
Tanganyika Concessions (Limited) a company has been formed
called the Rhodesia-Kantanga Junction Railway and Mineral
Company (Limited), which will construct a standard gauge line
from the present terminus at Broken Hill to a point on the
frontier of the Congo Free State; from the frontier to the
Star of the Congo Mine the line will be constructed by the
Couipaguie du Chemin de Fer du Kantanga. … On the completion
of the first section to the frontier, Rhodesia will be
traversed by a trunk line from south to north.
{561}
"The European population shows a net increase of over 1,100
since the intermediate census, in September, 1907, when it
numbered 14,018. An area of 1,169,305 acres of land has been
settled and occupied during the past year. The output of gold
has increased from £2,178,886 in 1907 to £2,526,037 in 1908.
Imports have increased by about £100,000 during the past
year."
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1904.
RIBEIRO, HINTZE.
See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
RICHMOND, Virginia: A. D. 1907.
Great Reunion of Confederate War Veterans.
Unveiling of Monument to Jefferson Davis.
A great gathering of the surviving veterans of the
Confederacy, to the number of about 15,000, at Richmond, late
in May and early in June, was brought about in connection with
the unveiling of an impressive monument to Jefferson Davis. An
equestrian statue of General J. E. B. Stuart was also unveiled
on one of the days of the reunion.
RIFF, The.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.
RIGA, Disorders in.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
RIKKEN SEIYU-KAI.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).
RIO DE JANEIRO: A. D. 1903-1905.
Eradication of Yellow Fever.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: YELLOW FEVER.
RIO DE JANEIRO: A. D. 1906.
Third International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
RITCHIE, C. T.:
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Government.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JULY).
ROBERT, CHRISTOPHER R.:
Benefactor of Robert College.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: TURKEY, &C.
ROBERT COLLEGE:
Its Influence in Turkey and the Balkan States.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: TURKEY, &C.
ROBERTS, SIR FREDERICK SLEIGH ROBERTS, FIRST EARL:
On the British Territorial Force and the need
of Compulsory Military Training.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ROCHAMBEAU MONUMENT:
The unveiling at Washington.
Representatives of the families of Rochambeau and
Lafayette invited Guests of the Nation.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (MAY).
ROCKEFELLER, John D.:
Stupendous Endowment of the General Education Board.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.
ROCKEFELLER, John D.:
Gift for the eradication of the Hookworm Disease.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: THE HOOKWORM DISEASE.
ROCKEFELLER, John D., Jr.:
Investing in a Concession in the Congo State.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ROCKHILL, W. W.:
Minister to China.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.
ROENTGEN.
See (in this Volume)
RONTGEN.
ROGHI, EL.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.
ROJESVENSKY,
ROZHDESTVENSKY, ADMIRAL.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
See (in this Volume and Volume IV.)
PAPACY.
ROMAÑA, PRESIDENT EDUARDO DE.
See (in this Volume)
PERU.
ROME: A. D. 1903.
General Strike of Workmen.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.
ROME: A. D. 1908.
Election of Ernesto Nathan to be Mayor.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1909.
RONTGEN, Wilhelm Conrad:
Recipient of Nobel Prize.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
----------ROOSEVELT, Theodore: Start--------
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Becomes President of the United States on
the Assassination of President McKinley.
See (in this Volume)
BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Federal Control of Corporations engaged in
Interstate Trade.
See (in this Volume)
Combinations, Industrial, &c.:
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1903.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On Railway Rate Regulation.
SEE
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
His intermediation in the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Message recounting the Circumstances of the Secession from
Colombia and recognized Independence of Panama, and the Treaty
with Panama for the Building of the Isthmian Canal.
See (in this volume)
PANAMA CANAL.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Wrong done to the Chinese.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Strike of the Teamsters’ Union at Chicago.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905 (APRIL-JULY).
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Elected President of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER ).
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Mediation between Russia and Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Initial Invitation to the holding of the Second Peace
Conference.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Account of Visit to Porto Rico.
See (in this Volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1906.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Rendering of Aid to San Domingo.
See (in this Volume)
SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1904-1907.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Progressive Taxation of Fortunes.
See (in this Volume)
WEALTH, THE PROBLEMS OF.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Defense of Japanese Treaty Rights.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Recommends remission of part of Boxer Indemnity to China.
See CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Conservation of Natural Resources.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Appointment of Country Life Commission,
and Message on its Report.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908-1909 (AUGUST-FEBRUARY).
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
On the Japanese Question in California.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Recipient of Nobel Prize for Promotion of Peace.
Its devotion to the Creation of a Foundation for
the Promotion of Industrial Peace.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Veto of the Census Bill.
See (in this Volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES.
{562}
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Renunciation of Third Term Candidacy.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (NOVEMBER).
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
Progress of Civil Service Reform under his Administration.
See (in this Volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: UNITED STATES.
ROOSEVELT, Theodore:
After leaving the White House.
Shortly before the ending, March 4, 1909, of his second term
in the Presidency of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt became
connected, as "Contributing Editor," with _The Outlook_,
and began the discussion of current topics in signed articles,
published in that weekly magazine. For some time it had been
known that Mr. Roosevelt intended, when released from office,
to enjoy a long vacation in Central Africa, hunting wild game.
His preparations were made before he left the White House, and
on the 20th of March, to correct misunderstandings as to the
recreation he contemplated, he published the following
announcement in _The Outlook_:
"I am about to go to Africa as the head of the Smithsonian
expedition. It is a scientific expedition. We shall collect
birds and mammals for the National Museum at Washington, and
nothing will be shot unless for food, or for preservation as a
specimen, or unless, of course, the animal is of a noxious
kind. There will be no wanton destruction whatever.
"I very earnestly hope that no representative of any newspaper
or magazine will try to accompany me or to interview me during
any portion of my trip. Until I actually get to the wilderness
my trip will be precisely like any other conventional trip on
a steamboat or railway. It will afford nothing to write about,
and will afford no excuse or warrant for any one sending to
any newspaper a line in reference thereto. After I reach the
wilderness of course no one outside of my own party will be
with me, and if any one pretends to be with me or pretends to
write as to what I do, his statements should be accepted as on
their face not merely false but ludicrous. Any statement
purporting to have been made by me, or attributed to me, which
may be sent to newspapers should be accepted as certainly
false and as calling for no denial from me. So far as possible
I shall avoid seeing any representative of the press, and
shall not knowingly have any conversation on any subject
whatever with any representative of the press beyond
exchanging the ordinary civilities or courtesies. I am a
private citizen, and I am entitled to enjoy the privacy that
should be the private citizen’s right. My trip will have no
public bearing of any kind or description. It is undertaken
for the National Museum at Washington, and is simply a
collecting trip for the Museum. It will be extremely
distasteful to me and of no possible benefit to any human
being to try to report or exploit the trip, or to send any one
with me, or to have any one try to meet me or see me with a
view to such reporting or exploitation. Let me repeat that
while I am on steamer or railway there will be nothing
whatever to report; that when I leave the railway for the
wilderness no persons will have any knowledge which will
enable them to report anything, and that any report is to be
accepted as presumably false."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
The ex-President took steamer from New York on the 30th of
March, and one of the journals which had been among the
sharpest of his critics and opponents for years, the New York
_Times_, had this to say of him that day:
"There is no need to tell him that he will carry with him
wherever he goes the abiding affection of nearly 80,000,000 of
people. They who dislike Colonel Roosevelt, or think they do,
scarcely count in the Census. Wherever he goes he will make
friends among human beings, and impress everybody with a
reasonably high yet easily appreciable ideal of the American
citizen. Courage, energy, quick co-ordination of muscle and
brain, persistent alertness, boundless sympathy, and good
fellowship are characteristics of Colonel Roosevelt. Everybody
likes such a man."
Returning from his African expedition in the spring of 1910,
the ex-President accepted invitations in Europe which took him
to Naples, Rome, Vienna, Paris, Brussels, The Hague,
Christiania, Berlin, London, and was received with
extraordinary honors at every capital.
----------ROOSEVELT, Theodore: End--------
----------ROOT, ELIHU: Start--------
ROOT, ELIHU:
Secretary of War and Secretary of State.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905, and 1905-1909.
ROOT, ELIHU:
Correspondence relating to the establishment of the
Republic of Cuba.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ROOT, Elihu:
On the Alaska Boundary Commission.
See (in this Volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1903.
ROOT, Elihu:
Correspondence on American Fishing Rights on the
Newfoundland Coast.
See (in this Volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ROOT, Elihu:
Visit to South American Republics, 1906.
Address at the Third International Conference
of American Republics in Rio de Janeiro.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
ROOT, Elihu:
Speech in 1906 summarizing recent Governmental Action
against Corporate Wrong-doers.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
ROOT, Elihu:
Address to Central American Peace Conference at Washington.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1907.
ROOT, Elihu:
At Peace Congress in New York.
See (in this Volume)
WAR: THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
ROOT, Elihu:
On the Japanese Question in California.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
ROOT, Elihu:
Exchange of Notes with Japan, embodying a Declaration
of Common Policy in the East.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).
ROOT, Elihu:
On National Duty in State Legislation.
See (in this Volume)
LAW AND ITS COURTS: UNITED STATES.
----------ROOT, ELIHU: End--------
ROSE, URIAH M.:
Commissioner Plenipotentiary to the Second Peace Conference.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
ROSEBERY, ARCHIBALD F. PRIMROSE, EARL:
Opposition to Home Rule for Ireland.
See (in this Volume)
England: A. D. 1905-1906.
ROSEBERY, ARCHIBALD F. PRIMROSE, EARL:
On the State of Peace in Europe and the Preparations for War.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
ROSEBERY, ARCHIBALD F. PRIMROSE, EARL:
To the House of Lords on the Budget of 1909.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
ROSEN, BARON ROMAN:
Russian Ambassador at Washington and Plenipotentiary
for negotiating Treaty of Peace with Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-JULY).
ROSS, Dr. Ronald.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
{563}
ROTA, The.
See (in this Volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1908.
ROTATIVOS.
See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
ROUMANIA: A. D. 1902.
Oppression of the Jews.
Remonstrance of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: ROUMANIA.
ROUVIER, Maurice:
Prime Minister of France.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ROUVIER, Maurice:
Agreement with Germany for the Conference at Algeciras.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ROUVIER, Maurice:
Fall of his Ministry.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
ROWE, Dr. L. S.:
Delegate to Third International Conference
of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
ROZHDESTVENSKY,
ROJESVENSKY, ADMIRAL.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).
RUEF, ABRAHAM.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: SAN FRANCISCO.
RUNCIMAN, Mr.:
President of the English Board of Education.
Statements.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
----------RUSSIA: Start--------
RUSSIA: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
[Other countries or regions]: A. D. 1870-1905.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901 (July).
Russianizing of the Finnish Army.
Autocratic Violation of the Constitution of Finland.
See (in this Volume)
FINLAND: A. D. 1901.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
Persistent Occupation of Manchuria, despite Treaty with China.
Japanese Complaints and Demands.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904,
CHINA: A. D. 1901-1902.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
The Disaffection among the Students of the Universities.
Famine in Eastern Districts, and Industrial Depression
in the Cities.
Assassination of Sipiagin.
Advent of Plehve to Power.
Atrocities of his Administration.
Witte, Minister of Finance.
Assassination of Plehve.
In Volume VI. of this work, which went to press in the spring
of 1901, the record of events in Russia was brought down to
March and April of that year. The revolutionary temper, then
rapidly rising in heat throughout the Empire, found its most
active manifestation among the students of the universities,
whose outbreaks of disaffection were punished mercilessly, by
Siberian exile, by draft into the army, or more summarily by
the Cossacks’ knout. The Tsar, however, had seemed at last to
recognize the special grievances of the students and to wish
to have remedies found for them. To succeed M. Bogoliepoff,
the late Minister of Instruction, whom a student had shot on
the 27th of February, the Tsar appointed to that office a
General Vannovsky, who was credited with having a clear and
sympathetic understanding of the wrongs to the student body
which provoked their disorderly conduct. It was believed, too,
that full powers had been given to him for reforming the
government of the universities. But, whatever may have been
the excellence of disposition in General Vannovsky and in the
Tsar, the projected reforms were so obstructed, in some
manner, that the students became more and more openly
revolutionary in their action, and the new minister resigned
in the second year of his endeavors.
A number of immediate causes of misery in the Empire were now
added to the many causes which a despotic and corrupt
government kept always in operation. Harvests in large parts
of Eastern Russia had failed, bringing the horrors of famine
on some 24,000,000 people. Simultaneously with this, an
industrial crisis came, to close great numbers of factories
and shops and to create a vast army of the unemployed. M.
Witte, as Minister of Finance, had been extraordinarily
skilful and successful in developing new industries in Russia;
but had done so by measures of unnatural stimulation which had
this unfortunate result. High tariffs for the protection of
home manufactures from foreign competition, and the offer of
attractive inducements to foreign capital, had brought about
many investments which proved to be unprofitable, and the time
had come, as happens always and everywhere in such cases, when
the unsound structure of productive enterprise must collapse.
Thus the country, having all of its industrial centers filled
with suffering unemployed workmen and many of its rural
districts filled with starving peasants, was a field most
perfectly prepared for the seed of insurgent passion which
countless agents were now busied in sowing.
Students and workmen became associated in flagrant
revolutionary demonstrations, flaunting the red flag of
rebellion and singing seditious songs, at St. Petersburg,
Moscow, Kieff, Kharkoff, Odessa, and other cities, fighting
vain battles with savage Cossacks and police. To excite the
peasantry to action, a forged ukase was circulated among them,
in the districts of Poltava and Kharkoff, announcing that the
land, held wrongly by the nobles, had been restored to them by
the Tsar; that they could take possession of it, and, with it,
the present contents of granaries and barns. They proceeded
accordingly to strip many estates (see below, Russia: A. D.
1902), and suffered piteously from the soldiery that came in
haste to stop their deluded work. It was at this time that M.
Witte set on foot an extensive inquiry into agricultural
conditions, the important political outcome of which will be
spoken of later on.
On the 15th of April, 1902, the Minister of the Interior, M.
Sipiagin, was killed by a student named Belmatcheff. This
murderous exploit of the revolutionary terrorists brought a
man into power who gave Russia an experience in the next two
years, of heartlessness and foulness in despotism which
surpassed all that it had known before.
{564}
"Sipiagin, when Minister of the Interior, had already brought
matters so far by his reactionary policy of violence that the
news of his assassination at the hands of Belmatcheff was
received with unmixed joy in all classes of Russian society.
But the fullest proof of the irreconcilableness of autocracy
with things like improvement and progress was furnished by the
successor of Sipiagin, Von Plehve, who soon proved himself to
be the complete personification of all evil, heartlessness,
and corruption. … The attention of the highest circles was
drawn to his person when, after the assassination of Alexander
II., he conducted the prosecution at the arraignment of the
participators in the deed. Later, on being appointed State
Secretary, he was able, by his persistent zeal in the service
of the reaction, to place himself on a good footing with those
in power, particularly with the Procurator of the Holy Synod,
Pobiedonostseff, who, when the policy of destroying the
Finnish constitution was determined upon, found a good tool in
Von Plehve. In the anti-Finn _coup d’état_ he played a
considerable part, particularly as member of the secret
committee which drafted the plan for the Russification of the
Finnish Grand Duchy, and drew up the manifesto; while, still
later, as Secretary for Finland, together with the then
Governor-General Bobrikoff, he conducted and carried out the
well-known policy of suppression.
"As Minister of the Interior, Von Plehve lost no time in
showing what policy he intended to follow, as he declared the
general dissatisfaction in Russia to be solely the result of
the conspiracy and machinations of a handful of evil disposed
persons, who could easily be rendered incapable of harm if
only the police were sufficiently strengthened and received
extensive powers. … The Minister came into conflict, shortly
after his appointment, with a number of his colleagues,
especially with the Finance Minister, De Witte, who had
previously been practically omnipotent, and with the Minister
of Justice, Muravieff. The difference with the latter hinged
on the question of the treatment of 'political criminals,' the
trials of whom Von Plehve wished to allocate to a special
court-martial, the proceedings being conducted with closed
doors, whilst the Minister of Justice required a public trial
before the ordinary courts. The Tsar, as usual, followed the
most reactionary counsel. … Of deeper significance and more
far-reaching effects was the conflict with the Finance
Minister, who, indeed was far more menacing to Von Plehve’s
exalted position. Without being imbued with really liberal
views, but being possessed of intelligence and a clear view as
regards all social phenomena, De Witte, doubtless one of the
most able statesmen Russia has possessed in recent times,
recognized that, if matters in the Empire continued much
longer in the same way, a catastrophe was unavoidable. …
"De Witte obtained the consent of the Tsar to the formation of
committees, in the different parts of the country, consisting
of representatives of agriculture, and including both large
estate owners and men of the people, to whom was allotted the
task of declaring their views as to the cause of the decline
of Russian agriculture, and of indicating steps for the
improvement of agricultural conditions. De Witte himself urged
the committees to express themselves freely and openly as to
the causes of the prevailing misery, and as to the means of
remedying it. But in all probability he hardly expected that
these utterances would go so far in their openness as they
really did. Quite a number of committees were perspicacious
enough to deal not merely with the economical, but likewise
with the general political position, though recognising that
the former was very closely connected with the latter. In this
way the ice was broken. One committee after the other
criticised the existing system of government with astonishing
boldness, and required an unconditional and radical change
therein. … it was the representatives of the _zemtsvo_
assemblies who played the chief part in the agricultural
committees, and consequently hopes began to be cherished more
or less everywhere that these assemblies would now receive
amplified rights, and that in this way the basis would be laid
for the future and for the constitution dreamt of by all. Such
hopes were, however, not to the taste of Von Plehve, the new
Minister of the Interior. … Finally they [the committees] were
dissolved, without having achieved any other result than a
number of reports which had been drawn up by them, and which
ended by being pigeon-holed in one record office or the other.
Von Plehve had conquered the Finance Minister. But his success
was a Pyrrhic victory. At one stroke he converted a large
number of liberal friends of reform into radical adherents of
the emancipation movement, while to all others who had
followed the proceedings of the agricultural committees with
interest and expectancy he brought home a clear apprehension
of the fact that a régime, under which the will or the whim of
an irresponsible official could bring to naught plans having
for their object the amendment of the conditions of life of
many millions of people, could never contribute to the
promotion of national development. Similar fruits were borne
by Von Plehve’s policy in many other directions. …
"Never have the police been so numerous or so powerful as
under Von Plehve’s regime; never were such trifling causes
sufficient to deprive both sexes of citizens of their liberty,
to expose them to ill-treatment, and to send them into exile.
But never, on the other hand, have such means proved to be
more powerless. … The so-called ‘Organisation of the
Struggle,’ the same that had slain the previous Minister of
the Interior, Sipiagin, also sentenced to death the Governor
of Ulfa, Bogdanovitch. … At last Von Plehve, too, was
overtaken by his fate. On the 28th of July, 1904, a member of
the ‘Organisation of the Struggle’ threw a bomb into the
carriage of the Minister as he was driving towards the Warsaw
railway station in St. Petersburg, on his way to an audience
with the Tsar. He was killed instantaneously; while the
assassin, Sasonov, and a second terrorist, Sickocki, who had
lent him assistance, were arrested and condemned to twenty and
eleven years respectively of penal servitude."
_K. Zilliacus,
The Russian Revolutionary Movement,
chapter 16 (New York, Dutton and Company)._
{565}
RUSSIA: A. D. 1902.
The Political Awakening of the Common People.
Ideas of the Stundists.
Peasants taking Possession of the Granaries.
Floggings and Butcheries in Progress.
"The discontented crowds are unarmed, their only weapons are,
so far, shouts, banners and martyrdom for Liberty, while the
auto-bureaucratic regime meets these with the infliction of
wounds and death. Still there are features in this uneven
struggle which are of very ill-omen for auto-bureaucracy. Such
is, in the first place, the hearty compact between the factory
workers and the masses of the towns on the one hand, and the
forward elements of the classes, mainly represented by
students of the different higher educational institutions, on
the other. Secondly, there is the persistency with which the
cries ‘Down with Autocracy!’ ‘Long live Liberty,’ are now
resounding throughout the Empire of the Tzars. The shooters
are invariably beaten down, even shot down, as we shall see
later on; but the cry is raised again and again. Revolutions
are, unfortunately, not accomplished by shouts alone; but does
not the Tzar’s Government take all possible pains to teach the
population this simple truth? …
"Merciless wholesale flogging goes on in the Poltava province.
Rifles have also been used; and a number of women and children
have been wounded and several peasants shot dead. One of the
bodies had fourteen bullets in it. In the Kharkov province
‘peace and order’ has been enforced with a still greater
‘respect to uniform and arms.’ The soldiers themselves state
that the number of blows doled out with the bundles of birch
to the peasants amounted at times to 250 per person. When
fleeing from the torture eight peasants hit on a patrol. The
commanding officer being drunk ordered ‘fire!’ and all the
eight unarmed and helpless victims fell dead!
"But do these ‘energetic measures’ produce the desired effect?
In the village of Kourlak, Province of Voronezh, the same
merciless flogging was to be administered to all its
inhabitants. When the thirty-seventh peasant received his
portion of the torture, the villagers, after consultation,
declared that they submitted. But they collected carefully
_all_ the birch-bundles which served for the execution.
‘ They will be of use to us,’ said the peasants, ‘when
_we_ shall flog _you!_’ All the official
explanations given them by the authorities on this occasion
led them to the conclusion that the administration
acknowledged the righteousness of their claims on the land,
and flogged them only for using wrong means for its
recovery;—that therefore they would soon have the upper hand
over the officials and landlords, and would then flog them in
their turn.
"Nor does the movement in the Poltava Province (see above,
Russia. A. D. 1901-1904) show any sign of abatement. According
to the latest private information, which dates from the last
day of April, the peasant movement there does not at all bear
the character of devastation; although the landlords are
undoubtedly ruined by the quiet doings of the villagers. There
is no pillaging. The peasants, headed by their elective
elders, open the granaries of the landlords and distribute the
grain among themselves according to the needs of each family
(the well-to-do receiving nothing), while the remaining grain,
if any, is transferred to the communal stores. Part of this
appropriated grain has already been used by the peasants for
sowing their own fields, as well as those they have
appropriated from the gentry. As soon as the troops are
marched into the rebellious locality, they take possession
of the appropriated grain still remaining in the communal
granaries, and return it to its former owners. But as soon as
the soldiery, after wholesale flogging of the peasantry, leave
the locality, the peasants again take possession of the
landlords’ grain. The prison at Poltava is crammed with
peasants and students, and yet clandestine manifestoes are
published with the regularity of the local official paper, and
are distributed even among the soldiery. …
"The present peasant movement is not confined to the three
provinces already mentioned. In these it originated simply on
the ground of starvation, and similar events are reported from
the provinces of Koursk, Ekaterinoslav and Podolia; also in
those of Tomsk, Tobolsk, etc., in distant Siberia, where
governmental grain stores suffered the fate of the landlords’
granaries in Europe. But the tension of the peasants’ spirit,
their utter distrust of the present Government, and their
readiness to take justice into their own hands may be said to
be universal throughout the Empire.
"At the beginning of the Social Democratic movement in Russia
no hopes of the Russian peasant were cherished by its leaders.
But powerful agrarian organisations have since sprung up."
_Felix Volkhovsky,
The Russian Awakening
(Contemporary Review, June, 1902)._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1902.
Russo-Chinese Treaty concerning Tibet.
See (in this Volume)
TIBET: A. D. 1902.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1903 (April).
The Massacre of Jews at Kishineff.
The British Vice-Consul at Odessa, Mr. Bosanquet, visited
Kishineff in July, to learn the facts of the barbarous attack
on the Jewish population of that town, which had been made by
a mob in the previous April. The following particulars are
taken from his official report, published soon afterward as a
Parliamentary Paper:
"The riots began on Easter Sunday (O. S.), (the 19th April, N.
S.), in the afternoon, in the eastern extremity of the town …
and on that day were confined to the ordinary acts of a
turbulent crowd—_e. g._, the smashing of windows and
door-panels in Jewish houses. The area of Sunday’s disturbance
was comparatively small." Early the next morning they began
afresh in the same quarter, and spread to other parts of the
town. "They were directed entirely against the Jews." "Monday
was the day when the worst crimes were committed, and these
were perpetrated by bands of rioters in different parts of the
town. Many people believe the riots to be the work of
organized companies."
"Besides the murders committed, the interiors of houses were
utterly dismantled, pillows ripped up, Jewish Scriptures torn,
floors destroyed, and furniture thrown into the street; while
at an early stage wine was broached, that which was not drunk
pouring into the street. The local authorities took no
effective step to stop the riots, which continued unabated
till 4 P. M., or later, the soldiers meanwhile being passive,
if not sympathetic, spectators, and the police contenting
themselves with the arrest of minor criminals; then the
Governor, who had remained at home giving orders by telephone,
which were disregarded, at length ventured to sign the
necessary order for the troops to be employed.
{566}
The only case I heard of in which the latter used their
weapons occurred shortly after the issue of the Governor’s
order, when a Christian boy, pursuing a Jew with a stone, and
refusing to desist, was knocked down and bayoneted by
soldiers. An eye-witness of the scene related the facts to me.
This boy (with one doubtful exception) was the only Christian
killed in the disturbances. If resolute action had been taken
by the authorities, it is believed that the riots could have
been checked at an early stage. The more usual opinion seems
to be that all the murders occurred on Monday. It is certain
that none were perpetrated on Sunday, and very doubtful
whether any took place after the order to employ the troops
had come into effect. The disorders did not entirely cease, as
next day (21st April) houses in the outskirts were pillaged;
but, roughly speaking, the riots may be said to have ended on
Monday. Some students are said to have taken part in the
riots."
"Apparently a feeling existed among the lower classes that the
Jews ought not to be in a majority at Kishineff. The fact is
that they form about 50 per cent. of the population, which
amounts to some 115,000 inhabitants, the other half consisting
two-thirds of Moldavians, and after them of Russians, Greeks,
Armenians, Poles, Germans, &c."
The victims of these melancholy occurrences are officially
estimated at 41 Jews killed, or who died subsequently of
wounds, 3 severely, and 300 slightly, wounded. Among the
killed was one child accidentality suffocated by its mother. The
deaths are placed by another (Jewish) authority at 43,
including 2 young children, and by some even as high as 47,
but this figure seems to include persons who died from shock,
and not directly from violence. The official estimate of
deaths is identical with the figure communicated to me at the
Jewish hospital.
"Three hundred and eight persons have already been convicted
of thefts and other minor offenses [in connection with the
riots], and have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment
ranging from one week to three months. … The accused still
awaiting trial number 360. … Of the above prisoners 260 are
accused of participation in the riots without actual violence
and are out on bail in sums ranging from 200 to 300 roubles.
Those in this category who are found guilty will be sentenced
to imprisonment without hard labour in the Maison
Correctionnelle, where the discipline is more severe than in
prison. The remaining 100 are charged with murder in addition
to other crimes, and those found guilty will be transported to
undergo penal servitude in the Island of Sakhalin."
RUSSIA: A. D. 1903 (May-October).
Intrigues against Opening Ports in Manchuria to Foreign Trade.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1903 (May-October).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1903-1904.
Concert with Austria-Hungary in submitting the Mürzsteg
Programme of Reform in Macedonia to Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904 (February-July).
Opening of the War with Japan.
Battles at the Yalu.
First operations in Manchuria.
First movements against Port Arthur.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904 (July-September).
War with Japan:
Japanese Success in Manchuria.
The great battle of Liao-Yang.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
Reforming attempts of Prince Mirsky.
Meeting of Zemstvo presidents.
The Revolutionary Workman.
Father Gapon.
The Appeal to the Tsar.
The answering Massacre of "Bloody Sunday."
Assassination of Grand Duke Sergius.
Witte’s practical premiership.
The Call of the First Duma.
The General Strike on the Railways.
The Great General Strike.
The Ukase of October 30, called the Constitution of Russia.
Beginning of Reaction.
The Postal Strike.
Fatal Rising at Moscow.
The hated Plehve was succeeded by Prince Svyatopolk Mirsky, a
broad-minded statesman, who began earnest efforts to set the
government on a different course. One of the first measures of
the prince was to win authority from the Tsar for a meeting of
the presidents of the zemstvos, or provincial councils, which
are bodies of a considerably representative character,
exercising a limited power in their rural districts over
matters of sanitation, public roads, and common schools.
Ostensibly, the meeting was to concert measures of relief for
the wounded in the war with Japan; but everybody knew that
political questions could not escape discussion if such a
meeting was held.
All the interests that uphold autocracy, aristocracy, and
bureaucracy in Russia were quick to scent danger, and had no
difficulty in persuading the weak-willed sovereign to recall
his consent to the meeting. In his feeble, half-way manner of
doing things, he forbade it as a public assembly, but allowed
its members to meet unofficially and privately, in November,
with no publication of their discussions or acts. They adopted
resolutions setting forth a bold demand for a representation
of the people in their government, and these were laid before
the Tsar. He gave a public reply to them on the 26th of
December, ignoring the demand for representative institutions,
declaring that the government must remain autocratic, but
making vague promises of reform in the laws, with especial
assurances of liberty to the press and in religion; but
everything granted must flow by gracious favor from the
autocracy, through the channels of the bureaucracy, where it
could not by any possibility run true and clear. The words of
the Tsar, vague as they were, produced some encouragement, and
a feeling of trust in his good intentions; but the effect was
soon destroyed.
It was at about this time that Prince Trubetskoi, in authority
at Moscow, addressed a letter to Prince Mirsky, from which the
following was published in translation soon after: