I.

ICELAND: Its Ancient Claims to Nationality.

Within the last few years the Icelanders have been asserting their ancient right to a national life of their own so seriously that the King of Denmark has exerted himself to soothe their discontent with but partial success. For many historical reasons Iceland ought to have an independent standing among the European states. For some of those reasons its people seem fairly entitled to recognition as the foremost representatives of the old Norse or Scandinavian race. Their ancestors were men of the best blood of Norway, who quitted that country in the ninth century and took possession of the arctic island, because they would not submit to the despotism established by Harold the Fairhaired. That they took with them the best culture of their race and time is proved by the fact that almost everything we know of the old Norse literature, and of the mythology and history embedded in it, was preserved by their pens. Learning was cherished and cultivated among them from the first: and they had the capacity and the spirit for self-government from the first. Before the end of the tenth century they had adopted a republican constitution and founded a commonwealth which endured for about 300 years. This antedated the rise of the city republics of Italy and the free cantons of the Swiss by one or two centuries at the least.

The Icelandic republic was destroyed at last by feuds among its leading families, which invited Norwegian intervention from time to time, and subjected the island to the parent kingdom in the end. Late in the fourteenth century the three Scandinavian kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were joined in a union which did not endure. {306} Its dissolution left Norway, with Iceland as a dependency, attached to Denmark, and that connection was maintained till 1814. Norway was then transferred from the Danish to the Swedish crown; but Iceland was still kept as a part of the dominion of the Danish King. Norway regained national distinctness and independence in 1905, and now it is to be hoped that Iceland will have its just turn.

The island has never been governed as a mere province of Denmark, but always under its own laws. Its old representative assembly, the Althing, was suspended during most of the first half of the last century, but revived in 1845 as a merely consultative assembly. As such it voiced very steadily the claim of the Icelanders to more of autonomy and political distinctness than their Danish lord was willing to yield. In 1874, however, at the 1,000th anniversary of the Icelandic settlement, he granted a constitution which reinvested the Althing with legislative powers, and met the wishes of the island in other important ways; but not so far as to produce content.

IDAHO: A. D. 1905-1907. Murder of ex-Governor Steunenberg. Trial and acquittal of Haywood.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1899-1907.

IDE, HENRY CLAY: Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1906-1907.

IGNATIEFF, COUNT ALEXEI: Assassination.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1899. Enactment of the first Juvenile Court Law.

See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.

IMAM, ALI.

See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.

----------IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Start--------

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Australia: A. D. 1909. The needs of the country. The attitude of the people toward Immigration. The difficulties.

Speaking at a dinner in his honor, given in London, after his return from five years of service as Governor-General of Australia, Lord Northcote touched on what he described as "the Aaron’s rod of all political questions in Australia, which, if it does not swallow up the others, at all events the others depend upon it,"—meaning the increase of Australia’s population. As to the attitude of Australia to the immigration question he said: "No doubt, from time to time certain over-zealous officials have made mistakes which have prejudiced Australia in the eyes of the British public, but I do not believe that anything in the nature of a fixed desire to keep out men who are able to sustain themselves by their labour has ever existed. Of course, Australia has her number of unemployables, and is not prepared to import more from the old country. Then I come to the very important question of coloured immigration, and that is a question we should look at from an Australian as well as from a British point of view. …

"Suppose Australia or Canada confronted by the presence of a large number of Asiatics, men of ability enough to hold their own, men who, if they come there, come to stay, and it is quite conceivable from an Australian point of view that if they do not rigidly secure themselves against the possibility of being swamped by Asiatic labour, they may be presented with a problem even more serious than is the great negro question in the United States. I say this to show that there is more to be said for the Australian point of view than some people are inclined to suppose. Of course a great deal depends upon whether the huge northern territory can be populated by white men. Upon that I hesitate to pronounce a definite opinion. I believe it is possible for a white man, if he is steady, sober, and careful, to colonize for a time this great tropical land; but it is a very serious matter how far the climate is suitable for women and children, and whether we can hope from generation to generation that a healthy and virile race can continue to live and breed in that climate. The territory is over half a million square miles in extent, and the white population is well under 2,000 people. …

"There is plenty of land all through Australia for men who are willing to go there and will be steady and sober and work hard. I have been North, South, East, and West. I can claim for myself the credit that I have travelled fairly hard, and I have seen in every State of Australia plenty of land available for close settlement. If the great landowners are disinclined to sell their holdings—and I quite acknowledge that a great deal of the best land in Australia is in comparatively few hands—at all events the State Governments have very large reserves of land; and by the application of irrigation and other methods of scientific farming they could compete on even terms at least with these squatters, and they could turn these waste lands into fertile country fit for settlers. I am very glad to think that both in New South Wales and Victoria very large irrigation works are in progress and will be completed in a very short time, adding enormously to the acreage of land fit for cultivation; and I say deliberately and advisedly, I care not for reports of Commissions or individuals, that there is land and to spare for generations for men who are ready to undertake the cultivation."

A correspondent of the London _Times_, writing from Sydney in January, 1909, on the subject of the vast quantity of fertile land in Australia that is locked up by private owners in vast sheep runs, to the exclusion of settlement, had this to say: "You may take it as an axiom that immigration to Australia will do no good till the fertile lands are thrown open. And a very large proportion of the closed land is controlled from London, either by ex-Australians who live there and draw their income from Australian property, or by big British companies. … It is necessary to warn seriously shareholders and directors of the big companies that they must put pressure on their officials out here, or prepare to have more drastic pressure forced on themselves. At present, those officials are often responsible for Australian dislike of the absentee company."

{307}

In another letter to the same paper it was said: "Somehow or other the locked-up lands must be opened for agricultural uses. No one now doubts that, and only a few owners, usually either absentees or corporations, pretend to doubt it. The Labour recipe is a Federal land tax on estates over £5,000 in value, of such a kind that fair use of the land will produce profit on which the tax will be a mere fleabite, while it will be a serious charge on fertile land that is used only for sheep runs. The proposed tax is to be Federal simply because there is no hope of passing the requisite Bill through several of the State Upper Houses; otherwise it is more properly a State concern. Now what we have to remember is that this is not only Labour’s remedy. I believe it would be quite possible to carry such a proposal in the present Federal Parliament, so definitely has public opinion swung round against the big owners who keep their land idle. If it is not carried next session, it will be because Mr. Deakin gave his word two years ago that he would not introduce the subject in this Parliament; but Mr. Deakin’s attitude is this—that he wishes the States would do it, that he does not consider this Parliament has any mandate to legislate for it, but that he personally has always favoured such a tax, and, if the States take no steps in that direction, he will support, or even propose, the measure when it has been submitted to the country at a general election. It is useless, therefore, for any one to decry the tax as merely a Labour idea, a ‘Socialistic’ nostrum. The support given it in Australia is far wider than that. And, apart from the many who advocate it as the best remedy for the present land-hunger, there is an increasing body of electors who are being forced into supporting it because no other remedies seem practicable."

The attitude of the Australian Labor Party on the inseparable immigration and land questions was stated very clearly and succinctly in a letter to the London _Times_, dated at Newcastle, New South Wales, June 30, 1909, by a member of the Party, Frank Pittock, who signs himself "a Magistrate of the Territory." He writes: "We cannot at present obtain land for our own genuine land-seekers, skilled in the peculiar requirements of pastoral and agricultural work on the Australian soil. We certainly are unable to give our own unemployed a chance on the land. Any importations of labour from over the seas merely serve to render more distressful the unfortunate position of the colonial out-of-works. On the other hand, we do now, and always have, welcomed new arrivals who may be able, in the near future, to effectively augment our productive wealth. The party fully recognizes the need of population—of the right sort. We have vast empty spaces all over the continent, now grazing grounds for sheep, yet eminently suitable for intense settlement. The Australian Labour party seeks the support, at the forthcoming general election, of all who believe, as does your own Australian Correspondent, that the satisfying of the earth-hunger of our people is the great outstanding need of the day. Can we but be authorized to force the huge monopolists to surrender portions of their holdings we shall have, not only land for our own landless, but land and to spare for those who seek it from the British Isles. … We dare not, as a conscientious and humanitarian party, invite our kith and kin from other parts to come here now. We should be traitors to the Empire, betrayers of the race, if we endorsed in any way the attitude of those who seek, apparently, to flood this fair land with any population at all, regardless of the evil consequences to the immigrants themselves, and alike regardless of the grave injustice thereby done to native-born landless and, in many cases, at present, work-seeking Australians."

A Press despatch from Sydney, October 30, made the following announcement: "Under the closer settlement amendment Bill, which is now before the Legislative Council of New South Wales, the Government will be empowered by proclamation to earmark estates in the vicinity of towns which might impede settlement. When such estates are of the value of £10,000 and upwards the Government may agree with the owners to subdivide them on terms and areas to be agreed upon, so as to ensure _bona fide_ settlement. If the owners fulfil the agreement, the proclamation will be cancelled; if the owners refuse to subdivide within five years, the Government reserves the power to resume at the value on the date of proclamation."

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Brazil: 1908-1909. Increasing Influx.

"During the year [1908] 112,234 persons came into the country, of which 17,539 were visitors and 94,695 immigrants. This shows a notable increase of 26,908 immigrants, or about forty per cent. over the number registered in 1907. Of these 74,999 came at their own expense and 11,109 at the cost of the Union. The increase continues this year, as will be seen from the record of the Port of Rio de Janeiro alone, which received 13,580 immigrants during the first quarter of this year, as compared with 8,607 in 1908 and 5,943 in 1907. In spite of the small grant allotted to this service, it has been conducted with the greatest efficiency. The Department for the Peopling of the Soil has effected the location of immigrants in 26 colonies, situated respectively in the States of Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Geraes, São Paulo, Parana, Santa Catharina, and Rio-Grande-do-Sul, eleven of which are directly under the supervision of the Union. All the nucleus colonies founded last year enjoy unrestricted prosperity, and it has been even necessary to acquire neighbouring lands in order to satisfy the constant demand for more land on the part of the families settled."

_President’s Message to Congress, May 3, 1909._

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Canada: A. D. 1896-1909. The "American Invasion" of the Northwest. Immigration of the last decade.

See (in this Volume ) CANADA: A. D. 1896-1909.

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: England: A. D. 1905-1909. The Aliens Act. Restrictions on the admission of Aliens. A new policy.

Until 1905, England offered practically an open door to the aliens who sought either a permanent home or a temporary residence on her island soil. Little scrutiny was given to them and almost no restriction on their coming in. But some years before that date a growing criticism of such unconditioned hospitality was begun. {308} In 1888 it induced the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons "to inquire into the laws existing in the United States and elsewhere on the subject of the immigration of destitute aliens, and the extent and effect of such immigration into the United Kingdom, and to report whether it is desirable to impose any, and if so, what, restrictions on such immigration." The Commission reported in 1889 that it thought "the alien population was not numerous enough to create alarm," and that it was "not prepared to recommend legislation at present," but saw "the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future." Several proposals of restrictive measures were urged without success in the course of the next dozen years, and, in 1902, a Royal Commission was appointed, "to inquire into—

(1) the character and extent of the evils which are attributed to the unrestricted immigration of aliens, especially in the Metropolis;

(2) the measures which have been adopted for the restriction and control of alien immigration in foreign countries and in British colonies."

The Commission produced an elaborate report in 1903 (Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 1741). Reviewing the hospitality of the past, it found that the migrant aliens of former generations had made the English people "their debtors"; but they were of a different stamp from the immigrants of the present movement, which "may be said to have begun about 1880, and is drawn mainly from the Jewish inhabitants of Eastern Europe." The causes of this recent exodus have been partly economic and partly due to oppressive measures; and the result of the Commission’s investigation of it was the expressed opinion that "in respect of certain classes of immigrants, especially those arriving from Eastern Europe, it is necessary in the interests of the State generally, and of certain localities in particular, that the entrance of such immigrants into this country and their right of residence here should be placed under conditions and regulations coming within that right of interference which every country possesses to control the entrance of foreigners into it. Such regulations should, in our opinion," the report went on to say, "be made in order to prevent so far as possible this country being burdened with the presence of ‘undesirable aliens’ and to provide for their repatriation in certain cases.

"But we think that the greatest evils produced by the presence of the alien immigrants here are the overcrowding caused by them in certain districts of London, and the consequent displacement of the native population. There seems little likelihood of being able to remedy these great evils by the enforcement of any law applicable to the native and alien population alike. We therefore think that special regulations should be made for the purpose of preventing aliens at their own will choosing their residence within districts already so overcrowded that any addition to dwellers within it must produce most injurious results. On this point the Commission recommended specifically that if it be found that the immigration of aliens into any area has substantially contributed to any overcrowding, and that it is expedient that no further newly-arrived aliens should become residents in such area, the same may be declared prohibited area.

"We are also of opinion that efforts should be made to rid this country of the presence of alien criminals (and other objectionable characters)."

An Act embodying substantially the recommendations of the Commission passed Parliament in 1905. Both the Act and the administration of it have been criticised since, as lacking stringency. Its working was reviewed at considerable length in _The Times_ of February 9, 1909 which made the following statements, among others, on the subject:

"The Act, as now administered, does not subject all alien immigrants, or even all steerage immigrants, to inspection. To begin with, the regulation of alien immigration is confined, practically, to the traffic between the United Kingdom and ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea."

In fact, according to _The Times_, "the vast majority of aliens are not affected by the Act. A foreigner may enter this country unchallenged—If he comes from an ‘extra-European’ port (with some exceptions); if he is a cabin passenger; if he is an exempted second-class passenger; if he is a transmigrant; if he is a passenger in a ship containing fewer than 21 ‘alien steerage passengers.’

"Then also, though nominally a subject for inspection, he is not called upon to satisfy the full requirements of the Act, if he is proceeding to a destination outside the United Kingdom; if he holds a return ticket; if he is a seaman; if he is fleeing from religious or political persecution."

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Germany: A. D. 1904-1908. Remarkable decrease of Emigration.

"German emigration has dwindled so steadily and rapidly that at present it would seem to have reached the low-water mark in its downward trend. A glance at the official statistics of emigration will indicate the remarkable extent of this retrogression. In 1852, Germans, to the number of 145,918, and in 1854, to the number of 215,009, went to the United States alone. In 1872, just after the unification of the Empire, the grand total of German emigration amounted to 128,152; in 1873, to 110,438; in 1881, to 220,902; in 1882, to 203,585 persons. During the years succeeding 1882 up to 1892, the figures, in the average, still surpassed 100,000, but since then they have shown a notable falling off. Thus only 22,309 in 1900; 22,073 in 1901; 32,098 in 1902; 36,310 in 1903; 27,984 in 1904—were recorded as having gone from Germany to lands beyond the sea.

"This retrogressive tendency appears the more surprising when it is remembered that Germany’s population, mainly as a result of the excess of births over deaths, but partly through its inland migration, has, since the foundation of the Empire, increased at an average annual rate of over half a million, during recent years at the still higher rate of 800,000 per annum. The cause for this seeming anomaly lies in the extraordinary economical development of Germany during the last decade, in the consequent steady improvement of the social status of its laboring classes, brought about by a progressive rise in wages, and in the elimination, thereby, of one of the strongest incentives to emigration in former days."

_Baron Speck von Sternburg, The Phantom Peril of German Emigration and South American Settlements (North American Review, May, 1906)._

{309}

Of the emigrants from Germany in 1908, the United States Consul-General reported that they numbered only 19,880, being 11,816 less than in 1907.

"From 1897 to 1907 the yearly mean average was 27,526, or 0.47 per cent. of the population. Altogether since 1871 the German Empire has lost only 2,750,000 people by emigration, or as many people as can be made good in four years by the excess of births over deaths."

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Italy: A. D. 1908. Great falling off in the Movement of Emigration.

As reported in a Press despatch from Rome, in June, 1909, the statistics of 1908 showed a marked falling off in Italian emigration. "In 1907 the total number of emigrants was 704,675; in 1908 it was only 486,674. The most notable reduction is in the number of emigrants to the United States, which has fallen from 298,124 in 1907 to 131,501 in 1908. This chiefly affects Southern Italy, the Abruzzi, Campania, Calabria, Basilicata, and Sicily; the northern emigration, which for the most part is directed towards European countries, is also diminished, but in a less proportion. Unfortunately, this change is not due to more favourable labour conditions in Italy, but to a smaller demand for labour in North America. The number of emigrants to Argentina has slightly increased from 78,493 to 80,699; but the great market for Italian labour, the United States, is, to judge from the figures of this year as well as last year, surely and irretrievably growing smaller."

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Peru: A. D. 1906. Decree for the Encouragement of Immigration.

The following decree was promulgated by President Pardo the 10th of August, 1906:

"First. The State will provide third-class passages for the natives of Europe and America who may wish to introduce industrial or private enterprises, provided that they fulfill the following conditions:

(_a_) That they are from 16 to 50 years of age, if they are males, and from 10 to 40 if they are females, fulfilling the conditions of morality and health laid down in the rules now in force.

(_b_) That they come to engage in agriculture, in mining, or in other industries, or to devote themselves to these occupations for account of colonization, immigration, or irrigation enterprises.

"Second. The payment of the passages will be made through the consuls of the Republic in the ports of shipment in view of the orders cabled by the ministry of fomento, to which office must be presented in writing the request of the interested parties for such payment, indicating at the same time the number of immigrants, the agricultural estate or industrial establishment to which they are destined, and declaring themselves obliged to provide lodging, board, and medical attendance for the immigrants from the port of landing to the place of destination.

"Third. The consuls of the Republic, on receipt of the order from the minister of fomento, shall make the payment of the passages to the steamer companies direct, with previous personal and individual evidence that the immigrants fulfill the conditions set forth in Article 1 of this decree, and for this purpose they shall give a certificate to each immigrant, which shall be collected by the maritime authorities of the port of landing and afterwards forwarded to the ministry of fomento.

"Fourth. A general register of immigrants shall be opened in the agricultural section of the ministry of fomento, in accordance with the models and instructions obtained from that department."

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1868-1908. Chinese Exclusion Laws vs. Treaties with China.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1868-1900, and 1905-1908.

IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: A. D. 1905-1909. National Conference of 1905. The New Immigration Law. Excluded Classes. Congressional Commission to investigate Immigration. Its Preliminary Report. Information for Immigrants. Measures for distributing them. Backward turn of the tide in 1908.

At a National Conference on the subject of Immigration, held at New York in December, 1905, under the auspices of the National Civic Federation, the Commissioner-General of Immigration, Mr. Frank P. Sargent, presented some facts of the immigration of the preceding statistical year which claimed very grave consideration. During the twelve months ending June 30 there had been 1,026,499 arrivals in this country, and of this number seven hundred and seventy-seven thousand, or 76 per cent., settled in six States—New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. New York received over three hundred and fifteen thousand, while the West received only forty three thousand; Pennsylvania received over two hundred and ten thousand, while the South received only forty-six thousand. Fifty-seven thousand came to New Jersey, while North Carolina’s share was one hundred and eighty-three. These figures gave point to Mr. Sargent’s statement that the immigrants go where their friends are. Their only sources of information concerning this country are the agents of the transportation companies and their friends who have come here before. The resulting lack of knowledge concerning those parts of the country in which they are most needed is the chief cause of the congestion in the large cities and the more densely populated States which is one of the most serious aspects of the immigration problem.

Nearly twelve thousand immigrants were refused admission during the year, of whom eight thousand were paupers, two thousand diseased, and one thousand brought in violation of the contract labour law. "It is right," said Mr. Sargent, "that they should be denied admission, wrong that they ever should have been started from home."

In the new Immigration Law enacted by Congress in February, 1907, provision was made for giving information to immigrants, after their landing in the country, such as may guide them in the choice of their place of settlement. It authorized the Commissioner-General of Immigration to establish a Division of Information, the duty of which shall be "to promote a beneficial distribution of aliens admitted into the United States among the several States and Territories desiring immigration." To which end "correspondence shall be had with the proper officials of the States and Territories, and said division shall gather from all available sources useful information regarding the resources, products, and physical characteristics of each State and Territory, and shall publish such information in different languages and distribute the publications among all admitted aliens who may ask for such information at the immigrant stations of the United States and to such other persons as may desire the same." Agents appointed by any State or Territory to represent to arriving immigrants the inducements it can offer to them are to have perfect freedom and opportunity to do so.

{310}

For checking the immigration of prohibited classes of aliens at the foreign starting-points of their journey to America, instead of at the landing places on this side of the ocean, the new law only lays more rigid restrictions and heavier penalties on the transportation companies, to make them exercise a more careful discrimination in their acceptance of passengers. It adds several classes to the former list of aliens to be excluded from admission to the United States. The list now reads: "All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy, anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all government, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials: prostitutes, or women or girls coming into the United States for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose; persons who procure or attempt to bring in prostitutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose,"—together with contract laborers, so called, assisted immigrants, and children under sixteen years of age unaccompanied by one or both of their parents.

The new law created a Commission to investigate the subject of immigration and to report its findings and recommendations to Congress. The Commission to be composed of three Senators, three Representatives, and three persons to be appointed by the President. A preliminary report from this Commission was presented to Congress on the 1st of March, 1909. This indicated no more than the progress that had been made in a most exhaustive investigation, which probably would require the greater part of another year to carry it to completion. It was covering every phase of the immigration question, including Oriental aliens and other excluded classes, peonage, charity among immigrants, white slave traffic, conditions of steerage, anthropology, congestion in large cities, alien criminality, competition of immigrants, school inquiries, administration of the immigration laws, distribution of immigrants, and other questions. In its work the Commission had employed 198 persons, of whom 82 were in Washington, 2 in New York, 2 in San Francisco, 92 in field work, and 20 in special lines of inquiry.

The preliminary report of the Commission indicates that the present provisions of law for the exclusion of undesirable persons are stronger in theory than they are effective in practice, and that thousands of very undesirable immigrants enter the country every year. The Commission expresses a confident expectation of finding means of prevention that will be effective. It is conducting an inquiry of great importance into the subject of alien criminality. The higher criminal courts of New York city are keeping records, at its request, in detail, of each person convicted of crime, and it is intended that a study of foreign-born criminals, and criminals of the second generation, will be made in that city. The investigation, however, is not confined to the larger cities.

The Division of Information in the Department of Commerce and Labor which the new Immigration Law provided for was organized with Mr. Terence V. Powderly, former Commissioner-General of Immigration, as its Chief. In July, 1909, there was an announcement of its undertaking to bring about coöperation with the Governors of States and Territories, in organized measures to accomplish a better distribution through the country of the foreigners that come to it.

Dr. L. Pierce Clark has lately called attention to the fact that the increase of immigration into the United States has reached the point of making the influx of aliens the principal source of population, and that "its character has changed so fundamentally that it has assumed an entirely new relation to American social problems. Up to 1900 the average annual immigration had not exceeded one-half of one per cent of the population of the United States, and the races which had made the first settlement in the country were still contributing more than 75 per cent. of the whole number of arrivals. By 1901 the new immigration had fairly started, the English, Irish, German, and Scandinavian had been supplanted by Hebrews, Slavs, and Italians, and the impetus had been received which, four years later, was to carry immigration past the million-a-year mark. More than one-fifth of all the immigrants who have come to this country have arrived since 1900, and, with the changed source of immigration, a remarkable transformation in the composition of our foreign-born population is in progress."

The industrial depression of 1907, however, produced evidence that much of this later immigration has not been for permanent settlement; that the facilitation and cheapening of travel have brought about extensive movements of people, from southern and southeastern Europe, especially, who come to America only to earn and save a little fund which suffices for a comfortable remainder of life in their own land. The check to such earning which occurred in 1907 turned the tide of migration instantly back from America to Europe. According to statistics prepared by Mr. Watchorn, the late Commissioner-General of Immigration, the excess of departures over arrivals at the port of New York, in the half year from January 1 to July 1, 1908, was 129,511. In the whole fiscal year that ended June 30, 1908, the departures from New York were 631,458; the arrivals 689,474; showing the gain of population to the country that year from incomers through the port of New York to have been only 58,016, even if all became permanent inhabitants.

See, also (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS, AND CANADA.

----------IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: End--------

{311}

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.

IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE, The.

See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).

INCOME TAX: Proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (JULY).

INDEMNITY FOR THE BOXER RISING: Remittance of part of it by the United States.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.

INDEPENDENCE LEAGUE.

See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905, and NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.

INDEPENDENCE PARTY, or KOSSUTH PARTY.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903, and 1904.

INDEPENDENT FILIPINO CHURCH.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.

INDEPENDENT LABOR PARTY, BRITISH.

See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1903, and 1905-1906; also, SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.

INDEPENDENTS.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.

INDEPENDISTAS.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.

See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.

----------INDIA: Start--------

INDIA: A. D. 1902-1903. Ravages of the Bubonic Plague.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: BUBONIC PLAGUE.

INDIA: A. D. 1902-1904. Forced opening of Tibet to trade. The mission and expedition of Colonel Younghusband.

See (in this Volume) TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904.

INDIA: A. D. 1903. The question of Indian Labor in South Africa.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903.

INDIA: A. D. 1903 (January). Great Durbar at Delhi.

A great _Durbar_ or reception was held at Delhi, on the first of January, 1903, by the Viceroy and by the Duke and Duchess of Connaught, specially deputed to represent their majesties the Emperor and Empress of India. About 100 ruling chiefs were in attendance, and the visitors drawn by the spectacle were estimated to number 173,000.

INDIA: A. D. 1903-1908. Hostility in the Transvaal to British Indian Immigration.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903-1908.

INDIA: A. D. 1904-1909. Coöperative Industrial Movement.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: INDIA.

INDIA: A. D. 1905 (April). Terrific earthquake in the Punjab and United Provinces.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: INDIA: A. D. 1905.

INDIA: A. D. 1905 (August). Resignation of Lord Curzon.

Announcement of the resignation of the Viceroyalty by Lord Curzon was made August 21. The immediate cause of his action was understood to be the refusal of the Home Government to approve his nomination of an officer, General Barrow, whom he wished to have placed on the Viceroy’s Council. But friction between Lord Curzon and the Commander-in-Chief in India, Lord Kitchener, over questions of military administration and the authority belonging to their respective offices had been troublesome for some time past, and the Viceroy had seemed to regard the attitude of the government at home as more favorable to Lord Kitchener than to himself.

INDIA: A. D. 1905 (August). Agreement concerning India between Great Britain and Japan.

See (in this Volume) Japan: A. D. 1905 (August).

INDIA: A. D. 1905-1908. The Starving Poverty of the Mass of the People.

"Suppose we divide the past century into quarters, or periods of twenty-five years each. In the first quarter there were five famines, with an estimated loss of life of 1,000,000. During the second quarter of the century were two famines, with an estimated mortality of 500,000. During the third quarter there there were six famines, with a recorded loss of life of 5,000,000. During the last quarter of the century, what? Eighteen famines, with an estimated mortality reaching the awful totals of from 15,000,000 to 26,000,000. And this does not include the many more millions (over 6,000,000 in a single year) barely kept alive by government doles.

"What is the cause of these famines, and this appalling increase in their number and destructiveness. The common answer is, the failure of the rains. But there seems to be no evidence that the rains fail worse now than they did a hundred years ago. Moreover, why should failure of rains bring famine? The rains have never failed over areas so extensive as to prevent the raising of enough food in the land to supply the needs of the entire population. Why then have people starved? … Because they were so indescribably poor. All candid and thorough investigation into the causes of the famines of India has shown that the chief and fundamental cause has been and is the poverty of the people,—a poverty so severe and terrible that it keeps the majority of the entire population on the very verge of starvation even in years of greatest plenty. …

"And the people are growing poorer and poorer. The late Mr. William Digby, of London, long an Indian resident, in his recent book entitled, _Prosperous India_, shows from official estimates and Parliamentary and Indian Blue Books, that, whereas the average daily income of the people of India in the year 1850 was estimated as four cents per person (a pittance on which one wonders that any human being can live), in 1882 it had fallen to three cents per person and in 1900 actually to less than two cents per person. Is it any wonder that people reduced to such extremities as this can lay up nothing? …

{312}

"One cause of India’s impoverishment is heavy taxation. Taxation in England and Scotland is high, so high that Englishmen and Scotchmen complain bitterly. But the people of India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of England and three times as heavily as those of Scotland. According to the latest statistics at hand, those of 1905, the annual average income per person in India is about $6.00, and the annual tax per person about $2.00. …

"Notice the single item of salt-taxation. Salt is an absolute necessity to the people, to the very poorest; they must have it or die. But the tax upon it which for many years they have been compelled to pay has been much greater than the cost value of the salt. Under this taxation the quantity of salt consumed has been reduced actually to one-half the quantity declared by medical authorities to be absolutely necessary for health. …

"Another cause of India’s impoverishment is the destruction of her manufactures, as the result of British rule. … Great Britain wanted India’s markets. She could not find entrance for British manufactures so long as India was supplied with manufactures of her own. So those of India must be sacrificed. England had all power in her hands, and so she proceeded to pass tariff and excise laws that ruined the manufactures of India and secured the market for her own goods.

"A third cause of India’s impoverishment is the enormous and wholly unnecessary cost of her government. …

"Another burden upon the people of India which they ought not to be compelled to bear, and which does much to increase their poverty, is the enormously heavy military expenses of the government. …

"Perhaps the greatest of all the causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people is the steady and enormous drain of wealth from India to England, which has been going on ever since the East India Company first set foot in the land, three hundred years ago, and is still going on with steadily increasing Volume. … Says Mr. R. C. Dutt, author of the _Economic History of India_ (and there is no higher authority), ‘A sum reckoned at twenty millions of English money, or a hundred millions of American money [some other authorities put it much higher], which it should be borne in mind is equal to half the net revenues of India, is remitted annually from this country [India] to England, without a direct equivalent.’"

_J. T. Sunderland, The New Nationalist Movement in India (Atlantic Monthly, October, 1908)._

INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909. The Partition of Bengal. Resentment and Disaffection of the Bengalese. The Swadeshi Movement. Reported improvement of conditions in the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam.

The partition of Bengal, in October, 1905, one of the latest measures of Lord Curzon’s administration of the Government of India, gave rise to much native agitation and disaffection, and is still under criticism in England, but not likely to be undone. In the view of the Anglo-Indian Government the

## partition was a necessity, because of the magnitude of the

province, in territory and population, which made the task of provincial administration too difficult. It was far the largest of the administrative divisions of British India, containing nearly a third of the Indian subjects of the English King. Assam, formerly joined with it, had been separated from it administratively in 1874, under a Chief Commissioner. Fifteen of the eastern districts of Bengal, adjacent to Assam, were now united with the latter to form a new province, called Eastern Bengal and Assam, and this disruption of the old province was resented very passionately by a large part of the Bengalese. They refused to believe the reasons given for the partition, but gave it an offensive explanation, which one of the native journals in Calcutta put briefly as follows: "The objects of the scheme are, briefly, first, to destroy the collective power of the Bengali people; secondly, to overthrow the political ascendency of Calcutta; and, thirdly, to foster in East Bengal the growth of a Mohammedan power which it is supposed will have the effect of keeping in check the rapidly growing strength of the educated Hindu community." In the official British view, on the other hand, the whole stir of Bengalese feeling was artfully wrought up for mischievous ends; but it is easier to believe that something in the nature of a historic sentiment of nationality was really hurt and angered by the partition. Yet Bengal cannot be said to have had anything that resembled a distinct national history for many centuries before it came under the rule of the British East India Company, in 1765. Nor had its name been precisely and continuously attached to any well-defined territory.

Whatever the source of excited feeling may have been, however, it was ardent and persistent, especially in the educated class, and it gave a start to what received the name of the Swadeshi or national movement of hostility to all things English, directed mainly to the boycotting of English merchandise, and to the organization of efforts for promoting home production in all industrial fields. The Swadeshi movement soon spread beyond Bengal; but its stimulations have been centered there. The intensity of the feeling in Bengal was such that on the 16th of October, 1905, when the partition took effect, the Hindus of Calcutta put on mourning garments, suspended business and work, and vowed that its anniversaries should be memorial mourning days. Pupils in native schools became so offensive in their anti-English demonstrations that the Lieutenant-Governor of the new province, Sir Bampfylde Fuller, in February, 1906, unwisely requested the Calcutta University to disaffiliate two schools in the Pabna district, taking away the pecuniary aid they received. The request was disapproved by Lord Curzon’s successor in the Viceroyalty, Lord Minto, and rather than withdraw it the Lieutenant-Governor resigned.

In the winter of 1909 the London _Times_ sent a special correspondent into Eastern Bengal to study the results of the

## partition, so far as developed in three years. His

observations and conclusions were communicated in a long, interesting letter from Dacca, February 15th. He wrote:

"No one can visit the new province, and endeavour to inquire impartially into its condition before the ‘partition,’ without realizing that some administrative division of Bengal had become imperative. Until five years ago, Eastern Bengal was the ‘Cinderella’ of the provinces of India. Good administration stopped short on the line of the Ganges. Beyond that line officers were few, and the interest of the central authorities in their work and in the welfare of the people in their charge was comparatively limited. … {313} Land revenue administration was persistently neglected in the temporary settled tracts. Calcutta and its immediate vicinity, and the more accessible districts of Old Bengal, absorbed the greater part of the time and attention of the Bengal Government. Money was poured out upon Calcutta and its environs, and Eastern Bengal was financially starved. Very little was spent upon education, and the whole riverain region was most inadequately policed. Crime was far more rife in the southern districts of the province than in any other part of India. The peasantry groaned beneath the exactions of the representatives of absentee landlords, and they were left unregarded and unprotected. The whole province suffered because its rulers were immersed in the preoccupations of Calcutta. The very railways were constructed, not to serve the needs of these 30 millions of people, but to meet the requirements of the city on the Hughli. …

"It is remarkable to note how, in the short space of three years, the old deplorable conditions of Eastern Bengal have already undergone a satisfactory process of modification. The province is no longer content to be dragged at the tail of Old Bengal. A new and independent provincial spirit is springing up. Eastern Bengal is beginning to recognize all that a separate existence means to it. Its Civil servants, from the Lieutenant-Governor downwards, take a pride in the great work of regeneration which has been entrusted to them. Their task is enormous, and the workers are far too few. They are like men who have been set to create a new colony out of a land of chaos. They have before them almost as formidable an undertaking as the making of modern Egypt, but it is an Egypt of green rice-fields with half-a-dozen Niles. …

"The demand for higher education in Eastern Bengal is perhaps greater than in any other part of India. The admirable Government College at Dacca has now been provided with splendid buildings, begun, however, before the 'partition.' The whole province is being supplied with a set of colleges adequate to its needs. The staffs of the colleges are being augmented and their administration overhauled. The principal private colleges are also being assisted with liberal grants and transformed into institutions which will give a sound education. The exceptionally large number of 'high' English schools in Eastern Bengal had also been greatly neglected, both those under the Government and those in private hands. All are now being improved, and are receiving liberal assistance. …

"Another important task undertaken by the new Government is that of conducting an elaborate survey and framing a Record of Rights in the zemindari tracts which constitute the bulk of the province. The undertaking was devised before the ‘partition,’ but it has been expedited by the change. It is an extraordinary thing that in all these permanently settled areas there has been hitherto no record and no map. The consequence was that the cultivators were constantly bullied and harassed by the agents of the absentee zemindars, and were never able to feel any reasonable security of tenure of the land they tilled. Land disputes were incessant, and were constantly accompanied by loss of life. In the Backergunge district, the most turbulent area in India, there were frequent riots, of which murders were an almost invariable feature. Since the framing of the Record of Rights in Backergunge this class of crime has already decreased by 50 per cent.

"I have yet to meet anybody, English or Indian, who can tell me in what respect the ‘partition’ has injured a single living soul; while one has only to visit this province, invigorated with new life and inspired by new aspirations, to realize the benefits the severance has conferred upon millions of neglected people. To alter or to modify it now would be suicidal folly; it would be worse, for it would be a criminal blunder. It would not placate the wordy ‘patriots’ of Calcutta, who have used the ‘partition’ as a rallying cry for lack of a better grievance; and it would alienate the 18 millions of backward Mahomedans in the province who have placed their alliance in British honour and British pledges. The Nawab of Dacca, with whom I had a long conversation on the subject, declared that any attempt to meddle with the ‘partition’—an attempt he still seemed to fear was possible—would produce the most deplorable results among his co-religionists. … Nor is there the slightest need for change or modification. The ‘partition’ is already thrice justified in the eyes of all men, save only a few malcontent members of Parliament who know nothing of present conditions in Bengal. Even in Calcutta the outcry, which was always less against the fact of the ‘partition’ than against the motive which the Bengalis erroneously believed to have prompted it, has long ago died away. Yet, justifiable and necessary though the ‘partition’ was, it remains to be added that, apart from its complex administrative problems, Eastern Bengal will never be a very easy province to control. The high-caste Hindus, the Brahmins, the Baidyas, and the Kayasths—the Brahmins and the lesser Brahmins,—rule the roast, and it will be long years before the teeming millions of Mahometan cultivators emerge from their depressed condition. The few Mahomedan families who can claim noble birth are decadent and disappearing. The Hindus have absorbed their lands, the clever lawyers have converted themselves into rich landowners. It is from the ranks of these high-caste Hindus that are drawn the members of the revolutionary societies to which I alluded in a telegraphic despatch sent from this city yesterday. These classes show a persistent and increasing spirit of hostility to the British Raj which no amount of conciliatory measures will overcome. It is impossible to move about the province and to converse with the men who know it best without feeling that the situation is full of dangerous possibilities. The men of Eastern Bengal are more courageous, more determined, more persistent than their compatriots in Old Bengal; and the better classes of Hindus have qualities which are not easily discernible in the Calcutta _babu_. They approach more nearly to the spirit of the Mahrattas of the Deccan than any other section of the people on this side of India. It is a significant fact that most of the prisoners now under trial at Alipur in connexion with the anarchist conspiracy came from Eastern Bengal. But even as one writes one realizes how difficult it is to generalize in this country of startling paradox. {314} Yesterday, in Dacca, 200 Hindu pundits assembled to present a Sanscrit address to the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Lancelot Hare. Many of them had come long distances. They were all old men with great nobility of countenance, some with long beards, others with the face of the Cæsars. And at the conclusion of the ceremony each kindly and venerable scholar advanced, and with great dignity presented the Lieutenant-Governor with a rose. From the bombs of last week to the roses of yesterday, what a gulf lies between the two!"

INDIA: A. D. 1907. Hostility in Western Canada to Hindu Laborers.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: CANADA.

INDIA: A. D. 1907 (December). Meeting and Resolution of the All-India Moslem League. Mahomedan loyalty to the British Government. A new factor in Indian politics.

"On December 30th last a Mahomedan Conference, in session at Dacca, the capital of the newly-created Province of Eastern Bengal, departing absolutely from its traditions, openly discussed the question of the protection of Mahomedan interests from a political standpoint, and finally carried unanimously a motion for the formation of an ‘All-India Moslem League’ to promote among the Mahomedans of India feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and to remove any misconceptions that may arise as to the intentions of Government with regard to any of its measures; to protect and to advance the political rights and interests of the Mahomedans of India, and respectfully to represent their needs and aspirations to Government, and to prevent the rise among Mahomedans in India of any feelings of hostility towards other communities, without prejudice to the other objects of the League. A strong Provisional Committee was formed, with power to add to its number, and the joint secretaries appointed were the Nawabs Vicar-ul-mulk and Mohsin-ul-mulk, two of the most important members of the Mahomedan community in India and men of great intellectual capacity. The Committee was charged to frame a constitution within a period of four months, and further to convene a meeting of Indian Mahomedans at a suitable time and place to lay the constitution before such meeting for final approval and adoption. The Rubicon has been crossed; the Mahomedans of India have forsaken the shades of retirement for the political arena; henceforth a new factor in Indian politics has to be reckoned with."

_E. E. Lang, The All-India Moslem League (Contemporary Review, September, 1907)._

INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908. The Outbreak of Anarchism. Summary Measures of Suppression.

The native disaffection in Bengal which became anarchistic in its violence in 1907, and which perpetrated a number of murders before it was suppressed, culminated on the 10th of February, 1909, in the assassination of a prominent native lawyer, Ashutosh Biswas, who had taken part in the prosecution of some of the anarchists. Writing of that crime, from Calcutta, a special correspondent of the London _Times_, who had been pursuing an investigation of the terrorist conspiracy from its beginning, gave an extended account of what he had learned, part of which is given in the following:

"All that can be said with certainty is that the gospel of violence, the creed which advocates the use of any form of force against the British, is Mahratta in its origin; but so far it is the Bengalis alone who have put it into practice. It was conceived in Poona, which city has always continued to inspire and direct it; it was transferred to Baroda, where it flourished in secret among a limited circle; and it was transplanted to Calcutta, where it grew apace, somewhere between the years 1902 and 1904. Certain classes of Bengalis, who are all adepts at intrigue, took up the new idea with enthusiasm; but not all who knocked were admitted to the inner circle. The real conspirators were still probably few in number when the ‘partition’ of Bengal gave the politicians their opportunity. The anarchists were furious at the

## partition agitation. They were quite content that less

militant persons should prepare the ground for them, by preaching to the people of the iniquities of the British Raj; but they were reluctant to see the popular mind actively diverted to such minor issues as _swadeshi_ and the boycott. The extermination of the British was their one and only aim.

"However, as the Congress politicians had succeeded in arousing intense excitement about the partition, the anarchist gang sought to turn the situation to their own advantage. … Recruits were, however, only gradually admitted into the inner ring; and there were many people who associated with the anarchists, and sometimes furnished them with funds, who never took part in their operations. Propaganda formed a prominent feature of the anarchists’ work. In this department the worst types of seditious journals, which have now disappeared, played a great part. Such newspapers as the _Yugantar_ started ‘messes’ and ‘hostels,’ to which subscribers,

## particularly those residing up-country, were invited to come

free of charge. They stayed for a day or two, heard the new gospel preached, and then made way for others. …

"The existence of this considerable organization was not really suspected by the police until after the attempt to wreck Sir Andrew Fraser’s train in December, 1907. Some of the anarchists were under suspicion, and were being watched as notoriously disaffected persons, but even the shooting of Mr. B. C. Allen, District Magistrate of Dacca, in the same month, did not reveal the conspiracy. The police were, however, on the right track; and a couple of days after two unfortunate ladies had been killed by a bomb at Muzaffarpur, on April 30, 1908, they acted. At a house in Calcutta, and in a garden on the outskirts, large seizures of bombs, explosives, and revolvers were made and about 30 alleged anarchists were arrested. Other arrests followed. The famous Manicktollah garden was the principal scene of anarchist activity. It is so secluded that one wonders it was ever discovered. Far on the confines of Calcutta, through a network of mean huts beneath waving palms, a series of winding paths leads to a couple of mouldering gate-pillars innocent of any gate. Within, under shady trees, stands a small building in the last stage of disrepair. It is mean and dirty and squalid, the true squalor of anarchism. If it is only in such a spot that any movement can be hatched for the overthrow of the British Raj, then the British Raj is safe for a long time.

{315}

"The prisoners were taken to the Alipur Gaol, and their trial was commenced at the Alipur Police Court. I visited the Court one day—I think it was the seventieth day of the trial—and marvelled afresh. They were ranged in rows, about 50 men, all young, all huddled together and squatting on their haunches. The only man among them with an intellectual face was Arabindo Ghose, the alleged leader, who sat in a far corner. He has the face of a dreamer, as indeed he is, and with his long hair and short beard might very well pass for a certain type of artistic Frenchman. Whether he be guilty or not is no affair of mine, but his record excites pity. He went to England with brilliant gifts and high hopes, and he had a distinguished career at school and University. But men who profess to know say that he had more than the ordinary share of the rough and tumble of juvenile life amidst alien and often thoughtless comrades, and that those years were made thoroughly unhappy for him. When at last, after he had passed for the Civil Service, he was rejected because he could not pass the horsemanship test, one can perhaps understand that a man of his temperament returned to India with black rage and despair at his heart. But his associates seemed to be mere boys, haggard, wild looking youths of a peculiarly low physical type."

The trial of the prisoners described above, at Alipur, resulted in the condemnation of two to death, six to transportation for life, one to imprisonment for life, and five to imprisonment for terms ranging from one to ten years. The remainder, including the alleged leader, Arabindo Ghose, were acquitted. With the sanction of Lord Morley, the Secretary for India, summary measures were taken to silence the seditious journalism and speech which took a terroristic tone and instigated crime. Loud protests against these measures were called out in England, and one hundred and forty-six Liberal, Labor, and Irish Members of Parliament addressed a note in May last to the Prime Minister, asking his attention to "the fact that ever since the 8th December last nine British subjects in India have been deported from their homes and detained in prison without having been charged with any offence or informed even of the grounds of suspicion entertained against them by the Government of India. Some of them are admitted to be men of high character. None are alleged to have been previously convicted of any crime. Under these circumstances," said the writers, "we may venture to make an urgent appeal to you that they may be either brought to trial or set at liberty."

In his reply Mr. Asquith said: "Such an appeal is perfectly natural, and I am not surprised to find that it is widely and influentially supported. Deportation without trial as a method of dealing with political agitation must necessarily be repugnant to Englishmen, and to no one has the necessity of resorting to such a measure been more repugnant than to Lord Morley. When, however, I am appealed to on behalf of the persons so deported, I must ask you and those who are acting with you to bear in mind that deportation has been resorted to for the sole purpose of preserving the country from grave internal commotion. It is a preventive not a punitive measure, and the responsibility for fixing the period of detention must, therefore, rest with those who are charged with the arduous and anxious duty of maintaining order in India.

"The Secretary of State and the Government of India are, I submit, the only possible judges of the circumstances which may warrant the release or the further detention of the persons deported, and the decision is one which, in my view—and I hope that you and your co-signatories may find yourselves in agreement with me—may be left with absolute confidence in their hands.

"It is particularly necessary at a moment when a great extension of popular representative elements in Indian administration has just been sanctioned by Parliament that none of the various forms of anarchical violence should be tolerated, and that no lawful instrument for suppressing them should be discarded."

One of the trials for seditious journalism which caused most excitement throughout India did not arise from publications in Bengal, but in Bombay. The accused was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a Brahmin, professor of law and mathematics, who conducted a native paper called the _Mahratta_. The specific charge against him was that in his newspaper he had urged the people to demand the restoration of the old Shiwaji religious festivals and, if it was refused, to throw bombs until it was granted. The government contended that he had not incited the people to violence in overt words, but by subtle insinuations and unmistakable innuendo. At his trial in July, 1908, he spoke in his own defence, with great ability, for five days. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six years.

INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908. Mortality Statistics and Birth Rate.

See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH.

INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909. The recent Movements of Discontent. Their Character, Causes, and Meaning. Hindu and Moslem feeling. English attitude. The Past of British Government and its Fruits. Neglect of Education and Political Training. Slight Organization of Local Self-Government. The Governed not taken into the confidence of the Government. Is Democracy forbidden to Asiatic peoples?

The political disaffection in India which has been expressing itself violently within the last few years, not only in seditious speech and print, but in the manner of the Russian terrorists, with bombs and other instruments of anarchy and assassination, was not started by the Bengal Partition and the resentments which that measure gave rise to, but those gave a fresh and strong impulse to feelings that had been in fermentation for some time. Behind that immediate impulse was, undoubtedly, a much stronger one, which came from the startling revelation of the Russo-Japanese War, that one Asiatic people, at least, could outfight one, at least, of the proud and domineering Powers of Europe, and outdo them all in a practical handling of the boasted "Science of the West." Torpid energies and sleeping ambitions were pricked in India by the amazing triumph of the Japanese, as they were elsewhere throughout the East; and it is since 1905 that the demand of the Hindus for a political life of their own has taken a tone which commands the ear of all open-minded and generous Englishmen, like John Morley, and draws from them the response they are now trying to make.

{316}

So far as it is a demand for an Independent Indian Empire, with the whole fabric of British rule swept away, it comes manifestly from nothing that has weight or force in India itself. Probably no Hindu who could make intelligent use of political freedom ever dreams of the present possibility of a nationalized India, in which the 200,000,000 of his own race and creed and the 60,000,000 of Mohammedans (saying nothing of the added millions of other lineages and other faiths) would be peaceful fellow citizens, administering the institutions of self-government in harmony together. The Moslems, at least, are under no illusion as to what would happen if the incongruous elements of the enormous population of India were left politically to themselves, under the conditions that now exist. In 1908, when that idea seemed to be growing in Hindu thought, they organized an "All-India Moslem League," avowedly, as declared by the Nawab of Dacca, "to save themselves from being submerged by an enormous and noisy majority of the other race." "The safety of the Mohammedans," said the president of the conference, "lay in loyalty to the government; they must be prepared to fight for the government if necessary." Thus British rule in its present form has the Moslem dread of Hindu ascendency to give it a substantial support, even though the Hindus outnumber the Moslems by more than three to one. In thinking power, the Hindu is perhaps the higher type of man; but the blood of the Afghan and Mongol conquerors of Hindustan must have transmitted more of political as well as military energy to the Moslems of the present day. The Hindu mind is too mystically metaphysical for the politics of a world that is dominated by its least metaphysical minds.

But the higher intelligence of the Hindus appears to agree with that of the Moslems in understanding that India is in no present condition for taking its political fortunes into its own hands. The really intelligent classes have been making it plain, however, that they do want a more effective

## participation in the management of their own affairs than has

been allowed to them hitherto, and it is the claim of that class which Lord Morley and his colleagues in the British Government are acknowledging and aiming to satisfy. It seems to have been generally and fairly represented in the great conventions assembled annually for many years past, under the name of the "Indian National Congress," an unofficial Congress, possessing no authority, but exercising an influence that has increased. Its character was described a few years ago in one of the American reviews by a writer who said that he had watched it from its birth:

"The Indian National Congress," he wrote, "is avowedly national in its name and scope. The Provincial Congresses which meet in every province for the discussion of provincial matters, unite together in a National Congress, which is annually held at a chosen centre, for the furtherance and discussion of national interests. A Congress consists of from five hundred to one thousand of the political leaders of all parts of India, comprising representatives of noble families, landowners, members of local Boards and municipalities, honorary magistrates, fellows of universities, and professional men, such as engineers, bankers, merchants, shopkeepers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, priests and college professors. The delegates are able to act in concert and to declare in no uncertain accents the common public opinion of the multitude of whom they are the mouthpiece. They are as representative in regard to religion as to rank and profession; Hindus, Parsis, Mohammedans and Christians have in turn presided.

"The deliberations are marked by acumen and moderation. The principal items of their propaganda constitute a practical programme displaying insight and sagacity, and covering most of the political and economic problems of the Indian Empire. I take it upon myself to say, as a watchful eye-witness from its birth, that the Indian National Congress has discharged its duties with exemplary judgment and moderation."

_Sir Henry Cotton, The New Spirit in India (North American Review, November, 1906)._

The meeting of this Indian Congress in 1908 was held at Madras on the 27th of December, not long after Lord Morley had explained his plan for the enlargement of the Legislative Councils in India and for the election of a certain number of their members by popular vote. In the address of the President of the Congress, Dr. Rash Bihari Ghose, the proposed reforms were discussed at length, and welcomed with warmth, as going near, apparently, to satisfying the claims of the majority of those represented in the Congress. "We are now," said the speaker, "on the threshold of a new era. An important chapter has been opened in the history of the relations between Great Britain and India—a chapter of constitutional reform which promises to unite the two countries together in closer bonds than ever. A fair share in the Government of our own country has now been given to us. The problem of reconciling order with progress, efficient administration with the satisfaction of aspirations encouraged by our rulers themselves, which timid people thought was insoluble, has at last been solved. The people of India will now be associated with the Government in the daily and hourly administration of their affairs. A great step forward has thus been taken in the grant of representative government for which the Congress had been crying for years. … We do not know what the future destiny of India may be. We can see only as through a glass darkly. But of this I am assured, that on our genuine co-operation with the British Government depend our future progress and the development of a fuller social and political life. Of this also I am assured, that the future of the country is now in a large measure in our own hands."

At about the same time the All-India Moslem League held its meeting at Amritsar, and gave an equally hearty welcome to the principle of the proposed reforms, but appealed against the mode of election contemplated, which might be to the disadvantage of the Moslem minority. In the address of the President, Mr. Ali Imam, he said: "It is impossible for thoughtful men to approach the subject without regard to the pathetic side of the present situation. {317} It is the liberalism of the great British nation that has taught Indians, through the medium of English education, to admire democratic institutions, to hold the rights of the people sacred above all rights and to claim for their voice first place in the government of the country. The mind of close upon three generations of the educated classes in the land has been fed on the ideas of John Stuart Mill, Milton, Burke, Sheridan and Shelley, has been filled with the great lessons obtainable from chapters of the constitutional history of England and has been influenced by inexpressible considerations arising out of the American War of Independence, the relation of Great Britain with her Colonies, and last, though not least, the grant of Autonomy to the Boers after their subjugation at an enormous sacrifice of men and money. The bitterest critic of the educated Indian will not hold him to blame for his present state of mind. It is the English who have carefully prepared the ground and sown the seed that has germinated into what some of them are now disposed to consider to be noxious weed. It will be a dwarfed imagination however that will condemn the educational policy of the large-hearted and liberal-minded Englishmen who laid its foundation in this country. Those who inaugurated it aimed at raising the people to the level where co-operation and good understanding between the rulers and the ruled are possible. Under the circumstances, the desire of the educated Indian to take a prominent part in the administration of his country is neither unnatural nor unexpected. …

"The best sense of the country recognizes the fact that the progress of India rests on the maintenance of order and internal peace, and that order and internal peace in view of the conditions obtaining in our country at present and for a very long time to come, immeasurably long time to come, spell British occupation. British occupation not in the thin and diluted form in which Canada, Australia and South Africa stand in relation to England, but British occupation in the sense in which our country has enjoyed internal peace during the last 50 years. Believe me that as long as we have not learnt to overcome sectarian aggressiveness, to rise above prejudices based on diversity of races, religions and languages, and to alter the alarming conditions of violent intellectual disparity among the peoples of India, so long British occupation is the principal element in the progress of the country. The need of India is to recognize that true patriotism lies in taking measure of the conditions existing in fact, and devoting one’s self to amelioration. … The creed of the All-India Muslim League is cooperation with the Rulers, coöperation with our non-Muslim countrymen and solidarity amongst ourselves. This is our idea of United India."

These expressions from prominent leaders of the two principal races of India are quite in accord with the judgment of liberal-minded Englishmen, as to the present duty of their government to the people of this great Asiatic Dependency. They are quite in accord with the judgment that has dictated the measure undertaken by the present British Government. They recognize that the relation which England bears to India, however unjustifiable in its origin it may be, is one that cannot be suddenly changed without great danger and certain harm. As Goldwin Smith has said:

"To attempt to strike the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of British rule in India would be to enter into a boundless controversy. Foreign rule in itself must always be an evil. India was rescued by Great Britain from murderous and devastating anarchy. Though at the time she was plundered by official corruption of a good deal of the wealth which, being poor though gorgeous, she could ill afford to lose, she has since enjoyed general peace and order; both, we may be sure, to a far greater extent than she otherwise would have done. The deadly enmity between her races and religions has been controlled and assuaged. …

"It does not appear that there is any considerable migration from the provinces directly under British dominion to those which are under native rule. The people, no doubt, are generally fixed to their habitations by poverty and difficulty of movement; still, if they greatly preferred the native rule, a certain amount of migration to it there would probably be. That the masses of India in general are miserably poor cannot be denied. The question is, whether under the Mogul Emperors they were better off. … The population has vastly increased, and its increase may in some measure account for dearth. With regard to fiscal and commercial questions, it may safely be said that, at all events in late years, there has been no disposition on England’s part to do anything but justice to India.

"India’s complaints, speaking generally, seem to be of things inseparable from foreign rule, the withdrawal of which would be the only remedy. But suppose British rule withdrawn from India, what would follow? Is there anything ready to take its place? would not the result be anarchy, such as prevailed when England came upon the scene, or a struggle for ascendency between the Mahometan and the Hindoo, with another battle of Paniput? Suppose the Mahometan, stronger in spirit though weaker in numbers, to prevail, would his ascendency be more beneficial and less galling to the Hindoo than is that of the English Sahib?"

_Goldwin Smith, British Empire in India (North American Review, September 7, 1906)._

Of the ultimate possibilities of a nationalized unification of the mighty masses of population in the vast peninsula, there can, perhaps, be as much or more said hopefully as against the hope. A writer who believes that there may be an independent India has put an outline of the argument, pro and con, in these few following words:

"India, we are almost tired of hearing, is as large as Europe, putting aside Russia and Scandinavia, with as great a population, as many diverse and heterogeneous nationalities, differing from each other in language, in custom, in religion, and in everything that makes for individuality; and we might as well speak of the Indian nation as the European nation. … To this contention Young India opposes the most emphatic contradiction. India is a nation, a people, a country: its interests and aspirations are one and unique. Railways, telegraphs, post-office, the Press, education, knowledge of English, have welded into one harmonious whole all the manifold centrifugal forces of its vast area. {318} Young India will quote Switzerland as an example of a country with several languages and two conflicting religions, and yet undoubtedly constituting a nation. If the only tongue in which the Madrassi and the Bengali can communicate is English, so let it be. It is sufficient that a medium of communication exists. And it does exist. The educated Indian speaks and writes in English as easily as in his own mother-tongue. It is in English that the most vehement tirades against British rule, whether printed, spoken, or dealt with in private correspondence, are hurled across the land. Politically speaking, Lahore is a suburb of Calcutta. The fact cannot be gainsaid and must be reckoned with. India, as a whole, as a political unit, has found a voice. There is a national India, as there is not a national Europe."

_E. C. Cox, Banger in India (Nineteenth Century, December, 1908)._

This view recognizes, as was recognized in the address of the President of the All-India Moslem League, quoted above, that English rule and English influence have done much towards preparing both the country and the people for the self-government to which the latter are now beginning to aspire. It must be said, however, that most of this preparation has been casually consequent on policies that had no such deliberate intent. Until quite late years there is little sign to be seen in British Indian policy of a thought of developing opportunity and capability in the people to become more than valuable customers and docile wards. While India was in the hands of a commercial company it was managed, naturally, like an imperial estate, with strictly economic objects in view. Even then there was wisely economic consideration given to the general welfare of the people; but it was welfare as seen from the estate-owners' standpoint. The proprietary government did many things for its subjects and servants; bettered their conditions in many ways; added greatly to the equipment of their lives; but it did very little, if anything, toward putting them in the way of bettering things for themselves. It contemplated nothing for India but the perpetuity of its management as an imperial estate, entailed in the possession of a proprietary race.

The taking of this imperial estate from company management into national management has not seemed hitherto to alter the business nature of its administration very much. Its many millions of inhabitants have been better governed and better cared for, without doubt; but the idea of benevolence to them has never been much enlarged beyond the idea of an honestly good overseeing care. Institutions have been provided or encouraged for the educating of a class among them which could be of useful assistance in the caretaking of the mass; but common education for the mass, to qualify them better for the care of themselves, received scant attention till 25 years ago. In the very explanation that is often given of the present discontent in India there is an impeachment of the past treatment of the country by its able and powerful masters. It is said that the educated Hindus find no satisfying career for themselves outside of the service of the government, and that an increasingly large class in excess of the openings which that service can afford has been educated in recent years; that, consequently, the swelling crowd of disappointed place-seekers, whose intelligence and ambition have been whetted in the higher schools and colleges of the Indian Empire, are the disturbers of public content. After a century and a half of supreme British influence and power in India, there ought to have been more and better openings of opportunity for educated young Hindus than through the doors of public office. There would have been if the development of country and people had been conducted with more reference to their benefit, and with less close attention to the interests of British trade.

Since 1882-1883 there has been more endeavor to establish and assist native primary schools; but the percentage of population that they reach is small. The statistics given in an official "Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1905-1906" make the following showing:

Provinces. Number of Number of Institutions Pupils Bengal 43,996 1,232,278 United Provinces 15,708 576,336 Punjab 3,762 211,464 Burma 20,996 385,214 Central Provinces 3,090 209,680 Eastern Bengal and Assam 21,790 722,371 Coorg 116 4,666 North West Frontier Province 1,087 28,496 Madras Presidency 28,258 918,880 Bombay and Sind Presidency 13,865 736,209 Total 152,668 5,025,594

Except in the Punjab and in Eastern Bengal and Assam these figures include both public and private institutions of education, of all grades, from primary schools to colleges. All institutions in which the course of instruction conforms to standards prescribed by the Department of Education or by the University, and which either undergo inspection by the Department or present pupils at public examinations, are classed as "public," but may be under either public or private management. While the schools and colleges seem numerous, it will be seen that they average but 33 pupils each, and give teaching to a slender fraction of the children of the 294,000,000 of people under British rule. In the report from which we quote the proportion of pupils to the estimated population of school-going age is given as 28.4 per cent. of boys and 2.9 per cent. of girls in Bengal; 8.06 per cent. of boys and 0.96 per cent. of girls in the United Provinces; 21.8 per cent. of boys and 1.8 of girls in the Central Provinces; 28.2 per cent, of boys and 2.9 per cent. of girls in Eastern Bengal and Assam; 29 per cent. of boys and 5.4 per cent. of girls in Madras; 31.8 per cent. of boys and 6 per cent of girls in Bombay. The total expenditure on education, from all sources, including fees, was £735,043 in Bengal (increased to £830,415 in 1907-1908); £441,421 in the United Provinces (increased to £491,723 in 1907-1908); £331,038 in the Punjab; £218,445 in Burma; £145,389 in the Central Provinces; £318,788 in Eastern Bengal and Assam; £624,602 in the Madras Presidency (increased to £712,740 in 1907-1908); £685,444 in the Presidency of Bombay (increased to £756,168 in 1907-1908). Total in 1905-1906, £3,500,170. Education in British India cannot be made wide or deep on expenditure of this scale.

{319}

Education in the literary meaning, then, was tardily undertaken and is very limited yet in its extent. Quite as tardy, and quite as scant in the measure until John Morley got the handling of it, has been the political training that England,—greatest of political teachers as she has been for the world at large,—has allowed her Indian subjects to receive. It must not be understood that nothing of self-government has been conceded hitherto to these people. The exact measure of their participation in the management of their own public affairs, and the period within which they have exercised it, are described in the official "Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India" from which the above exhibit of educational institutions is taken. The following is quoted partly from the "Statement" of 1905-1906 and partly from the later one of 1907-1908:

"Local self-government, municipal and rural, in its present form, is essentially a product of British rule. Beginning in the Presidency towns, the principle made little progress until 1870, when it was expressly recognised by Lord Mayo’s Government that ‘local interest, supervision, and care are necessary to success in the management of funds devoted to education, sanitation, medical charity, and local public works.’ The result was a gradual advance in local self-government, leading up to the action taken by Lord Ripon’s Government in 1883-1884, and to various provincial Acts passed about that time, which form the basis of the provincial systems at present in force. Municipal committees now exist in most places having any pretension to importance, and have charge of municipal business generally, including the care and superintendence of streets, roads, fairs and markets, open spaces, water supply, drainage, education, hospitals, and the like. Local and district boards have charge of local roads, sanitary works, education, hospitals, and dispensaries in rural districts. A large proportion of their income is provided by provincial rates. Bodies of port trustees have charge of harbour works, port approaches, and pilotage. There is also a smaller number of non-elective local bodies discharging similar duties in towns other than constituted municipalities, and in cantonments.

"The municipal bodies exist, raise funds, and exercise powers under enactments which provide separately for the special requirements of each province and of the three presidency capitals, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. In the municipalities as a whole about half of the members are elected by the townsfolk under legal rules; in every town some, and in a few minor towns all, of the members are appointed by the Government. In almost every municipal body one or more Government officials sit as members. The number of Indian and non-official members, however, in every province, largely exceeds the number of Europeans and officials. The municipal bodies are subject to Government control in so far that no new tax can be imposed, no loan can be raised, no work costing more than a prescribed sum can be undertaken, and no serious departure from the sanctioned budget for the year can be made, without the previous sanction of the Government; and no rules or bye-laws can be enforced without similar sanction and full publication.

"There were 746 municipalities at the end of 1907-1908, containing within their limits over 16 million people or 7 per cent. of the total population. Generally speaking, the income of municipalities is small. In 1907-1908 their aggregate income amounted to £3,910,000, excluding loans, sales of securities, and other extraordinary receipts. About 40 per cent. of the total is provided by Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Rangoon. …

"The interest in municipal elections, and in municipal affairs generally, is not usually keen, save in a few cities and large towns; but, as education and knowledge advance, interest in the management of local affairs gradually increases. In most provinces municipal work is fairly well done, and municipal responsibilities are, on the whole, faithfully discharged, though occasional shortcomings and failures occur. The tendency of local bodies, especially in the smaller towns, is to be slow in imposing additional taxes, in adopting sanitary reforms, and in incurring new expenditure. Many members of municipal bodies are diligent in their attendance, whether at meetings for business or on benches for the decision of petty criminal cases."

The elected members of these municipal committees number less than five thousand. This, therefore, is the extent of the class in the whole of British India, which now receives an elementary political training. Nothing more is needed for proving that India cannot possibly be prepared for independent self-government.

In a memorable speech made by Lord Macaulay in 1833 he predicted a time when England’s Indian subjects might demand English institutions, and exclaimed: "Whenever the day comes it will be the proudest in English history." The day has come, and it does not bring pride to England; because her wards in India have not been made ready for what they ask. It will need time to repair the long neglect; but there is no grander fact in recent history than the beginning of the labor of repair. It is to be a work of education, not for the people of India alone, but for Englishmen as well. They are to learn, and have begun to learn, the mistake of egotism and self-sufficiency in their government of these people. Some months ago there was published in _The Times of India_, at Bombay, a number of articles on the causes of the existing discontent, some by English writers, some by Hindus, some by Mohammedans, all seriously and frankly studying the situation, and most suggestive in their thought. The cause emphasized most by one of the English writers is that which always has worked and always will work when one self-complacent and self-confident people undertakes to be an overruling providence for another people, by making laws for it and managing its affairs. The more consciousness there is on the ruling side of just intention and superior knowledge, the less likely it is to satisfy the ruled; because the satisfying of its own judgment of what is good for the latter is assumed to be enough.

During the last half century, at least, the British Government has endeavored, without a doubt, to do good to its Indian subjects, and it has done them great good; but everything has been done in its own way, from its own points of view and upon its own judgment of things needful and good and right. And this is why its Indian subjects not only feel wronged, but are wronged.

{320}

As the writer in _The Times of India_ reminds his countrymen, "right is a relative term," and not, he says, "as we Islanders would have it, an absolute one. A thing that is right for us, with our past training and traditions, may not only seem, but really be, a grave wrong to those whose environment differs from our own." He cites instances of grave mistakes in well-intended legislation that would have been avoided, if the makers of the laws had counseled sufficiently with natives of experience in the matters concerned. One example is in a land alienation act, for the Punjab, which was framed with purely philanthropic motives, being intended to free the native peasantry—the ryots—from thraldom to money lenders, but which, by making the recovery of debts difficult, has trebled the rate of interest to the ryot, who borrows just as much, and mortgages himself instead of mortgaging his land. Alluding to this and to another act of excellent intention but irritating effect, the writer says: "When these worthy aims of government were debated in the Bombay and Punjab legislatures, who was there, among the officials, in touch with Indian feeling and sentiment? Who among the senators ever suggested the possibility that the evil of mortgage and borrowing was not intrinsically an evil in India, but that legislation—our own past legislation—had made it so? Was there no officer of government who could advise the authorities that every Hindoo, almost, is at heart a money lender; that it is second nature to him; that indebtedness in itself is neither reproach nor handicap in his eyes; and that if you take from him his freedom of barter you do take his life?"

"We have failed," says this writer, "to avail ourselves of the material we ourselves have trained." That, undoubtedly, is the cardinal mistake that the English in India have made. Until now, they have not taken the best of India into their confidence and their counsels.

Another of the writers referred to above gave another characterization of the British rule as the natives more generally feel it, in which a deeper working of more subtle irritations can be seen. He wrote:

"Personal rule, the will of the king, God’s anointed and therefore invested with quasi-divine sanction, is the only rule to which the East has been used, which it can like and respect. The people can understand, even while they suffer under, the most extravagant individual caprices; and when the tyranny becomes too intolerable, they always had in the last resort an excellent chance of being able to overthrow it. But they cannot and probably never will understand, still less appreciate, the cold, implacable, inhuman impersonality of the English government. They might as well be governed by a dynamo, without human bowels or passions. It cannot be humanly approached; it has no human side; its very impeccability is exasperating; and the exactitude with which it metes out its machine-made justice, according to inflexible rules and formulae into which no human equation enters, chills and repels the Eastern mind, and its strength is commensurate with its remorselessness."

"They might as well be governed by a dynamo!" That, in this connection, is a powerfully expressive phrase. The dynamo and everything of a dynamic nature—every mechanical motor-working of forces, whether material or political, are naturally congenial to the man of the Western world—understandable by him, serviceable to him—and they are not so to the man of the East. Somewhere in the process of their evolution the one got an aptitude for projecting work outwardly from the worker—

## action at some remove from the actor—shuttle throwing, for

example, carried out from the weaver to the arms and fingers of a machine, and government from the personally governing will to an organic political system—while the other did not. In this, more than in anything else, perhaps, the radical difference of nature between the Occidental and the Oriental peoples is summed up. The one is endowed with a self-enhancing power to act through exterior agencies, of mechanism in his physical labors, of representative institutions in his government, of systems and organisms in all his doings, which the other lacks.

This might have seemed a generation ago to set an insurmountable barrier against the passing of democracy and democratic institutions into Asia; but we have little right to-day to imagine that anything can stop their march.

INDIA: A. D. 1908. American Mission Schools.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INDIA.

INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909. Passage of the Indian Councils Bill by the British Parliament. Popular Representation in the Legislative Councils introduced. Lord Morley’s explanations of the Measure. Appointment of a native member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.

The great project of reform in the Government of India which Lord Morley, as Secretary for India in the British Administration, brought before Parliament in December, 1908, embodied fundamentally in what was known during the discussion of it as the Indian Councils Bill, had its origin more than two years before that time, not in the councils of the British Ministry, but in those of the Government of India. The facts of its inception and preliminary consideration were indicated in a British Blue Book of 1908 (Cd. 4426), which contained proposals on the subject from the Government of India, dated October 1, 1908, and the reply of Lord Morley to them, November 27. More recently the early history of the reform project was told briefly by the Viceroy of India, the Earl of Minto, in a speech in Council, on the 28th of March, 1909. He said:

"The material from which the Councils Bill has been manufactured was supplied from the Secretariat at Simla, and emanated entirely from the bureaucracy of the Government of India. It was in August, 1906, that I drew attention in Council in a confidential minute to the change which was so rapidly affecting the political atmosphere, bringing with it questions we could not afford to ignore, which we must attempt to answer, pointing out that it was all-important that the initiative should emanate from us, that the Government of India should not be put in the position of appearance of having its hands forced by agitation in this country or by pressure from home, and that we should be the first to recognize the surrounding conditions and place before his Majesty’s Government the opinion which personal experience and close touch with the everyday life of India entitle us to hold. {321} I consequently appointed the Arundel Committee. That minute was the first seed of our reforms sown more than a year before the first anarchist outrage sent a thrill of shocked surprise throughout India—the attempt to wreck Sir Andrew Fraser’s train in December, 1907. The policy of the Government of India in respect to reforms has emanated from mature consideration of political and social conditions, while the administrative changes they advocated, far from being concessions wrung from them, have been over and over again endangered by the commission of outrages which could not but encourage doubts as to the opportuneness of the introduction of political changes, but which I steadfastly refused to allow to injure the political welfare of the loyal masses in India."

The Indian Councils Bill was printed on the 20th of February, 1909, and its second reading in the House of Lords was moved by Lord Morley in an explanatory speech on the 23d. A prefatory memorandum accompanying the text of the Bill was as follows:

"The object of this Bill is to amend and extend the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, in such a way as to provide:

"(i.)For an enlargement of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General and of the existing Provincial Legislative Councils;

"(ii.) For the election of a certain proportion of their members by popular vote; and

"(iii.) For greater freedom to discuss matters of general public interest and to ask questions at their meetings, and more especially for the discussion of the annual financial statements.

"The Executive Councils of the Governments of Madras and Bombay are enlarged, and powers are taken to create Executive Councils in the other Provinces of India, where they now do not exist. Provision is also made for the appointment of Vice-Presidents of the various Councils.

"The details of the necessary arrangements, which must vary widely in the different Provinces, are left to be settled by means of regulations to be framed by the Government of India and approved by the Secretary of State."

In his speech on moving the second reading of the Bill, Lord Morley said: "I invite the House to take to-day the first definite and operative step in carrying out the policy which I had the honour of stating to your lordships just before Christmas, and which has occupied the active consideration both of the Home Government and of the Government of India for very nearly, if not even more than, three years. The statement was awaited in India with an expectancy that with time became almost impatience, and it was received in India—and that, after all, is the point to which I looked with the most anxiety—with intense interest and attention and various degrees of approval, from warm enthusiasm to cool assent and acquiescence. So far as I know … there has been no sign in any quarter, save possibly in the irreconcilable camp, of organized hostile opinion among either Indians or Anglo-Indians. …

"There are, I take it, three classes of people that we have to consider in dealing with a scheme of this kind. There are the extremists, who nurse fantastic dreams that some day they will drive us out of India. In this group there are academic extremists and physical force extremists, and I have seen it stated on a certain authority—it cannot be more than guessed— that they do not number, whether academic or physical force extremists, more than one-tenth, I think, or even 3 per cent., of what are called the educated class in India. The second group nourish no hopes of this sort, but hope for autonomy or self-government of the colonial species and pattern. And then the third section of this classification ask for no more than to be admitted to co-operation in our administration, and to find a free and effective voice in expressing the interests and needs of their land. I believe the effect of the reforms has been, is being, and will be to draw the second class, who hope for colonial autonomy, into the third class, who will be content with being admitted to a fair and full co-operation."

As to the objections raised by the Mahomedans of India, to the plans of the measure for their representation in the Councils, Lord Morley announced the readiness of the Government to yield to them. "We," he said, "suggested to the Government of India a certain plan. We did not prescribe it, we did not order it, but we suggested and recommended this plan for their consideration—no more than that. It was the plan of a mixed or composite electoral college, in which Mahomedans and Hindus should pool their votes, so to say. The wording of the recommendation in my dispatch was, as I soon discovered, ambiguous—a grievous defect, of which I make bold to hope I am not very often in public business guilty. But, to the best of my belief, under any construction the plan of Hindus and Mahomedans voting together in a mixed and composite electorate would have secured to the Mahomedan electors, wherever they were so minded, the chance of returning their own representative in their due proportion. The political idea at the bottom of that recommendation which has found so little favour was that such composite action would bring the two great communities more closely together, and this idea of promoting harmony was held by men of very high Indian authority and experience who were among my advisers at the India Office. But the Mahomedans protested that the Hindus would elect a pro-Hindu upon it, just as I suppose in a mixed college of say 75 Catholics and 25 Protestants voting together the Protestants might suspect that the Catholics voting for the Protestant would choose what is called a Romanizing Protestant and as little of a Protestant as possible. … At any rate, the Government of India doubted whether our plan would work, and we have abandoned it. I do not think it was a bad plan, but it is no use, if you are making an earnest attempt in good faith at a general pacification, out of parental fondness for a clause interrupting that good process by sitting too tight.

"The Mahomedans demand three things. I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation from them and I know very well what is in their minds. They demand the election of their own representatives to these councils in all the stages, just as in Cyprus, where, I think, the Mahomedans vote by themselves. They have nine votes and the non-Mahomedans have three, or the other way about. {322} So in Bohemia, where the Germans vote alone and have their own register. Therefore we are not without a precedent and a parallel for the idea of a separate register. Secondly, they want a number of seats in excess of their numerical strength. Those two demands we are quite ready and intend to meet in full. There is a third demand that, if there is a Hindu on the Viceroy’s Executive Council—a subject on which I will venture to say a little to your lordships before I sit down—there should be two Indian members on the Viceroy’s Council and that one should be a Mahomedan. Well, as I told them and as I now tell your lordships, I see no chance whatever of meeting their views in that way to any extent at all."

Turning to a much criticised feature of the projected remodelling of Indian Government—namely, the announced intention of the Government to name an Indian member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council—the Secretary reminded the House that this was not touched by the pending bill, for the reason that the appointment of that Council lies already within the province of the Crown. In meeting the objections raised to this part of the reform project, he amused the House greatly by remarking: "Lord MacDonnell said the other day: ‘I believe you cannot find any individual native gentleman who has enjoyed the general confidence who would be able to give advice and assistance to the Governor-General in Council.’ It has been my lot to be twice Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I do not believe I can truly say I ever met in Ireland a single individual native gentleman who ‘enjoyed general confidence.’ And yet I received at Dublin Castle most excellent and competent advice. Therefore I will accept that statement from the noble lord. The question is whether there is no one of the 300 millions of the population of India who is competent to be the officially-constituted adviser of the Governor-General in Council in the administration of Indian affairs. You make an Indian a Judge of the High Court, and Indians have even been

## acting-Chief Justices. As to capacity, who can deny that they

have distinguished themselves as administrators of native States, where far more demand is made on their resources, intellectual and moral? It is said that the presence of an Indian member would cause restraint in the language of discussion. For a year and a half I have had two Indians at the Council of India, and I have never found the slightest restraint whatever."

Debate on the Bill in the House of Lords was resumed on the 4th of March, and it was amended by striking out a clause which gave power to constitute provincial executive councils in other provinces than Madras and Bombay, where they were already existing. It then passed through Committee, and on the 11th of March it was read a third time and passed by the Upper House.

A fortnight later, Lord Morley brought into exercise the authority possessed by the Crown, to appoint on its own judgment a native member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. His choice fell on a distinguished Hindu lawyer, Mr. Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, of whom the London _Times_, on announcing the appointment, said: "Mr. Sinha now fills the office of Advocate-General of Bengal, to which he was not long ago promoted, and he will succeed Sir Henry Richards as Legal Member of Council. Of his fitness to discharge the departmental duties of his new position we make no question. Lord Morley has doubtless satisfied himself that the qualifications of his nominee in this respect will not discredit the experiment on which he has ventured. But, however high those qualifications, and however well they may stand the test of experience, gifts and attainments of another order are needed for the post to which Lord Morley has named him. A member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council is much more than a departmental chief. … For him there are no State secrets and no confidential documents. He has a right to know and to debate the _imperii arcana_. The most delicate mysteries of diplomacy, the most carefully guarded of military precautions, are trusted to his faith and to his discretion. Breadth of political knowledge and of judgment, insight into men and things, a sure sense and grasp of realities, coolness, courage, and rapid decision in emergencies, absolute impartiality between native races, creeds, and classes, and an instinctive devotion to England, to her traditions and to her ideals, are amongst the qualities which have been deemed the best recommendations for so immense a trust. Mr. Sinha may possess them all, but they are rare amongst the men of any race, and some of them are notoriously uncommon amongst Orientals."

This expresses the English opinion that objects to the admission of Indians to the Executive Councils of Indian Government, even while assenting to their representation in the Legislative Councils of the dependency. It is to be hoped that Mr. Sinha will help to weaken that opinion. Reports from India on the appointment were to the effect that it had given great general satisfaction.

On the return of the Councils Bill to the Commons the clause which the Lords had stricken out was restored, but in a modified form. Authority to extend the creation of provincial executive councils was given, but with the reservation to the House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons of a veto upon the establishment of such councils in any new provinces, except Bengal. As thus amended the clause was accepted by the Upper House and became law, May 25, 1909.

The following are the essential provisions of the Act:

"I. (1) The additional members of the councils for the purpose of making laws and regulations (hereinafter referred to as Legislative Councils) of the Governor-General and of the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, and the members of the Legislative Councils already constituted, or which may hereafter be constituted, of the several Lieutenant-Governors of Provinces, instead of being all nominated by the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor in manner provided by the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, shall include members so nominated and also members elected in accordance with regulations made under this Act, and references in those Acts to the members so nominated and their nomination shall be construed as including references to the members so elected and their election.

{323}

"(2) The number of additional members or members so nominated and elected, the number of such members required to constitute a quorum, the term of office of such members and the manner of filling up casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of office, or resignation duly accepted, or otherwise, shall, in the case of each such council, be such as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act:

"Provided that the aggregate number of members so nominated and elected shall not, in the case of any Legislative Council mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, exceed the number specified in the second column of that schedule.

" 2. (1) The number of ordinary members of the councils of the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay shall be such number not exceeding four as the Secretary of State in Council may from time to time direct, of whom two at least shall be persons who at the time of their appointment have been in the service of the Crown in India for at least twelve years.

"(2) If at any meeting of either of such councils there is an equality of votes on any question, the Governor or other person presiding shall have two votes or the casting vote.

"3. (1) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, by proclamation, to create a council in the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province, and by such proclamation—

"(_a_) to make provision for determining what shall be the number (not exceeding four) and qualifications of the members of the council; and

"(_b_) to make provision for the appointment of temporary or acting members of the council during the absence of any member from illness or otherwise, and for the procedure to be adopted in case of a difference of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his council, and in the case of equality of votes, and in the case of a Lieutenant-Governor being obliged to absent himself from his council from indisposition or any other cause.

"(2) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council, with the like approval, by a like proclamation to create a council in any other province under a Lieutenant-Governor for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province: Provided that before any such proclamation is made a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than sixty days during the session of Parliament, and, if before the expiration of that time an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft.

"(3) Where any such proclamation has been made with respect to any province the Lieutenant-Governor may, with the consent of the Governor-General in Council, from time to time make rules and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in his council, and any order made or act done in accordance with the rules and orders so made shall be deemed to be an act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

"(4) Every member of any such council shall be appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty, and shall, as such, be a member of the Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor, in addition to the members nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor and elected under the provisions of this Act.

"4. The Governor-General, and the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, and the Lieutenant-Governor of every province respectively shall appoint a member of their respective councils to be Vice-President thereof, and, for the purpose of temporarily holding and executing the office of Governor-General or Governor of Fort Saint George or Bombay and of presiding at meetings of Council in the absence of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor, the Vice-President so appointed shall be deemed to be the senior member of Council and the member highest in rank, and the Indian Councils Act, 1861, and sections sixty-two and sixty-three of the Government of India Act, 1833, shall have effect accordingly.

"5. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Councils Act, 1861, the Governor-General in Council, the Governors in Council of Fort Saint George and Bombay respectively, and the Lieutenant-Governor or Lieutenant-Governor in Council of every province, shall make rules authorising at any meeting of their respective legislative councils the discussion of the annual financial statement of the Governor-General in Council or of their respective local governments, as the case may be, and of any matter of general public interest, and the asking of questions, under such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed in the rules applicable to the several councils.

"(2) Such rules as aforesaid may provide for the appointment of a member of any such council to preside at any such discussion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be, and of any Vice-President.

"(3) Rules under this section, where made by a Governor in Council, or by a Lieutenant-Governor, or a Lieutenant-Governor in Council, shall be subject to the sanction of the Governor-General in Council, and where made by the Governor-General in Council shall be subject to the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, and shall not be subject to alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor.

"6. The Governor-General in Council shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, make regulations as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons resident in India may be nominated or elected as members of the Legislative Councils of the Governor-General, Governors, and Lieutenant-Governors, and as to the qualifications for being, and for being nominated or elected, a member of any such council, and as to any other matter for which regulations are authorised to be made under this Act, and also as to the manner in which those regulations are to be carried into effect. Regulations under this section shall not be subject to alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council of the Governor-General.

{324}

"7. All proclamations, regulations and rules made under this Act, other than rules made by a Lieutenant-Governor for the more convenient transaction of business in his council, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."

FIRST SCHEDULE.

MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF NOMINATED AND ELECTED MEMBERS OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.

Maximum Legislative Council. Number.

Legislative Council of the Governor-General 60

Legislative Council of the Governor of Fort Saint George 50

Legislative Council of the Governor of Bombay 50

Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Bengal division of the Presidency of Fort William 50

Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh 50

Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Eastern Bengal and Assam 50

Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of the Punjab 30

Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Burma 30

Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of any Province which may hereafter be constituted 30

As will be seen, the Act only conveys in outline to the Government of India the authority needed for introducing the intended reforms, leaving all constructive details to be filled out by the latter in regulations and rules. Six months were occupied in that task by the Indian Government, and the resulting prescriptions were published on November 15th, in a document filling 450 pages of print. The following is a summary of them, communicated to _The Times_ by its Calcutta correspondent:

"They comprise, first, a short notice bringing the new Councils Act into force; secondly, the rules and regulations for guiding the constitution of the enlarged Imperial and Provincial Councils, with election rules; thirdly, rules for the discussion of the annual financial statement and general resolutions and for the asking of questions; and, fourthly, a Government resolution explaining the reasons for the changes made and their main details.

"The resolution shows that the Imperial Council will consist of 68 members, while the number of members in each of the Provincial Councils will be as follows:—Bengal, 51; Madras and Bombay, each 48; the United Provinces, 49; Eastern Bengal and Assam, 43; the Punjab, 27; and Burma, 18.

"The Viceroy’s Council has an official majority of three, while all the Provincial Councils have non-official majorities, ranging from 14 in Bengal to three in Burma. In the Viceroy’s Council the Mahomedans will have in the first Council six members elected by purely Mahomedan electorates, and will also presumably get seats in Sind and the Punjab, as the resolution says that a representative of the Bombay landholders on the Imperial Council will be elected at the first, third, and subsequent alternate elections by the Sind landholders, the great majority of whom are Mahomedan, and at the other elections by the Sirdars of Gujarat and the Deccan, the majority of whom are Hindus.

"Again, the Punjab landholders consist equally of Mahomedans and non-Mahomedans, and presumably a Mahomedan will be alternately chosen. Accordingly, it has been decided that at the second, fourth, and alternate elections, when these two seats shall not be held by Mahomedans, there shall be two special electorates consisting of Mahomedan landholders who are entitled to vote for the member representing them in the Imperial Council, and the landowners of the United Provinces and of Eastern Bengal and Assam respectively. The Bombay Mahomedan member of the Imperial Council will be elected by the non-official Mahomedan members of the Provincial Council.

"The tea and jute industries get five members on the Provincial Councils of the Bengals and Madras.

"All members are required to take the oath of allegiance to the Crown before sitting on any of the Councils, and no person is eligible for election if the Imperial or a Provincial Government is of opinion that his election would be contrary to public interest. This provision takes the place of the old power to reject members selected by the electorate.

"The examination of the annual financial proposals is divided into three parts. The first allows a chance for discussing any alteration in taxation and any new loan or grant to a local Government. Under the second any head of revenue or expenditure will be explained by the member in charge of the Department concerned and any resolution may be moved, and at the third stage the Finance Minister presents his budget and explains why any resolutions will not be accepted, a general discussion following.

"The resolution concludes as follows:

"The new Provincial Councils will assemble early in January and the Imperial Council in the course of that month. …

"‘The _maximum_ strength of the Councils was 126; it is now 370. There are now 135 elected members against 39, while an elected member will sit as of right, needing no official confirmation. The functions of the Councils are greatly enlarged. Members can demand further information in reply to formal answers and discussion will be allowed on all matters of public interest. They will also in future be enabled to take a real and active part in shaping financial proposals. They will have liberal opportunity to criticize and to initiate and suggest definite resolutions.'"

As operative at the center of discontent, in Bengal, an unfortunate defect in the regulations was soon discovered, which made trouble at once. It was reported to _The Times_ as follows:

"The regulations for the election of the new Councils have produced a political situation here which will be scarcely intelligible to those who are not acquainted with the peculiarities of the Bengali character. The educated classes in Calcutta were in despair when they discovered that the rules virtually excluded their leaders, and the more extreme men seized the opportunity of advocating a boycott of the reforms. Sir Edward Baker, however, promptly recognized that the regulations required modification. The rule which restricted the candidates for the representation of district boards and municipalities to present members of these bodies was at once altered so as to include those who had at any time served for three years on a local authority. The effect of this concession was to render eligible many previously excluded. {325} Further, when it was pointed out that Mr. Surendranath Banerjee was shut out by the rule disqualifying dismissed Government servants, Sir Edward Baker spontaneously intimated to the Bengali leader that he was exempted from the operation of this regulation. But, in spite of these conciliatory steps, pressure is being put on Mr. Banerjee to refuse to stand, apparently on the ground that, as many of the well-known Moderates are still ineligible, it is incumbent on Mr. Banerjee to refuse his services to his country rather than weaken the force of a united protest."—These persuasions had success. Mr. Banerjee refused to be a candidate.

The following report from Dacca, December 29, indicates the result: "The Council elections for Eastern Bengal are not yet complete. They show, however, a marked preponderance of Mahomedan representation, due to the deliberate abstention of the Hindu electorate. This abstention has been worked from Calcutta in accordance with the manifesto issued by the Bengali leaders. It is very noticeable among the Zemindar voters, who are mainly Hindu. The idea is that the Government will nominate Hindu representatives and will thus defeat the object of the Reform Scheme."

INDIA: A. D. 1909 (July). Assassination in London of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by an Indian Anarchist.

The virulence of the hostility in India to British rule, as developed in schools of anarchism and terrorism, was shown startlingly to England on the 1st of July, 1909, when Lieutenant-Colonel Sir William Curzon-Wyllie and Dr. Cawas-Lalcaca, a Parsee, were shot dead by an Indian student, at the close of a reception held in the Imperial Institute at London. Sir Curzon-Wyllie, formerly of the Indian Staff Corps, had been serving since 1901 as political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India, at London. The reception at which he was assassinated was one of the evenings "At Home" of the National Indian Association, held mainly for the purpose of giving the many young Indians residing temporarily in England an opportunity for social intercourse with friendly English people. The assassin, a student named Dhinagri, came as a guest. His brother, a doctor in Calcutta, hearing that he had been coming under anarchist influences, had asked Sir Curzon-Wyllie some time before to talk with him, and that gentleman had done so, with no effect apparently, but to rouse his resentment. The motive of the crime, however, appears to have been wholly in the desire to make a display of "patriotism" and to achieve distinction as a martyr to the cause of liberty for India. The victim might easily have been some other. Sir Curzon-Wyllie was leaving the place when he paused to speak to Dhinagri, and received two deadly bullets at close range, in the face. Dr. Lalcaca, who stood near, rushed forward to intervene, and the pistol was turned on him. Others seized the assassin before he could do more.

When tried and convicted, on the 23d of July, and asked if he had anything to say, Dhinagri replied angrily: "I have told you over and over again that I do not acknowledge the authority of the Court. You can do whatever you like. I do not mind at all. You can pass sentence of death on me. I do not care, but remember that one day we shall be all powerful, and then we can do what we like. That is all I want to say." On being sentenced to death, the prisoner, making an Oriental salute to the Judge, said,—"Thank you, my Lord. I don’t care. I am proud to have the honour of laying down my life for the cause of my country."

The family of Dhinagri, in India, employed counsel to attend his trial, who announced to the court that they viewed his crime with the greatest abhorrence.

----------INDIA: End--------

INDIAN (EAST) IMMIGRATION: The resistance to it in South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere.

(See in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS.

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, The.

See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.

INDIAN TERRITORY. United with Oklahoma to form the State of Oklahoma.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES. A. D. 1906 (JUNE).

INDIANS, The American: End of the Tribal Autonomy of the Five Civilized Tribes.

The last of the proceedings for ending the autonomy of the Five Civilized Tribes making them citizens of the United States, and dividing their tribal lands among them individually, was finished in the summer of 1902, by the Cherokee Council, which ratified agreements already accepted by the other four tribes.

See, Volume VI., INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.

According to Mr. William Dudley Foulke, who investigated the circumstances, the Creek nation has suffered grievous frauds in the final settlement of their land affairs, by the operation of the Curtis Act, in the matter of the sale of town sites. Mr. Foulke’s account of the case is given in an article entitled "Despoiling a Nation," published in January 2, 1908.

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.

See (in this Volume) LABOR.

INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS (capitalistic).

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL.

INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS (of the employed).

See (in this Volume) LABOR.

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (UNITED STATES), of 1898-1902: On the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, of 1898, applied to Railroads.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1890-1902.

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (UNITED STATES), of 1898-1902: On Hours of Labor.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION.

INHERITANCE TAX: Defeated Proposal in Germany.

See (in this Volume) Germany: A. D. 1908-1909; also, DEATH DUTIES.

INITIATIVE.

See (in this Volume) REFERENDUM.

INJUNCTIONS, in Labor Disputes.

See (in this Volume) LAW AND ITS COURTS: UNITED STATES.

INLAND WATERWAYS COMMISSION.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.

INMEDIATISTAS.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, The.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

INSURANCE, AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT.

See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: UNEMPLOYMENT; GERMANY.

{326}

INSURANCE, Industrial.

See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION.

INSURANCE, Life: The Legislative Investigation of Companies doing business in the State of New York, in 1905. Startling Disclosures of Vicious Management in the greater organizations, and of Perfunctory State Superintendence. Report and Recommendations of the Committee. Remedial Legislation.

A conflict in the Board of Directors of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of New York, which came to public knowledge in February, 1905, afforded the beginning of exciting revelations, as to practices and conditions in the management of the stupendous organizations of life insurance that are centered in New York City.

The Equitable Society was founded in 1859 by Henry B. Hyde as a stock company, with a capital of $100,000, in 1000 shares, and neither its legal constitution nor its capital had been changed; but its assets at the end of the year 1904, according to its statement, had grown to the enormous total of $412,438,380, and it held a surplus over liabilities of $80,394,861. This prodigious fund had come under the control of the holders of the small capital stock of the company—$100,000; and practically it was controlled by one stockholder, James Hazen Hyde, son of the deceased founder, who had inherited a majority of the shares. By the Charter of the Society, its stockholders were entitled to semi-annual dividends at a rate not exceeding 3½ per cent., and its business was to be conducted on the mutual plan: that is, earnings and receipts above dividends, losses and expenses were to be accumulated and policy holders were to be credited with equitable shares of the net surplus, after sufficient deduction to cover outstanding risks and other obligations. Nevertheless, the opportunities for personal enrichment, afforded by the controlling of the great floods of money poured into its coffers had been found to be immense.

James Hazen Hyde, inheritor of the majority of stock, was Vice President of the company. Under the terms of his father’s will he had not yet come into personal possession of his inheritance, but would do so in a short time. The President of the company, James Alexander, appears to have become anxious as to the use the young man would make of the power of that possession when it came to him, and he entered on a movement toward changing the organization of the Equitable Society, to make it a mutual institution in reality, by securing to the policy holders a voice in the election of directors, leaving their board no longer a body to be chosen by a single man. This movement became necessarily public, and the situation in the company was exposed to public knowledge in a sudden and startling way. Flood-gates of discussion were opened and questions started which ran from the Equitable to other mammoths of life insurance organization that had grown up. Facts came to light which showed the magnitude of financial power they had drawn into small circles of men and families, and the extravagance of compensation appropriated to themselves by some of these self-appointed and self-perpetuated administrators of life insurance funds. Such disclosures became the sensation, not merely of a day, but of months.

At the outset of the undertaking of President Alexander to reform the constitution of the Equitable, Vice-President Hyde was able easily to defeat his movement and make good his own mastery of the board of directors; but as the public became a party to the controversy, more and more, it bore down Mr. Hyde. In April the directors were constrained to appoint a committee to investigate and report on "the present management of the society." The committee, composed of H. C. Frick, E. H. Harriman, Brayton Ives, Cornelius N. Bliss, and M. E. Ingalls, made a report on the 2d of June which was a deadly indictment of the society, on many counts,—for "excessive salaries, excessive commissions, excessive expenses, superfluous offices," and a "general looseness in the administration of its affairs." Mr. Hyde and his board made a show of disputing the findings of the committee and rejecting its recommendations, but the atmospheric pressure from outside proved irresistible, and they gave way to it. Mr. Hyde sold his 502 shares of stock to Thomas F. Ryan for $2,500,000 cash, Mr. Ryan making it a condition of the purchase that the Honorable Paul Morton, formerly prominent in railway administration and lately Secretary of the Navy in President Roosevelt’s cabinet, should be chairman of the Equitable board of directors and should have a free hand in reorganizing its management. Mr. Ryan then, on the 15th of June, placed the shares in a voting trust, composed of ex-President Grover Cleveland, Justice Morgan J. O’Brien, and George Westinghouse. The deed of transfer to these trustees empowered them to carry out a plan of mutualization, to the end that the society’s policy holders should elect a majority of the directors in its board.

The Equitable Life Assurance Society was now in a fair way to be placed on a footing that would justify its name; but the events which accomplished this had created an imperative demand for thorough proceedings of law, to reform and regulate the whole system under which the profoundly serious obligations and responsibilities of life insurance are fulfilled. The first step to that end was taken by the Legislature of the State of New York on the 20th of July, 1905, when it appointed a joint committee of the Senate and Assembly and directed the committee "to investigate and examine into the business and affairs of life insurance companies doing business in the State of New York, with reference to the investments of said companies, the relation of the officers thereof to such investments, the relation of such companies to subsidiary corporations, the government and control of said companies, the contractual relations of said companies to their policy holders, the cost of life insurance, the expenses of said companies, and any other phase of the life insurance business deemed by the committee to be proper, for the purpose of drafting and reporting to the next session of the Legislature such a revision of the laws regulating and relating to life insurance in this State as said committee may deem proper."

{327}

This most notable investigating committee was composed of Senators William W. Armstrong, William J. Tully, D. J. Riordan, and Assemblymen James T. Rogers, W. W. Wemple, Ezra P. Prentice, John McKcown. It was organized on the 1st of August, with Senator Armstrong as its chairman, and opened public hearings on the 5th of September following, having engaged for its counsel Messrs. Charles E. Hughes and James McKeen. Mr. Hughes was little known to the public at large when he accepted the duty of conducting this investigation. It revealed him to the State and the Nation, and was the fortunate introduction to public life of a man of rare nobility in character and of remarkable powers.

Eighteen insurance companies doing business in New York were subjected to investigation; but interest in the proceeding was centered with intensity on the probing of the affairs of a few of the greater institutions, such as the Equitable, the Mutual Life, the New York Life, the Prudential, and the Metropolitan. The disclosures were rich in sensation; a few only can be noted here. As to salaries, for example: in the Equitable, the late Henry B. Hyde and his successor, Mr. Alexander, as presidents, had received $75,000 per annum in the early years and $100,000 in the later years of their terms. James H. Hyde, graduated from college in 1898 and made vice-president the next year, on his father’s death, received in the first year $25,000, in the next two years $30,000, in his fourth year $75,000, and thereafter $100,000. Second vice-presidents were paid as high as $50,000 per annum; third vice-presidents as high as $40,000; fourth vice-presidents as high as $30,000. Salaries of secretaries and comptrollers had run up to $25,000 and $30,000. Thirteen executive officers in the society whose salaries aggregated $297,600 in 1900, were drawing $448,500 in 1905.

Executive officers in the Mutual Life surpassed even this experience of bounty. The president’s salary had been $30,000 from 1877 to 1885, $50,000 from 1886 to 1892, then raised to $75,000 in 1893, to $90,000 in 1895, to $100,000 in 1896, and to $150,000 in 1901. Richard A. McCurdy had been president for twenty years and vice-president for the preceding twenty. The vice-president’s salary had grown from $20,000 in 1877 to $50,000 in 1902; the treasurer’s had been $40,000 since 1896.

In the New York Life the salary of the president, John A. McCall, had stopped its increment at $100,000, which it reached in 1901. The second vice-president’s salary went to $75,000 the same year. The total salaries of executive officers were raised from $149,000 in 1893 to $322,000 in 1905.

Agency commissions were sometimes richer sources of income than the fixed salaries of these generous companies. In the Mutual Life Company, the president’s son, Robert H. McCurdy, had an interest in the general agency of the company for New York City from which he drew $530,788 between 1889 and 1904; besides which, as superintendent of the foreign department of the company, he was paid commissions on its foreign business which yielded him $1,268,390 between 1886 and 1905; some part of which commissions, however (to an amount not ascertained), were shared by him with his partner in the New York City agency. The total net profits of that metropolitan agency,—in which the president’s son-in-law was likewise a partner,—were found by the investigating committee to have been $2,389,123 in the twelve years 1893-1904.

These, however, were not the worst, in their moral implications, of the disclosures that resulted from the search light brought to bear on the administration of certain life insurance companies by the Legislative Committee and Mr. Hughes. A startling share of the prodigal expenditures of some boards, from the excessive profits of their business, went secretly, with no accounting, to undiscoverable purposes, which were purposes, of course, that would not bear questioning. The following, from the report of the investigating Committee on the Mutual Life Company, is indicative of the glimpses given of foul uses to which the funds of that company were applied. "For a considerable period," says the report, "it has been the practice for the Committee on Expenditures to authorize the payment to its chairman of $25,000 every few months, or from $75,000 to $100,000 a year, upon the request of one of the executive officers. The persons to whom the moneys were to be paid by the company, or the services, if any, for which the payment was to be made, were not known to the committee, and the only voucher was the receipt of the chairman of the committee who received and paid over the money in cash. There was no reason for this practice save to conceal the purposes for which the moneys were used, and it obviously facilitated improper payments.

"There were also a large number of payments charged to legal expenses which were made upon the recommendation of one Andrew C. Fields, who for many years was the head of the ‘Supply Department.’ He was in actual charge of and gave a large part of his time to matters of legislation. For many years the company maintained under his care a house at Albany, and through him and his agents a close watch was kept upon the proceedings of the Legislature. The rent of this house, the supplies there consumed, and the wages of the cook and other servants, were charged to ‘legal expenses.’ Fields left for parts unknown soon after the Committee began its hearings and it has not been able to procure his testimony. It appears, however, that he acted also for the Equitable, and from their records have been produced a series of memoranda of instructions sent Fields by Thomas D. Jordan, its comptroller, whose whereabouts the Committee has been unable to ascertain, although it has made diligent effort to do so."

The Committee quotes extensively from these memoranda of "T. D. J.," who instructs his Albany lobbyist what bills the latter is to "kill," and what he is to support. There are depths of corruption suggested by this story of the hospitable Andrew Fields, the vigilant Thomas D. Jordan, their "legal expenses" for hospitable house-keeping at Albany, and the sudden vanishment of both when Mr. Hughes began to do his questioning; but the depths are left unfathomed, because the Committee found no sounding line.

"The testimony taken by the committee," says their report, "makes it abundantly clear that the large insurance companies systematically attempted to control legislation in this and other States which could affect their interests, directly or indirectly, and that in this effort Fields, who concerned himself mainly with this State, played a most important role. {328} The three companies [Mutual, New York Life, and Equitable] divided the country, outside of New York and a few other States, so as to avoid a waste of effort, each looking after legislation in its chosen district and bearing its appropriate part of the total expense." The so-called "legal expenses" of the Mutual in seven years, 1898-1904, exceeded two millions of dollars. "In 1904 they amounted to $364,254.95, while those of the New York Life and Equitable for the same year were $172,698.42 and $204,019.25 respectively."

The New York Life employed one Andrew Hamilton to give attention to matters of legislation throughout the country, and the company was found to have paid him no less than $1,167,697 for "legal expenses," between 1895 and 1905, no vouchers being filed beyond Hamilton’s receipt. And these "legal expenses were in addition to all the ordinary outlays in connection with suits or legal proceedings or the work of the legal department of the company."

In the accounts of the Equitable, "among the disbursements charged to legal expenses appear annual retainers of $20,000 paid Chauncey M. Depew [United States Senator from New York] and $5000 (for one year—1900—$7500) to David B. Hill. Mr. Depew testifies … that his services consisted of advising the late Mr. Hyde in regard to matters of investment, settlement of controversies and troublesome questions of various sorts. … During this time Mr. Depew was a director and member of the Executive Committee. The testimony as to the services is very general, and it does not appear," says the committee, "that outside of those which the society was fairly entitled to receive from him as a director, the services were such as to warrant the payments made. … The Equitable contributed to the Republican National Committee $50,000 in 1904; undoubtedly contributions were made in prior national campaigns, but their amount has not been stated. For many years the society has made an annual contribution of $10,000 to the Republican State Committee through Senator Platt." Senator Platt was a collector, also, of similar contributions from the Mutual Life, and that company gave $40,000 to the Republican National Committee in 1904, as well as smaller sums in previous years.

Of the management in these great companies of the enormous surplus of profit, which even their inordinate self-appropriations left in their keeping, no clear account could be given here. It is set forth in the Committee’s report by examples of investments, in stocks, bonds, and real property, so conducted, through subsidiary organizations, etc., as to yield a personal profit to the skilful financiers within the life insurance circle. The details which make the matter plain cannot be abridged and require more space than can be afforded in this place.

From the investigation of the life insurance companies the Committee and its counsel passed to the State Department which was instituted to scrutinize and supervise these organizations, for the detection and prevention of such abuses in their management as had now come to light. Their findings in this direction were stated partly as follows:

"It would seem that the Superintendent [of Insurance] has had ample power, and has been charged with the correlative duty, to inquire into and to ascertain the transactions of insurance companies, to the end that abuses may be exposed and correct administration assured. The scheme by which the superintendent may require detailed written statements duly verified, as to any matter of corporate business and may supplement these statements by an examination of the company’s books and of the officers and agents under oath, would appear well calculated to prevent the secret growth of improper practices. Not only through the visitorial powers of the superintendent were a wholesale publicity and the consequent enforcement of the law to be assured, but the superintendent was also charged with the duty of recommending to the Legislature annually such amendments to the law as in his judgment were needed to correct evils found to be without the purview of existing statutes.

"But the supervision by the department has not proved a sufficient protection against extravagance and maladministration. Annual statements from the corporations have been received, filed and published, but in many

## particulars without sufficient detail to exhibit the real

efficiency of honesty of the management. Nor has there been suitable effort upon the facts actually reported to detect and expose evasions of departmental requirements and the resort to artifice and double dealing in order to avoid a true disclosure of the companies’ affairs. For the most part a critical examination of the reports so made seems to have been neglected, and the verification of the annual statements has been left to examinations conducted at irregular intervals. No rule seems to have been adopted with reference to the frequency of examinations. Thus the Security Mutual Insurance Company has been examined four times since its reincorporation in 1898, at its request and apparently with no other object than to enable it to use the department’s certificate in support of its annual statement, while the Provident Savings Life Assurance Society has been examined only once in the past ten years (1897) and it would seem that this was the only examination in its history. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has also been examined only once during ten years, that is, in 1900. The advisability of frequent examinations is sufficiently illustrated by the case of the Washington Life Insurance Company, where it appeared on the examination in 1904 that during the interval of four years since the prior examination it had, in at least two annual statements, deceived the department by glaringly false returns of its existing liabilities, and that instead of having an alleged surplus of considerable amount its capital was seriously impaired. In connection with this company it may be noted that a more careful scrutiny of the reports to the department of lapsed and restored policies would have led at an earlier date to the investigation which appears finally to have been induced by outside criticism."

As to remedial legislation, the main recommendations of the Committee were in substance these:

(1) Investments in stocks of banks and trust companies, in the common stock of any corporation, in syndicate participations, and in speculative bonds, to be forbidden.

(2) No political contributions or lobby expenditures to be permitted.

(3) Full publicity regarding salaries and expenses.

(4) New business of the "big three" companies restricted to $150,000,000 a year each, and the business of other companies limited.

{329}

(5) Agents’ commissions to be based on the amount of the policy and not on the amount of the premium.

(6) Only four kinds of standard policies to be permitted—term, straight life, limited payment and endowment.

(7) Investment policies to be discouraged and deferred dividends forbidden.

(8) All dividends on participating policies to be apportioned annually.

(9) No company to be permitted to sell both participating and non-participating policies.

(10) The present trustees of mutual companies to be removed. New ones to be elected under a system whereby the policy-holders really elect.

The Committee presented the elaborate report of its investigation to the Legislature on the 22d of February, 1906, and its recommendations were embodied for the most part in an enactment, the drafting of which, to a large extent, was the careful work of Mr. Hughes, the master mind of the whole proceeding of investigation.

The statements made above are drawn entirely from the Committee’s Report, as published in Volume 10 of the printed testimony and report.

_Assembly Document Number 41, State of New York, 1906._

"INTELLECTUALS."

See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.

INTELLIGENZIA, The.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

INTEMPERANCE.

See (in this Volume ) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.

INTERFEROMETER, Professor Michelson’s.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST, AND ARBITRATION, INTERNATIONAL.

INTERNATIONAL BARBARISM.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS: Resolution of the Third International Conference of American Republics.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN REPUBLICS, Second and Third.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ARTS AND SCIENCES.

See (in this Volume) ST. LOUIS. A. D. 1904.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ALCOHOLISM.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: INTERNATIONAL.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES, of Science.

See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN.

See (in this Volume) WOMEN.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Central American.

See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1907.

INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION, United States and Canada.

See (in this Volume) FOOD FISHES.

INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CONGRESS.

See (in this Volume) GEOGRAPHIC CONGRESS.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY: Profit-sharing with Employees.

See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE.

See (in this Volume) AGRICULTURE.

INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES, Educational.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.

INTERNATIONAL LAW: Convention providing for a Commission of Jurists to draft a Code for Regulation of Relations between American Nations.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS: THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY, Formation of the.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL (INTERNATIONAL).

INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONGRESSES.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.

INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.

INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, The Institute of.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF PEACE.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.

INTERNATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ALLIANCE.

See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

INTERNATIONALISM, SUPERSEDING NATIONALISM.

See (in this Volume) WORLD MOVEMENTS: FICHTE’S PROPHECY.

INTEROCEANIC CANAL.

See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL.

INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION, The.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, and Commission.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES; also, COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

On the passage, in 1906, of the Hepburn Act, amendatory of the Interstate Commerce Law, the Commission was reconstructed by fresh appointments, in making which the President retained Messrs. Knapp, of New York, Prouty, of Vermont, Clements, of Georgia, and Cockrell, of Missouri. His new appointees were Franklin K. Lane, of California, Edgar Erastus Clark, of Iowa, and James S. Harlan, of Illinois.

INTOXICANTS, PROBLEMS OF THE.

See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM, AND OPIUM PROBLEM.

INTRANSIGENTES.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.

INVENTORY OF CHURCH PROPERTY, THE FRENCH.

See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.

{330}

----------IRELAND: Start--------

IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1903. The Working of the successive Land Laws. The Act of 1903. Text of its main provisions.

The French writer, L. Paul-Dubois, whose work, _L’Irlande Contemporaire_, published in 1907, has appeared since in an English translation, seems to have made a very careful and intelligent study of the working of the successive land-laws for Ireland, intended to be beneficial to the tenants, which began with that of Gladstone in 1870.

See in Volumes III and VI IRELAND.

Mr. Gladstone, himself, in the Act of 1881, endeavored to remedy the defects of the Act of 1870; but M. Paul-Dubois finds that, while the later Act "brought and continues to bring immense good to the country," yet "the system established by it is, as a matter of fact, no longer bearable for any one,"—for the reason that "the first great characteristic of the Gladstonian legislation is duality of ownership." It is, as he explains, an unhealthy system, unsound both economically and socially,—this dual ownership, which turns the landlord and tenant into co-proprietors of the soil. It paralyses agriculture by preventing the investment of capital on either side, and by destroying all interest of either landlord or tenant in the good farming of the land. The landlord feels himself no longer called upon to do anything for his property, and has no care left but that of collecting his rents. The tenant, on the other hand, refrains from making any improvement or advances that might cause his rent to be raised at the next quindecennial revision; the land is thus starved of both labor and capital. We may add, also, that the new regime gives rise to an infinity of ruinous lawsuits between the co-owners. … For a quarter of a century there has been only one class of men whose affairs have prospered, namely, the solicitors. Their number has increased by 30 per cent." In his view of the results, M. Paul-Dubois is sympathetic with both landlords and tenants. But in his judgment the tenants were not fairly dealt with under the Gladstonian laws by the Land Commission or by the courts. The courts, especially, in interpreting the Act of 1881, which left "fair rent" undefined, established rulings which practically nullified the intentions of the law, until, as this writer expresses it, "the Act of 1896 brought the Irish judges to reason."

Eleven years before that time, however, a little experiment was begun on the line of a true solution of the Irish land question, namely, toward the buying of the soil of the island from its landlords and making its cultivators the owners of it. This was in the Ashbourne Land Purchase Act of 1885, which provided a fund of £5,000,000 for advances to be made to tenant purchasers, with provision for the repayment of the loan in forty-nine annuities. In 1889 this fund was increased to £10,000,000. By 1891 the fund had been exhausted, and "25,367 tenants had been turned into owners of their farms. Its success even alarmed some of the landlords, who began to fear that the farmers would combine and force them to sell their land. However this may be," says the French writer, "in 1891 the Conservative Government passed a new Act which, under the pretence of regulating the progress of the operation, complicated it to such an extent that the machine almost stopped working. In 1896, by another Act, the existing evils were slightly remedied, but only to an insufficient extent. … Finally, in 1903, it was found that under the new system established in 1891 and 1896, only 38,251 tenants had been turned into proprietors; and at that same date the total number of peasant owners created from first to last had reached no higher figure than 73,917. As Land Purchase was progressing more and more slowly, it was felt that some new impulse must be given to the machine. This was the aim of the great Land Act of 1903."

_L. Paul-Dubois, Contemporary Ireland, part 2, chapters 1-2 (Maunsel & Co., Dublin, 1908)._

"The Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903 was in every respect epoch-making. It was preceded by, and founded upon, the report of a conference held between the representatives of landlord and tenant in Dublin. The Landlords’ Convention, the official representative of the landlord party, held aloof and refused to join in the conference. Typical landlords, such as the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Barrymore, and Colonel Saunderson, refused to serve, ridiculing the project as absurd and quixotic. Lord Dunraven led a saner section of landlords, with the result that, after a session of five days, the conference agreed to a report, upon which the government acted. The official landlords, seeing the reasonableness of the findings and recognizing their own folly, succumbed at once, and fell in with the general tendency for settlement. Substantially, the Act of 1903 accepted the principle of universal sale of the landlord’s interest to the occupier. It ignored legal compulsion. But it accepted what was finely called the principle of compulsion by inducement. It placed the sum of £100,000,000 ($500,000,000) at the disposal of landlord and tenant for the purposes of the act. It went further,—for it enacted that out of a fund called the Land Purchase Aid Fund each landlord who sold should receive a bonus (Latin for gift) of 12 per cent. on the purchase money. It appointed a new tribunal to administer the Act. And to this tribunal were given powers of re-settling congested districts by the purchase of grass lands, the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, and the restoration of certain evicted tenants where possible."

_Thomas W. Russell, M. P., The Workings of the Irish Land Law (American Review of Reviews, November, 1905)._

The following are among the important provisions of the Land Act of 1903:

"1. (4) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, an advance may be sanctioned under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts not exceeding the sum of seven thousand pounds to one purchaser where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, it is expedient to make any such advance for the purpose of carrying out the sale of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply. …

{331}

"2. (1) In the case of the sale of an estate advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:

(_a_) A person being the tenant of a holding on the estate;

(_b_) A person being the son of a tenant of a holding on the estate;

(_c_) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding five pounds in rateable value, situate in the neighbourhood of the estate; and

(_d_) A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of this Act was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding. Provided that in the case of the death of a person to whom an advance under this paragraph might otherwise have been made, the advance may be made, to a person nominated by the Land Commission as the personal representative of the deceased person.

"(2) Advances under this section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any previous advance under the Land Purchase Acts then unrepaid by the purchaser, exceed one thousand pounds:

"Provided that the limitation in this subsection may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.

"(3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this section, in like manner as if the same was a holding, and the purchaser was the tenant thereof at the time of his making the purchase, and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this section. …

"6. (4) In the case of a congested estate as defined by this section, if the Land Commission, with the consent of the owner, certify to the Lord Lieutenant that the purchase and resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon, then the Land Commission may purchase the estate for a price to be agreed upon, and in such case the condition in this section as to resale without prospect of loss may be relaxed to such extent as the Lord Lieutenant may determine.

"(5) The expression "congested estate" means an estate not less than half of the area of which consists of holdings not exceeding five pounds in rateable value, or of mountain or bog land, or not less than a quarter of the area of which is held in rundale or intermixed plots. …

"8. The Land Commission may purchase any untenanted land which they consider necessary for the purchase of facilitating the resale, or redistribution, of estates purchased, or proposed to be purchased, by them, and the foregoing provisions of this Act, with respect to advances for the purchase of parcels of land comprised in estates, shall apply in the case of the sale by the Commission of any parcel of such untenanted land.

"9. (1) There shall not be at any time vested in the Land Commission lands exceeding in the aggregate, according to the estimate of the Commission, as approved by the Treasury, the capital value of five million pounds in respect of which undertakings to purchase have not been received by the Commission. …

"12. (1) The Land Commission may take such steps and execute, or cause to be executed, such works as may appear expedient for the benefit or improvement of estates, or untenanted land, purchased or proposed to be purchased under this Act, or for the use or enjoyment thereof or generally for the purposes of this Act. …

"19. Where an estate is purchased by the Land Commission and tenants on the estate to the extent of three-fourths in number and rateable value have agreed to purchase their holdings, the Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly, where the tenant could have obtained an advance of the entire purchase money, and the Land Commission have offered in the prescribed manner to make the advance."

IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907. The Gaelic League.

"At the eve of the great famine, the mass of the people, outside the large towns, still spoke Irish; to-day partly owing to emigration, Irish is only spoken by 600,000 persons, out of four and a half millions, and that concurrently with English. Twenty thousand persons speak Irish only; these are mainly of the West. … An glicisation had begun its work, when the old language had been lost. Therefore, must not the Irish renaissance begin with the readoption of that language? So thought a small and elite group of Irish patriots, men of talent and enthusiasm, imbued with the national gospel preached by Thomas Davis forty years earlier—a gospel which Ireland had to some extent forgotten amidst the sufferings of the Great Famine, Fenianism and the Land Wars. Prominent in this group was the descendant of an old Protestant family of Roscommon, a Celtic scholar and folklorist, a poet of merit in English, a poet in Irish also, so say the connoisseurs, Dr. Douglas Hyde. He had the genius for propaganda, and when the country was ripe for it, gave body to his ideas by founding the Gaelic League, with the aid of his early friends, in 1893. The Gaelic League—though to limit the Irish renaissance by placing it under this title would be to limit its actual scope—may be said to be a faithful representative of the general ideas underlying the new Irish movement. It has declared its objects to be, the preservation of Irish as the national language, the study of ancient Irish literature, and the cultivation of a modern literature in the Irish language. But we must be careful not to judge it by its name. The Gaelic League is not a society of scholars, and leaves to others all that concerns literature and philology, pure and simple. It is occupied with propaganda, the application of its doctrine of a national renaissance on the basis of a national language. It intends to confer anew upon the country a psychological education, and, by means of the national language, by the revival of national art and literature, and the reconstitution of a national social system, to regenerate its soul from within and teach Ireland how she may again be a nation. … Though still growing, it has already in Ireland 964 branches, local and popular centres of activity, whose work it is to spread the national idea and the national language by every means, and to make them active factors in the every-day life of the family and social circle. Their primary duty is to organise Irish language classes for the benefit of their members. {332} These classes are practical above all in their scope, and are conducted sometimes by paid teachers and sometimes by generous volunteers whose work is almost always good. … Such a teacher in the country manages, on his rounds, to hold a dozen classes or so regularly every week. There are special classes for workmen, for students, for ladies; special classes for beginners, for veterans, Irish history classes, singing and even dancing classes, where the old national airs are taught and the national reel and jig. … In the summer, during holiday time, the enthusiasts of Irish speech come together in the western villages for the _Sgoil Saoire_ (Summer school). There their teachers are the old peasants, from whom they learn not only the correct accent, the music of the language, but the spirit and tradition of ancient Irish culture, of which these peasants, who, from generation to generation, have gathered up the songs and legends of former times, are the most faithful guardians. In the summer also the _Seilge_ are organised, that is to say, excursions to places of historical interest, with national sports and recreations. A _seilg_ in Galway in 1901 was attended by no less than 2,000 pilgrims. In the winter evenings each branch holds reunions from time to time, lectures (_seanchus_), followed by discussions on Irish subjects, concerts (_sgoruidheacht_), with choirs, Irish dances and songs, and _ceilidhe_, informal meetings on the lines of ancient village gatherings, where serious conversation—in Irish—alternates with music or a ‘recital,’ that is to say, a story or a piece of news, told, according to popular custom, by the author or a raconteur. Every year the Gaelic and National Festival, that of St. Patrick, is celebrated throughout Ireland, but notably in Dublin. … A start—the first and greatest difficulty—has been made, and now the League is a power in Ireland. It sells annually 20,000 Gaelic books and pamphlets, in which are included _editiones principes_ of the poets of the eighteenth century, and new Irish publications, tales, and novels. Its financial resources are moderate. They represent, however, the spontaneous obol of the poor; and a large part of the annual subscription to the Language Fund, during St. Patrick’s week, is made up of pence and of half-pence. From the start the League has had the good sense officially to declare that it was both necessary and desirable that it should stand apart from all political and religious struggles; such has been its line of conduct, and now within it are found representatives of every party, from the strongest Orangemen to the fiercest separatists."

_L. Paul-Dubois, Contemporary Ireland,

## part 3, chapter 2

(Maunsel & Co. Dublin, 1908)._

Public meetings have been held in Ireland during the past year (1909) to support the demand of the Gaelic League "that the Irish language, both oral and written, and Irish history be made essential subjects for matriculation in the new national University, and that proper provision be made for the teaching of Irish in all its colleges."

IRELAND: A. D. 1901 (March). Census

"4,456,546 Persons (2,197,739 Males and 2,258,807 Females) were returned in the Enumerators’ Summaries as constituting the population of Ireland on the night of Sunday, the 31st of last March—thus showing a decrease since 1891 of 248,204 persons, or 5.3 per cent.—the decrease in the number of males was equal to 5.2 per cent., and in the number of females to 5.3 per cent.

"There was during the decade a decrease of 41,297 persons, or 3.5 per cent. in the Province of Leinster; 98,568, or 8.4 per cent. in the Province of Munster; 38,463, or 2.4 per cent. in the Province of Ulster; and 69,876, or 9.7 percent, in the Province of Connaught."

In 1841 the population enumerated in Ireland as a whole had been 8,196,597; in 1851 it had been 6,574,278; in 1861, 5,798,967; in 1871, 5,412,377; in 1881, 5,174,836; in 1891, 4,704,750. Excepting in 1861 the showing is a steady decrease, and this latest census finds the island almost half depopulated.

"According to the Summaries furnished by the Enumerators, 3,310,028 persons returned themselves as Roman Catholics, this number being 237,279 or 6.7 per cent under the number so returned in 1891; 579,385 were returned under the head of ‘Protestant Episcopalians,’ being a decrease of 20,718, or 3.5 percent., compared with the number tabulated under that head in 1891; 443,494 were returned as Presbyterians, being a decrease of 1,480 or 0.3 per cent. compared with 1891; the number of Methodists returned on the present occasion amounts to 61,255, being an increase of 5,745 or 10.4 per cent, on the number returned on the Census Forms in 1891."

In Dublin City, as extended under the Dublin Corporation Act of 1900, the population enumerated in 1901 was 289,108, being a gain of 20,521 since 1891. With the Urban Districts of Rathmines and Rathcar, Pembroke, Blackrock and Kingstown added, the total population of Dublin and suburbs was 373,179,—an increase in the decade of 27,220.

The following table shows the population of the 14 towns in which more than 10,000 inhabitants were found: compared with the enumeration of 1891.

Towns. 1891. 1901.

Belfast 273,079 348,965 Cork 75,345 75,978 Limerick 37,155 38,085 Londonderry 33,200 39,873 Waterford 26,203 26,743 Galway 13,800 13,414 Drogheda 13,708 12,765 Newry 12,961 12,587 Dundalk 12,449 13,067 Lisburn 12,250 11,459 Wexford 11,545 11,154 Lurgan 11,429 11,777 Kilkenny 11,048 10,493 Sligo 10,862 10,862

Total 554,446 637,222

IRELAND: A. D. 1902 (February). Lord Rosebery and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at issue on the Home Rule question.

In a speech delivered at Liverpool in February Lord Rosebery pronounced a most positive funeral oration on what he assumed to be the death and burial of the Irish Home Rule question in British politics. A few days later Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, speaking at the annual meeting of the General Committee of the National Liberal Federation, took occasion to resurrect the supposedly buried issue and take it under his protection, as one of the responsibilities of the Liberal Party. {333} Home Rule, he said, was often spoken of as if it were "a strange, fantastic, almost whimsical and mad-cap policy, rashly adopted in a random way, to secure the Irish vote. It is to be easily and lightly dropped at any moment when an equal amount of support can be obtained from any other quarter! Not a very noble view of the case! Not, in truth, a very creditable or even a decent view of the case, but intelligible enough if there were in the way no principles and no facts." One such fact he found in the "fixed constitutional demand of the Irish people"; and Sir Henry concluded that the "old policy" remains "the sole remedy for the condition of Ireland, which is the most serious weakness in the whole British Empire and the most grave blot upon its fame."

By these two sharply opposed utterances the Liberals of the United Kingdom were called to decide which leading they would follow—that of Lord Rosebery or that of Sir Henry. Not being in power, however, nor measurably within reach of it, decision of the party did not need to be made in haste.

IRELAND: A. D. 1902-1908. Conditions in the matter of Disorder and Crime.

In the course of a debate in the British Parliament on conditions in Ireland, which took place on the 24th of February, 1909, Lord Percy, charging the Liberal Government with responsibility for an increase of disorder and crime since it came into power, brought statistics in evidence as follows: "Take the indictable offences against property and firing into houses. In 1906 the total number of these offences was 20; in 1907, 29; in 1908, 80. Outrages on the person by the use of firearms, agrarian and non-agrarian, were:—In the first 11 months of 1906, 20 agrarian and 36 non-agrarian; in 1907, 56 agrarian and 53 non-agrarian; in 1908, 128 agrarian and 65 non-agrarian. In addition to these open outrages there was the system of boycotting and intimidation. In cattle-driving—a new offence unheard of before the days of the Chief Secretary—there were 390 cases in 1907 and 681 in 1908. The number of persons under police protection on January 31, 1907, was 196; in 1908, 270; and in 1909, 335. The cases of boycotting had risen from 162 on November 30, 1905, to 874 on January 31, 1908. An impression prevailed that the cases of boycotting were ‘minor cases,’ and of no great importance; but the Lord Chief Justice, at the Clare Spring Assizes on one occasion, referring to these so-called minor cases, pointed out that no one dealt with or spoke to the boycotted person, and that he had to go 20 miles to Limerick for the necessaries of life. People also had to go to mass and to weddings protected by police; and he asserted that the Government could not point to a civilized country in Europe in which the Government would tolerate a large section of its population living daily and hourly under the shadow of a terror like this."

The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, retorted with the following: "For the purpose of making a comparison between the condition of Ireland to-day and as it was when the Government was led by the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition, when they introduced and made permanent their Crimes Act, we must consider what was the state of things in 1886 as compared with what it is now. I will give the House the figures. Murders in 1886, seven; in 1908, one; manslaughter in 1886, three; now, none; firing at the person, 16; now, 15; firing into dwellings—and here is a most formidable addition, I admit—43; now, 66; incendiary fires and arson, 103; now, 54; killing, cutting, and maiming cattle—a horrible and brutal crime—73; now, 22—far too many; riots and affrays, nine; now, 13; threatening letters or notices, 434; now, 233; intimidation, 92; now, 57; injury to property, 150; now, 89; other offences, 136; now, 26; showing in 1886 a total of 1,056, and now a total of 576. On January 1, 1886, there were 175 persons wholly boycotted, and 716

## partially boycotted—a total of 891. In those days, I admit,

the police made no distinction between partial and minor boycotting. In 1887 there were 145 persons wholly boycotted, and 763 partially boycotted, making a total of 908. On January 1, 1909, there were 15 wholly boycotted, 10 partially boycotted, and 172 cases of minor boycotting, making in all 197. Persons under constant police protection on December 31, 1887, numbered 252, and those under protection by patrol, 704—a total of 956. On December 31, 1908, there were 74 persons under constant protection, 270 under protection by patrol, a total of 344 against the total of 956. I leave the House to draw their own inference from those figures."

An official return to Parliament, from the Royal Irish Constabulary Office, Dublin Castle, of the number of cases of boycotting and of persons boycotted throughout Ireland on the 31st day of January, 1908, and on various days in several preceding years, showed 5 cases of entire boycotting, affecting 26 persons, and 9 cases of partial boycotting, affecting 39 people, on the date mentioned in 1908; 4 cases of entire boycotting, affecting 20, with seven cases of the

## partial boycott, affecting 35, on the 31st of July, 1907. On

the 31st of July, 1903, there had been 4 cases of entire and 21 cases of partial boycotting affecting 25 and 131 persons respectively; while the cases on the 31st of March, 1902, of entire boycotting had numbered 5, the partial cases 46, and they were directed in the first instance against 26 people, and against 275 in the second.

IRELAND: A. D. 1905. Defective working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903. Inadequacy of its financial provisions. Baffled in the Western Counties by cupidity of landlords.

The first two years of the working of the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903 sufficed to show that the splendid promise of that measure could not be realized satisfactorily without fundamental changes in its plan. By that time the agreements effected between landlords and tenants for transfers of land from the former to the latter called for purchase payments far in excess of the sums which the Act had provided for supplying at so early a stage of the operation. The process of transfer was checked and the feelings that helped it on were chilled by increasing delays in the completion of transactions when begun.

But this was not the worst disappointment in the working of the Act. Another more serious is charged to the cupidity of landlords in the poorer counties of the west. In the article by Mr. Thomas W. Russell from which a quotation is given above he explains it as follows:

{334}

"It was quite impossible to apply the same rule to Connaught and to other similar areas as to Ulster, Leinster, and Munster. In the west the holdings are small and hopelessly uneconomic in their character. Parliament felt, and rightly so, that to make the occupier of a five-acre bog holding an owner was to do him no good. Such a feat in statesmanship merely freed the western landlord from a risky security and transferred the risk to the state. It was, therefore, enacted that the large grass holdings which abound in that region,—and which are held by graziers on a tenure of eleven months, the object of the term being to avoid the creation of a tenancy, —should be bought and wherever possible should be distributed among the small holders, thus rendering a decent living possible. And in several cases this has been successfully done by the congested districts board, with the very best results. … The landlords as a whole professed at the land conference and in Parliament their entire willingness to sell, provided they received a price equivalent when securely invested to their second-term net income. To enable this to be done the bonus of £12,000,000 was sanctioned by Parliament. The whole thing was a bargain—a clear case of contract. And what the western landlords have been guilty of is a simple breach of faith. They are quite ready to sell the bog holdings, the barren mountain tracts out of which a decent living cannot be had, demanding for this wretched land in many cases more than is being asked in Antrim and Down for the best land in these counties. But the grass ranches they refuse to part with. And so the whole plan of the act,—the whole scheme for the re-settling of the land, and raising the station of the small holder,—has been brought to naught.

"In this connection another difficulty has arisen. When the western sections of the act were being passed, Mr. Wyndham,—who was in grim earnest about these poor people,—provided for the sale of congested estates to the estates commissioners or to the congested districts board. Special inducements were given to sales under these sections. The cost of sale was borne almost entirely by the state, and the commissioners were authorized in such cases to spend money upon the improvement of the holdings. The policy was excellent. But the landlords have ruined it. They quickly discovered that if they sold to the estates commissioners the land would be inspected by an expert valuer, and its price would depend upon its value. This was not their idea of how things should be done. They preferred to sell to the tenant direct, against whom they could use the screw of arrears of rent, and from whom they could exact a higher price. Hardly a case of sale to the estates commissioners has taken place under these well-meant sections. And for the reasons stated. … The fact is, compulsory powers of purchase in all such cases ought to have been frankly given. But to mention the word compulsion to the then chief secretary was to send him into a fury. He would not hear of it."

_T. W. Russell, Workings of the Irish Land Purchase Act (American Review of Reviews, November, 1905)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1905. Formation of the Sinn Fein Party.

"While the outside world was looking to the Irish Parliamentary Party as the guardian of the national conscience of Ireland, a Young Ireland Party, determined, virile, thoughtful, idealistic and, strange though it may seem, practical, was gradually forming, becoming a power, sweeping away outworn ideas, preaching new and putting them into practice, and working wonders in the revival of a genuine national spirit throughout the country. … Naturally, and very gradually, the various units gravitated toward one another; and, less than two years ago, under the guidance of a Dublin boy named Arthur Griffith, they elected a National Council, and formed themselves into a party known as the ‘Sinn Fein Party,’ which included probably three-fourths of the national thinkers in Ireland. Since its inception, the Sinn Fein Party has been rapidly gaining power, raising itself upon the ruins of a fast crumbling Parliamentary agitation, and eventually leaping into greater popular prestige when, recently, the ludicrous Irish Councils Bill was submitted to the nation as the fruits of a generation of Parliamentary agitation.

"'_Sinn Fein_' is Gaelic for 'Ourselves.' The doctrine of the Sinn Fein Party is that the salvation of a nation is to be wrought out by the people and upon the soil of that nation, and it holds that ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ It asks Ireland to cultivate, what for a long time it neglected, self-reliance, and aims at regenerating the Irish nation, not merely politically, but also linguistically, industrially, educationally, morally and socially. Almost all preceding national movements made the grave mistake of considering politics coincident with patriotism; the Sinn Fein policy provides for all-round upbuilding of the nation, and is successfully working along many lines on which no political movement touched before."

_Seumas MacManus, Sinn Fein (North American Review, August, 1907)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1905 (December). Change of Government.

On the change of government which took place in the United Kingdom in December, Mr. Balfour resigning the Premiership and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman forming a Liberal Ministry, the Earl of Aberdeen was appointed Lord Lieutenant and Mr. James Bryce Chief Secretary for Ireland.

IRELAND: A. D. 1907. Effects of the Land Purchase Act as seen by a revisiting Irishman.

Notwithstanding the defects in the working of the Land Purchase Act, as described above, Mr. T. P. O’Connor, the well-known Irish journalist in London, on returning from a visit to Ireland in the spring of 1907 after a somewhat protracted absence, wrote enthusiastically to the New York Tribune of the happy wakening he had found in the country to a new life. "You are seeing in Ireland," said a lady to him, "not merely a revolution but a renaissance," and he found her characterization to be true. He concludes, too, that there was no exaggeration in her further remark, that "so much is going on in Ireland now that you dare n’t leave it even for a month." "Everybody," writes Mr. O’Connor, "seemed to be doing something and something new for Ireland"; with Catholics and Protestants working together, as they have never worked before. And the main cause of this "renaissance" is traceable to the working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903. Already, says Mr. O’Connor, under the working of this splendid measure, nearly half the soil of Ireland has changed hands, and "the second half will be transferred at a much accelerated speed."

{335}

"For seven centuries there has been a continual, a bloody, a desperate war in Ireland between two races, and the prize for which they fought—was the land. … And now, at last, before our own eyes, in this generation of men to which we belong, this secular struggle is at an end; the battle has been fought and has been won; the land belongs again to the ancient Celtic race from which it was stolen centuries ago. … If you want to realize further what all this means, do not forget that these people who are now brought into full liberty are able to appreciate it the more from the fact that the greater part of them were born into slavery, and know all that slavery means. I myself, though no septuagenarian, can remember the time when the Irish farmers were driven to the polls to vote for their landlords like so many cattle. I remember the poor, wretched, cringing slaves which they had to be in those not very far off days; how they bowed and cried, ‘Yer Honor,’ at every second word; and how, in fact, they revealed by their outward bearing the knowledge that when they stood in the presence of the landlord they were confronted by the master of their life or death.

"The despair of the impossible situation in the Ireland of 40 or 50 years ago was worse almost than the servitude. There was no room left for hope in a system which permitted the landlord to rob the tenant of every addition the latter made to the wealth of the soil; and there could be no hope or prospect in a system which kept the tenant liable to eviction from his holding whenever the landlord wished to do so. And now realize that on half the soil of Ireland the people never see a landlord or a landlord’s representative; that every year brings them nearer to the time when they will be the absolute owners of their holdings; but they know that their children will secure full possession and complete ownership if they do not, and you can understand what a new strong tide of hope and exultation there must be in the breasts of these people."

IRELAND: A. D. 1907. The Evicted Tenants Act. The healing of an Irish Sore of Twenty Years.

"The passing of the Evicted Tenants Act in the recent session, defective though it may be in one respect, is an admission on the part of all parties in Parliament that a long pending Irish controversy must be closed, and that the demand persistently and pertinaciously made by the great majority of the Irish members and people for over twenty years for the reinstatement of a large body of evicted tenants must be conceded. …

"The wholesale evictions of tenants, whom it is now decided to reinstate, were primarily due to the agricultural crisis of 1885, when the great fall of price of Irish farm produce commenced. This averaged not less than 20 to 30 per cent. in respect of cattle and dairy produce, the main sources of income to Irish farmers. Tenants for the most part paid their rents in that year, hoping for better times, but many who lived from hand to mouth, with little or no margin, fell into arrears. The position was far worse in the following year, when it became clear that the fall of prices was a permanent one. The Land Court recognised this by fixing judicial rents at 18 to 20 per cent. less than those fixed between 1881 and 1885. An universal demand consequently arose on the part of all other tenants for a reduction of rent in proportion to the new range of prices. They claimed this not only in the case of yearly tenancies, but of holdings where judicial rents had been adjudicated before 1885, and of holdings under leases. The majority of Irish land-owners in 1886 recognised the justice of the claim, and allowed rebatements of rent, averaging between 20 and 30 per cent. in respect of all classes of holdings. The claim of the tenants was not for the forbearance of the land-owners, but was founded on right, on the traditional claim to a property in their holdings—a claim to which the Land Act of 1881 had given Parliamentary and legal sanction. That great agrarian Act had in fact established Dual Ownerships of land in Ireland. It secured to the occupiers a property in their holdings by enabling them to appeal to a Land Court for the settlement of rent, and by giving them fixity of tenure and the right of bequeathing or assigning their interests. Beneficent and generous as the Act was, it had serious defects. …

"As a result of these defects the Land Act of 1881, great as it was in principle, did not afford a sufficient remedy in the crisis caused by the great fall of prices in 1885-1886. A minority of Irish landowners refused to follow the example of the larger and better class of owners, and to make rebatements of rent in 1886. They justified their refusal on the ground that since the Act of 1881 the tenants had no longer a claim for forbearance in respect of rent. They insisted, therefore, on full payment, and began to evict on a large scale those in default. …

"Numerous combinations of tenants were formed to refuse full payment of rent and to resist evictions to the utmost. With the object of assisting and strengthening resistance of the tenants, a new form of combination was devised by Mr. T. Harrington, M. P., known as the ‘Plan of Campaign.’ The essential feature of it was the payment by the tenants of an estate adopting it of 50 per cent. of the rent due into a common fund, to be administered by a committee of tenants for the purpose of resisting eviction, and supporting the evicted families. The fund thus created was beyond the reach of the landowners and of the individual members of the combination. It afforded, therefore, great security for the maintenance of the combination.

"The tenants, before adopting the plan, were advised to offer arbitration of their rents to their landlords. If evictions took place the tenants were to stand by one another, and not to come to agreement with their landlords, except upon terms that the evicted men were to be reinstated in their holdings. Those taking farms from which tenants were evicted were to be rigidly boycotted.

"The plan thus devised was commended to the tenants of Ireland, where landowners refused reasonable abatements of rents, by many of the Irish members, such as Mr. Dillon, Mr. W. O’Brien, and others. … Mr. Parnell held aloof from it, not so much from disapproval of its method, as from fear that it might injure the Home Rule cause with English constituencies. Many of the Catholic Bishops expressed their disapproval. It was denounced by the Government as a fraudulent and dishonest attempt to break contracts. They prosecuted Mr. Dillon and other leaders for conspiracy under the ordinary law. The Irish judges pronounced the scheme of combination to be a criminal conspiracy on the ground that it subjected landlords to unlawful pressure. …

{336}

"By the commencement of the session of 1887 the Royal Commission appointed by the Government to report on agricultural prices and the claim for a revision of judicial rents, presided over by Lord Cowper, an ex-Lord Lieutenant, reported in favour of all that had been contended for by Mr. Parnell in his Bill of the previous year. They emphatically affirmed that a great and permanent fall of prices had taken place. They advised that judicial rents, fixed before the year 1885, should be revised and reduced, and that leaseholders should be admitted to the privileges of judicial rents. The Government, at the instance, as it is believed, of Mr. Chamberlain and the Liberal Unionists, were compelled to legislate in accordance with this report. …

"This measure, which so greatly extended the Act of 1881, was accompanied by a new Coercion Act dispensing with trial by jury in agrarian cases, and enabling resident magistrates—mere nominees of the Government—to try and convict in such cases. …

"The Act of 1887, by providing a legal alternative, put an end to further combinations of tenants. The Plan of Campaign was not adopted in any fresh cases. It had been put in force on 111 estates where the owners refused general abatements of rent. In 94 of these it had the effect of inducing the owners to come to terms with their tenants for reductions of rent of a reasonable character and sufficient to avoid further trouble. In seventeen estates only the owners were obdurate, and declared war against their tenants. …

"After the passing of the Coercion Act wholesale evictions were resumed on the Campaign estates, and were supported by all the forces at the disposal of the Government. … In 1891, a great step was taken by the late Government in the direction of a more conciliatory attitude to the evicted tenants. In the Land Purchase Act of that year a clause was inserted enabling the Land Commissioners to admit the evicted tenants as purchasers of holdings, where their former landlords agreed to their reinstatement. The clause was to have effect for one year only, and very few transactions took place under it. …

"Nothing more was done till 1903. Meanwhile this Irish sore remained unhealed. The evicted men continued to live in temporary dwellings near to their former homes, patiently expecting reinstatement at some future time. Nor have they been mistaken in this respect, though many of them had to wait nine more years, and the remainder still longer.

"In 1903 it became advisable for the Tory Government to bid for the support of the Irish Nationalists for Mr. Wyndham’s measure aiming at an universal scheme of land purchase in Ireland—a scheme offering very great inducements to landlords to sell to their tenants. It was again provided in this Act that the evicted tenants might be reinstated, not as tenants, but as owners by purchase of their former holdings, Provision was made for the advance of money from an Irish fund for buying out the Planters, for rebuilding the houses of the evicted men, for restocking their farms, and for buying untenanted land on which to replace the evicted men, where it was not possible to reinstate them in their former farms. … As a result, however, all the remaining Campaign estates except two were dealt with under this Act, and nearly all the men evicted from them were reinstated on the most favourable terms. …

"The Act of 1903, however generous and successful so far as it went, failed to deal with the whole case. It is wanting in backbone—in coercive power as against a residuum of landowners. Two Campaign estates—the Clanricarde and the Lewis estates—remained undealt with, and about 2000 tenants evicted from other, not Campaign, estates were left out in the cold. It was to supply coercive power for dealing with these remaining cases that the recent Act was passed."

_Eversley, The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act (Fortnightly Review, December, 1907)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1907 (May). Proposed Bill for the creation of a Representative Council. Rejected by the National Party. Abandoned by the Government.

A Bill proposing half-way progress toward Home Rule for Ireland was introduced in the British Parliament by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Augustine Birrell, in May, 1907. Its main feature was the creation of a Representative Council, not to be legislative in function, but having large administrative powers. This Council was to consist of 107 members, eighty-two elected by the Irish householders (including peers and women), and twenty-five nominated by the crown. Eight of the existing Irish departments, including agriculture, public works, congested districts, and the registrar’s office were placed under its control and a new one, the education department, created. In addition to the $10,000,000 of annual expenditure controlled by these departments, the bill provided for an increase of $3,250,000 to be spent on public works and "general improvement." The provisions of the Bill did not extend to the constabulary, the courts, the prisons, or the Land Commission. The Lord Lieutenant was to have general supervisory control.

Apparently the Liberal Ministry had been led to expect that Mr. John Redmond and other leaders of the Irish National Party would accept this measure, as an installment of the self-government they claimed for Ireland. If so, then the leaders who encouraged that expectation were overborne by their followers, for the Bill was denounced and rejected, on motion of Mr. Redmond, at a convention of the National Party, in Dublin, on the 21st of May, and was therefore withdrawn.

In offering this plan of government the English Liberals had turned back to what was the original Gladstone project of Irish home rule, contemplated and discussed, without result, by the Liberal cabinet in 1885. As Mr. Morley relates in his Life of Gladstone, there were two main opinions in the cabinet at that time: "One favored the erection of a system of representative county government in Ireland. The other view was, that besides the county boards, there should be in addition a central board for all Ireland, essentially municipal and not political; in the main executive and administrative, but also with a power to make bye-laws, raise funds, and pledge public credit in such modes as parliament should provide. {337} The central board would take over education, primary, in part intermediate, and perhaps even higher; poor law and sanitary administration; and public works. The whole charge of justice, police, and prisons would remain with the executive."

This defines, practically, a measure of home rule within the same limits that Mr. Birrell proposed. It appears to have been suggested to Mr. Gladstone by Mr. Chamberlain and to have been accepted by the premier, with the understanding that it would satisfy Mr. Parnell, for the time being, at least. It was not acceptable, however, to a majority of the Cabinet, and, when rejected, Gladstone remarked bitterly to one of his colleagues: "Within six years, if it please God to spare their lives, they will be repenting in sackcloth and ashes." The wearing of the sackcloth was not postponed so long.

IRELAND: A. D. 1909. Amended Land Purchase Act.

The defects which have been noted above in the very promising Land Purchase Act of 1903 raised increasing difficulties in the operation of it, until the pressing need of amendatory legislation was acknowledged by all parties. Wide differences of view, however, between different interests involved made the attainment of such legislation no easy task. A Bill for the purpose, brought forward in the autumn of 1908, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, was pushed over into the next session, and reintroduced in March, 1909. Mr. Birrell then reviewed the circumstances which had rendered amendments of the Act necessary, stating that "28 millions had now been advanced for land purchase, and that there were pending agreements involving the advance of 56 millions. The total acreage of the land sold and agreed to be sold exceeded 7,000,000 acres. The country was now in the very middle of this great agrarian revolution. Mr. Wyndham, the author of the Act of 1903, thought that £100,000,000 would suffice to carry this revolution through, but already £84,000,000 had been accounted for and there was every reason for supposing that Mr. Wyndham’s estimate should have been £183,000,000. With regard to the loss on the flotation of land stock, he expressed the opinion that for a decade, at any rate, it would be unsafe to assume that a higher issue price would be obtained than £85, and he calculated that if nothing were done a charge of £855,000 annually would eventually have to be made good by the ratepayers. It was impossible to expect them to bear this enormous burden, and if the law were not amended the scheme of land purchase must break down. His proposal in regard to the bonus was that, instead of fixing it at 3 per cent., it should be paid according to a scale under which the lower the price given for the land the higher would be the bonus. For this at least £3,000,000 would be required over and above the original £12,000,000. By this Bill the Exchequer was assuming, everything considered, a total capital liability of about £30,000,000. Calling attention to the principal provisions of the Bill, he reminded the House that landlords were empowered to take payment partly in cash and partly in stock at 92. He then mentioned the steps that were being taken to accelerate the work of the Estates Commissioners and stated that advances to the amount of £10,000,000 were never likely to be exceeded in one year; they now had reached £8,000,000."

On a question arising as to one part, called a "bonus," provided for in the transaction of purchase, Mr. Wyndham, who had been Chief Secretary in 1903, and author of the original Act, said. "Some honourable members sitting for English constituencies might think that the bonus was not necessary. They might think that if the State lent its credit, landlord and tenant could come to terms, and that the bonus was something thrown in as a sop to the landlords. If the transfer of land in Ireland were sporadic, he agreed that landlords might sell without the assistance of a direct bonus from the State. The question to be solved in Ireland, however, was that of the general transfer of ownership of land throughout the country, and that, broadly speaking, could not be effected unless the present owners received an equivalent to the income which they now enjoyed. In the past nearly all the cases of the sporadic transfer of ownership of land had been got rid of, and there were now left those cases which could not be dealt with unless a bonus were given. It had been generally recognized by all parties that a bonus should be given rather than that the land difficulties in Ireland should continue, and six years ago the decision arrived at was supported by the unanimous opinion of all parties in the House. Now it was proposed that the method of giving a substantial bonus at a uniform rate should be set aside in such a way as to increase the discrepancy between pending and future agreements. Already by altering the rate of instalments in future agreements, and by giving stock instead of cash, they had created a wide difference between the two classes. On the top of that they were now going to do away with the bonuses and apply a method which he thought he would be able to show would prove most injurious; and if it did prove injurious, it would touch the cardinal point in the whole matter."

Mr. Wyndham opposed the new Bill on this point, apparently without success. Strong opposition to a grant of the power of compulsory purchase which the Bill embodied was raised, in the House of Commons, as well as ultimately in the House of Lords. Its contemplated changes in dealing with what are called "congested estates" and "congested districts," being those in which the holdings of tenants are too small to yield a decent living, were also a subject of criticism and opposition.

The Bill received some amendment in the House of Commons, before having its third reading and passage on the 18th of September. In the House of Lords it met with harder treatment, and was returned to the Commons with amendments which the latter rejected _in toto_. Informal conferences brought about an accommodation of the differences between the two Houses and placed the Act on the statute book. The peers yielded on the question of compulsory purchase, as well as with regard to the tribunal which should have a deciding authority in the matter, these being the two points most in dispute.

IRELAND: A. D. 1909 (January). Disclosures of Poverty by the Old Age Pensions Act.

See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS.

IRELAND: A. D. 1909 (October). Organization of the two new Irish Universities.

See (in this Volume) Education: Ireland.

{338}

IROQUOIS THEATER, Burning of the.

See (in this Volume) CHICAGO: A. D. 1903.

IRRIGATION.

See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

ISLE OF PINES: United States Supreme Court Decision concerning.

See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).

ISTHMIAN CANAL.

See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL.

ISVOLSKY, Alexander: Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs. His Aide Memoire on Macedonian Affairs.

See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).

ISVOLSKY, Alexander: Convention with Great Britain.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).

ITAGAKI, Count.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).

----------ITALY: Start--------

ITALY: A. D. 1870-1905. Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.

ITALY: A. D. 1901. The First Year of the Reign of King Victor Emmanuel III. Greatly improved conditions. Restored Liberty of Speech and Meeting. Neutrality of Government in Labor Disputes. Zanardelli and Giolitti in the Ministry.

In the early months of 1901, when Volume VI. of this work went to press, Italy was in an uncertain and anxious state. It had not recovered from the shock of the assassination of King Humbert, and could not foresee what length the sobering effects of that tragedy would have. It had hope that the new reign just beginning would quiet the dreadful disorders that had become rife in Parliament and in the country at large, but fear to the contrary was more than equal, perhaps, to the hope. Happily it was the hope that found justification within the passing year, as will be learned from the following report of conditions, published in the last month of 1901:

"Those who expected that King Victor Emmanuel III’s reign would be coincident with a marked improvement in Italy, have so far been amply justified. Few ventured to hope that his Liberal Ministry under Signors Zanardelli and Giolitti would weather a Parliamentary session. As it is, despite some weakness and a few mistakes, it has come out triumphant. Compared with eighteen months ago, Italian politics have undergone what is little less than a revolution. The closing months of the last reign saw the most dangerous constitutional crisis that United Italy has known. A reactionary Government was threatening Parliamentary liberty; the Liberals and Socialists were making a desperate stand, which at all events preserved the Constitution, and perhaps saved Italy from revolution. Now the signs of danger have almost passed. The Crown is fast getting back its popularity. Parliament is asserting itself as it has not done for many years, and is able to give its time to quiet, useful work. The Extreme Left, stubbornly obstructionist last year, is giving an independent but fairly cordial support to the Ministry. Outside Parliament Italians have for once a government ‘which allows them to breathe and move and speak.’ For the first time since Crispi introduced coercion, seven years ago, there is liberty of speech and public meeting. Still, occasionally, the unteachable censorship suppresses an issue of some democratic paper. But there is no prosecution for political speeches, no arbitrary political imprisonment, no harrying of cooperative or benefit societies from empty fear of political designs or at the bidding of shopkeepers.

"But this is of small account beside the altered attitude of the Government towards labour questions. Hitherto its influence had been always more or less on the side of the employers. Trade Unions were dissolved and sometimes their members arrested; their organisers were imprisoned for ‘exciting to class-hatred,’ and under the military courts of 1898 it was an offence to plead, however moderately, in defence of the claims of labour. When the agricultural labourers of the lower Po valley struck for a living wage, the Government sent soldiers to reap the crops. Suddenly and radically all this has changed. At last the law is observed, and Trade Unions are allowed the legal sanction which nominally they have had for years. The Government has announced its neutrality in labour disputes, so long as there is no violence or interference with individual liberty. The result has been an epidemic of strikes. The Italian working man, long cowed by his powerlessness before the alliance of employer and Government, is using his new freedom to raise his miserable wage. Signor Giolitti estimated in the middle of last June that since the beginning of the year there had been 511 strikes, affecting 600,000 workmen (a number almost unparalleled even in England) and resulting in an increase of wages by nearly £2,000,000, a huge sum in poverty-stricken Italy. Probably by now the total of strikers has reached a figure which has never been equalled within a year in any European country. … Thanks to the vigorous advocacy of arbitration by the Chambers of Labour, the urban strikes have generally been short, and, so far as I know, except for some not very serious trouble at Naples, there has been no case of disorder in them."

_Bolton King, The New Reign in Italy (Contemporary Review, December, 1901)._

ITALY: A. D. 1902 (June). Renewal of the Triple Alliance.

See (in this Volume) TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

ITALY: A. D. 1902-1904. Coercive Proceedings against Venezuela concerted with Great Britain and Germany. Settlement of claims secured. Reference to The Hague.

See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.

ITALY: A. D. 1903 (March). General Strike in Rome. See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.

ITALY: A. D. 1903 (October). Change of Ministry.

Signor Giuseppe Zanardelli, President of the Council, or Premier, since February, 1901, gave his resignation to the King in October, 1903, on account of ill-health, and a new Ministry was formed by Signor Giolitti, who had been Minister of the interior in the administration of Zanardelli, and who still retained that portfolio after assuming the presidency of the Council.

ITALY: A. D. 1903-1905. Initiation of the International Institute of Agriculture by the King.

See (in this Volume) AGRICULTURE.

ITALY: A. D. 1904. Tokens of a Disposition to bring the Church and the State into better Accord.

Several marked tokens of a conciliatory disposition on both sides of the long break in relations between the Papacy and the Government of the Kingdom of Italy appeared in the course of the year 1904. The Government brought in a bill for increasing the public salaries of curés. Its diplomatic agents in South America were instructed to give attention to a Papal nuncio who travelled thither on a mission from the Vatican as though he represented the King. The King conveyed a piece of ground to the Pope which enlarged his domain. A Cardinal took

## part in a reception to the King at Bologna and sat at table

with them. These were such amenities between the royal and pontifical courts as had not been seen for a generation, and they seemed to bear much significance; but little came from them in the end.

{339}

ITALY: A. D. 1904 (October-December). Dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies. The Government sustained in the Elections. Increased Participation by the Catholics.

The Chamber of Deputies was dissolved by royal decree on the 17th of October, and elections appointed to be held on the 6th and 13th of November. The canvass was more animated than usual, Catholics taking part in it, and in the subsequent voting, more numerously than hitherto. The Ministry of Premier Giolitti, representing the Liberals and Moderates in politics, between groups of the extreme Right and Left, secured a strong majority. Those of the Left lost a number of seats, though the Socialists claimed to have made large gains in the popular vote.

ITALY: A. D. 1905. Effect of the Russo-Japanese War on the Triple Alliance.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.

ITALY: A. D. 1905.

## Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms

in Macedonia on Turkey.

See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.

ITALY: A. D. 1905 (September). Earthquake in Calabria.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES.

ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906. Illness and Retirement of Premier Giolitti. The Fortis and Sonnino Ministries. The Demoralized Railway Service. Catholic Abstention from Politics relaxed. Return of Giolitti to Power.

The Italian Premier, Signor Giolitti, was forced by illness to withdraw from office early in the year, and Signor Fortis was commissioned by the King to form a new Ministry. He did not succeed, and Signor Tittoni was then required by the King to take the lead in Government with the late colleagues of Signor Giolitti. Tittoni soon resigned, however, and Fortis was again called, late in March, to form a Cabinet, which he now found himself able to do. In the following December, however, a reconstruction of the Fortis Ministry occurred, the King requiring the Premier to retain his place, while his colleagues were partly changed.

Throughout the year the Government and the country were greatly troubled by a general demoralization in the management and service of the railways. Travel and freight transportation were exasperatingly delayed; accidents were of constant occurrence, and strikes, having no result but the public affliction, were repeated again and again.

Early in the summer an encyclical on the attitude to be taken by the faithful in political controversies was addressed to the Italian bishops by the Pope. Not distinctly, but by inference, it was taken to be a relaxation of the policy of abstention from politics, and to prompt political action by Catholics, but always under clerical guidance and advice.

The Fortis Ministry held its ground in the Government, against much attack, until February, 1906, when it lost the support of a majority in the Chamber, and gave place to a coalition Cabinet formed by Signor Sonnino, which conducted the administration till the following May, when, on a question of the purchase of the Southern railways, it suffered defeat. Whereupon Signor Giolitti returned to power, in the face of a threat from the employees of the railways that they would proclaim a general strike if he took up the reins again. The strike did not occur, and a notable access of vigor and

## activity of Government appeared.

ITALY: A. D. 1906. At the Algeciras Conference on the Morocco Question.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.

ITALY: A. D. 1906 (April). Violent eruption of Mount Vesuvius.

See (in this Volume) VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS.

ITALY: A. D. 1906-1909. The Giolitti Administration. Its recent resignation.

The Giolitti Ministry was maintained in the direction of the Government for nearly four years, by virtue of the energetic and efficient administration it conducted. Its capabilities were demonstrated somewhat notably before the close of 1906, by the conversion of the Italian rentes (Government bonds) from 4 to 3 per cent.,—a financial operation which had been discussed and fumbled over, apparently, for a long time. Premier Giolitti brought the question to a determination in the Chamber after less than one day of debate; and the conversion of 8,000,000,000fr. of national debt was so readily accepted by the rente-holders that only 1,700,000fr. needed to be paid off.

Relations between the Government and the Papacy were improved by the breach of the latter with France, which led to the substitution of Italy for France as the protector of Catholics and Catholic interests in the Empire of the Turks. This was not, however, agreeable to Austria, and began a coolness between these two of the parties to the Triple Alliance which all the disturbing occurrences in the Near East have tended since to increase. The Alliance with Austria and Germany had been renewed in 1902; but there have been several occasions within the past three years on which Italian ill-feeling toward the former has flamed out quite threateningly in Press and Parliament, and sometimes in popular demonstrations.

A disturbing agitation of the question of religious instruction in the schools occurred in 1908, bringing demands from anti-clerical parties for its prohibition; but the Government was upheld in refusing such action. A disturbing excitement in Sicily was produced that year by the conviction, after a much prolonged and sensational trial, of Signor Nasi, ex Minister of Public Instruction, on charges of embezzlement of public moneys. The convicted Minister was a Sicilian, and his fellow-countrymen resented the prosecution of him as an indignity to themselves. To pacify them, Signor Nasi, after a short detention in his own house, had the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment remitted.

The Giolitti Ministry came to its end somewhat unexpectedly on the 2d of December, 1909. It had brought forward, not long before, a Bill embodying proposals for the reform of taxation, avowedly to transfer some larger proportion of its burden from the poor to the rich, especially by death duties and income taxes. When the election of a committee to deal with the Bill occurred December 2, the opponents of the Government secured a majority, whereupon Premier Giolitti and his Cabinet resigned. A new Ministry was formed, under Baron Sonnino, the leader of the Opposition. The parliamentary support it must depend on is said to be made up of extremely contradictory elements.

{340}

ITALY: A. D. 1908. Falling off in Emigration.

See (in this Volume) IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: ITALY.

ITALY: A. D. 1908 (December). The Awful Destruction of Messina and Reggio by Earthquake.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: ITALY.

ITALY: A. D. 1908. Election of a Jewish Mayor of Rome.

Whether specially significant or not, the election in Rome, in 1908, of Ernesto Nathan, a Jew and an ex-Grand Master of the Order of Free Masons, to be Mayor of the City, was an event which excited wide interest and remark. Mr. Nathan’s birth, and his education partly, were in England, but he acquired citizenship in Italy, and rose in reputation and influence at Rome, until he had become the leading figure in the hard fought municipal election of the winter of 1908, which defeated the Church party and elected sixty Radical members out of eighty composing the City Council. The Mayor is elected by the Council, and it gave the office to Nathan.

ITALY: A. D. 1909. Church Movement of Agricultural Labor Organization.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.

ITALY: A. D. 1909. Tardy Construction of "Dreadnoughts."

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

ITALY: A. D. 1909 (March). Parliamentary Elections. Socialist, Republican, Radical, and Catholic Gains. Conservative Losses. Large, but Reduced Majority for the Government.

Extensive changes in the representation of the numerous

## parties in Italian politics resulted from the Parliamentary

elections held in March, 1909. As finally reported, after seventy four second ballots had been taken, the outcome was as follows:

From seven Deputies the Catholics rose to 24. The Socialists went up from 26 to 42, the extreme Radicals from 32 to 42, and the Republicans from 19 to 24. The parties of the Extreme Left had thus risen from 77 to 108. The Moderate Liberals, or Constitutional Opposition, as they call themselves, declined the most, numbering between 60 and 70. But the gains made by the parties of the extreme Left had only recovered for them the ground they had lost in the election of 1904.

"An interesting feature of the elections is that the Pope’s supporters are said to have taken a more active part than they have done since the beginning of united Italy. The Papal inhibition against going to the polls was removed in seventy-two constituencies, or one-seventh of the whole number voting. The result has been no gain in Rome, where the Anti-Clerical bloc repeated its victories of the preceding year, and a fairly slight gain in the rural districts. In general, it may be questioned whether the Papal _non expedit_ has really kept Catholics out of politics to a very considerable extent. If we take the enrolled electors in Germany, we find that they constitute 20 per cent. of the entire population; in France the ratio is nearly 24 per cent.; in Italy it is less than 8 per cent. At first sight that would indicate that an enormous number of Italians boycott the polls. We find, however, that the Italian franchise demands not only the ability to read and write, but a certain degree of additional elementary education. At the same time we find that in 1901 nearly 44 per cent, of all males over twenty years of age were illiterate. This at once nearly doubles the electoral ratio. Add the fact that there are very considerable property qualifications for the franchise, and we get for Italy a ratio not far removed from Germany’s 20 percent. It would follow that the number of Italians who refrain from availing themselves of their electoral rights is not very large."

_New York Evening Post, March 8, 1909._

ITALY: A. D. 1909 (May). Proposed Payment of Members of Parliament.

A Press despatch from Rome, May 9, 1909, reported:

"Leave was asked yesterday to introduce in the Chamber of Deputies two Bills for the payment of members of Parliament. According to the first Bill, proposed by Signor Galli, all Deputies and Senators would receive £240 a year; the second Bill, proposed by Signor Chimienti, would make a payment of 24s. for every sitting attended. Signor Giolitti said that the idea of the payment of members of Parliament was evidently gaining ground, and that the Government would not oppose the introduction of the Bills. On the other hand, he deprecated the contention which had been advanced, that the non-payment of Deputies was in any way responsible for a scanty attendance, and earnestly recommended the Chamber to give the question its very careful consideration before committing itself either way."

ITALY: A. D. 1909 (November). Naval strength.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

----------ITALY: End--------

ITO, Prince Hirobumi: Visit to the United States. Mission to St. Petersburg.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.

ITO, Prince Hirobumi: President of the Japanese Council. His Party.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (June).

ITO, Prince Hirobumi: Resident-General in Korea.

See (in this Volume) KOREA: A. D. 1905-1909.

ITO, Prince Hirobumi: His assassination.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).

J.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1906. Harmony of relations between the White minority and the Colored majority of inhabitants. How explained.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: JAMAICA.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1907. Destructive Earthquake.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: JAMAICA.

JAMES, Professor William: Plan for ending War.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.

JAMESON, Dr. Leander S.: Premier of Cape Colony. His Continuance of the Policy of Cecil Rhodes.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1902-1904.

JAMESON, Dr. Leander S.: At the Imperial Conference of 1907.

See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.

{341}

JAMESON, Dr. L. S.: In Movement for South African Union.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1908-1909.

JAMESTOWN TERCENTENIAL EXPOSITION.

The three hundredth anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in America was celebrated on the site of the settlement, at Jamestown, Virginia, by an Exposition which was opened by President Roosevelt on the 26th of April, 1907. The advantages of the place for naval display tempted Congress to give that character, in the main, to so much of the celebration as was organized under national auspices that other features were quite eclipsed. As an illustration of three centuries of progress from the beginnings of civilized life in the United States it cannot be said to have had much success. But the show, from many nations, of battle ships and the paraphernalia of naval war was superb.

JANNARIS, Professor, Imprisonment of.

See (in this Volume) CRETE: A. D. 1905-1906.

----------JAPAN: Start--------

JAPAN: A. D. 1901 (July). Unveiling of a Monument to commemorate the Advent of Commodore Perry.

A monument to commemorate the arrival of Commodore Perry in Japan, in 1853, was unveiled with imposing ceremonies, at Kurihama, on the 14th of July, 1901, that being the forty-eighth anniversary of the event. Commodore Rodgers, with three vessels of the Asiatic Squadron of the United States, attended to represent the United States officially in the ceremonies of the day. The monument was erected by the Japanese "America Association of Japan."

JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904. Persistent occupation of Manchuria by the Russians. Japanese negotiations and demands, without satisfaction.

"In spite of repeated promises to evacuate the points seized and held by Russian forces when, after the relief of the Legations, these forces were withdrawn from Peking and Chili, to be concentrated in Manchuria [see Manchuria, in Volume VI.], and in disregard of the interests of the other allies, the policy of keeping all that she had gained, and of gaining more as far as possible, was steadily pursued by Russia. … It was the probable effect of a continued occupation of Manchuria by Russia upon their business interests which led Great Britain and America to wish that the repeated Russian assurances of good faith toward China and toward all foreign nations should manifest themselves in works. The case could not be wholly the same with Japan. Her interests of trade were, indeed, if not at the time so large, more close and vital than those of any other nation outside of China. But her other interests were incomparable. So that when Russia failed to carry out her engagements, even under a convention which was so much in her favor [see, in this Volume, China. A. D. 1901-1902], there was a revival of suspicion and apprehension on the part of the Japanese Government and the Japanese people. Manchuria and Korea both pointed an index finger of warning directed toward Russia.

"It was to further a peaceful adjustment of all the disturbed conditions of the interests of Russia and Japan in the Far East that Marquis Ito went, on his way home from his visit to the United States, at the end of 1901, on an unofficial mission to St. Petersburg. The failure of the overtures which he bore discouraged those of the leading Japanese statesmen who were hoping for some reconciliation which might take the shape of allowing Russian ascendency in Manchuria and Japanese ascendency in Korea. It also strengthened the conviction which prevailed among the younger statesmen that the St. Petersburg Government regarded Manchuria as not only its fortress in the Far East, but also as its path to the peninsula lying within sight of Japan’s shores. ‘The Japanese Government,’ says Mr. D. W. Stevens, ‘at last felt that the vital interests of Japan might be irrevocably jeopardized in Korea as well as in Manchuria, if it continued to remain a mere passive spectator of Russian encroachments; and in August, 1903, it resolved to take a decisive step. In the most courteous form and through the usual diplomatic channels Japan intimated at St. Petersburg that her voice must be heard, and listened to, in connection with Far Eastern questions in which her interests were vitally concerned.’ The answer of Russia was the appointment of Admiral Alexeieff as Viceroy over the Czar’s possessions in the Far East, with executive and administrative powers of a semi-autocratic character. … Negotiations having in view the peaceful adjustment of the conflicting interests of Russia and Japan in the Far East, which were begun by the latter country in the summer of 1903, were further continued. Mr. Kurino, the Japanese Minister at St. Petersburg, was informed by Baron Komura, who was then Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the recent conduct of Russia at Peking, in Manchuria, and in Korea, was the cause of grave concern to the Government at Tokyo. ‘The unconditional and permanent occupation of Manchuria by Russia would,’ said Baron Komura, ‘create a state of things prejudicial to the security and interests of Japan. The principle of equal opportunity would thereby be annulled, and the territorial integrity of China be impaired. There is, however, a still more serious consideration for the Japanese Government; that is to say, if Russia was established on the flank of Korea it would be a constant menace to the separate existence of that empire, or at least would make Russia the dominant power in Korea. But Korea is an important outpost in Japan’s line of defence, and Japan consequently considers its independence absolutely essential to her own repose and safety. Moreover, the political as well as the commercial and industrial interests and influence which Japan possesses in Korea are paramount over those of other Powers. These interests and this influence Japan, having regard to her own security, cannot consent to surrender to, or share with, another Power.’

{342}

"In view of these reasons, Mr. Kurino was instructed to present the following note to Count Lamsdorff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs:

‘The Japanese Government desires to remove from the relations of the two empires every cause of future misunderstanding, and believes that the Russian Government shares the same desire. The Japanese Government would therefore be glad to enter with the Russian Imperial Government upon an examination of the condition of affairs in the regions of the extreme East, where their interests meet, with a view of defining their respective especial interests in those regions. If this suggestion fortunately meets with the approval, in principle, of the Russian Government, the Japanese Government will be prepared to present to the Russian Government their views as to the nature and scope of the proposed understanding.’

"The consent of Count Lamsdorff and the Czar having been obtained, on August 12th articles were prepared and submitted by the Japanese Government which it wished to have serve as a basis of understanding between the two countries. The essential agreements to be secured by these articles were:

(1) A mutual engagement to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Chinese and Korean empires, and to maintain the ‘ open door’ in these countries; and

(2) a reciprocal recognition of Japan’s preponderating interests in Korea and of Russia’s special interests in Manchuria.

These demands were not altered in any very important way by Japan during all the subsequent negotiations. It was their persistent rejection by Russia, together with her long delays in replying while she was meantime making obvious preparations of a warlike character, which precipitated the tremendous conflict that followed some months later."

_George T. Ladd, In Korea with Marquis Ito, chapter 10 (copyright, 1908, C. Scribner’s Sons)._

JAPAN: A. D. 1902. Defensive Agreement between Great Britain and Japan.

An agreement of great importance, in the nature of a defensive alliance, between Great Britain and Japan, was concluded at London on the 30th of January, 1902. On the publication of the Treaty, a few days later, it was accompanied by a communication from the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the Marquis of Lansdowne, to Sir C. MacDonald, the British Minister at Tokyo, in which the actuating motives of the Agreement were set forth, as follows:

"Sir: I have signed to-day, with the Japanese minister, an agreement between Great Britain and Japan, of which a copy is inclosed in this dispatch.

"This agreement may be regarded as the outcome of the events which have taken place during the last two years in the Far East, and of the part taken by Great Britain and Japan in dealing with them. Throughout the troubles and complications which arose in China consequent upon the Boxer outbreak and attack upon the Pekin legations, the two powers have been in close and uninterrupted communication, and have been actuated by similar views. We have each of us desired that the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire should be preserved, that there should be no disturbance of the territorial status quo either in China or in the adjoining regions, that all nations should, within those regions, as well as within the limits of the Chinese Empire, be afforded equal opportunities for the development of their commerce and industry, and that peace should not only be restored, but should, for the future, be maintained.

"From the frequent exchanges of views which have taken place between the two Governments, and from the discovery that their Far Eastern policy was identical, it has resulted that each side has expressed the desire that their common policy should find expression in an international contract of binding validity. …

"His Majesty’s Government have been largely influenced in their decision to enter into this important contract by the conviction that it contains no provisions which can be regarded as an indication of aggressive or self-seeking tendencies in the regions to which it applies. It has been concluded purely as a measure of precaution, to be invoked, should occasion arise, in the defense of important British interests. It in no way threatens the present position or the legitimate interests of other powers. On the contrary, that part of it which renders either of the high contracting

## parties liable to be called upon by the other for assistance

can operate only when one of the allies has found himself obliged to go to war in defense of interests which are common to both, when the circumstances in which he has taken this step are such as to establish that the quarrel has not been of his own seeking, and when, being engaged in his own defense, he finds himself threatened, not by a single power, but by a hostile coalition."

JAPAN: Agreement between Great Britain and Japan, signed at London, January 30, 1902.

"The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, actuated solely by a desire to maintain the _status quo_ and general peace in the extreme East, being moreover specially interested in maintaining the independence and territorial integrity of the Empire of China and the Empire of Corea, and in securing equal opportunities in those countries for the commerce and industry of all nations, hereby agree as follows:

"Article I. The High Contracting Parties having mutually recognized the independence of China and of Corea, declare themselves to be entirely uninfluenced by any aggressive tendencies in either country. Having in view, however, their special interests, of which those of Great Britain relate principally to China, while Japan, in addition to the interests which she possesses in China, is interested in a peculiar degree politically, as well as commercially and industrially, in Corea, the High Contracting Parties recognize that it will be admissible for either of them to take such measures as may be indispensable in order to safeguard those interests if threatened either by the aggressive action of any other Power, or by disturbances arising in China or Corea, and necessitating the intervention of either of the High Contracting Parties for the protection of the lives and property of its subjects.

"Article II. If either Great Britain or Japan, in the defence of their respective interests as above described, should become involved in war with another Power, the other High Contracting Party will maintain a strict neutrality, and use its efforts to prevent other Powers from joining in hostilities against its ally.

"Article III. If in the above event any other Power or Powers should join in hostilities against that ally, the other high contracting party will come to its assistance and will conduct the war in common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it.

{343}

"Article IV. The High Contracting Parties agree that neither of them will, without consulting the other, enter into separate arrangements with another Power to the prejudice of the interests above described.

"Article V. Whenever, in the opinion of either Great Britain or Japan, the above-mentioned interests are in jeopardy, the two Governments will communicate with one another fully and frankly.

"Article VI. The present agreement shall come into effect immediately after the date of its signature, and remain in force for five years from that date. In case neither of the High Contracting

## Parties should have notified twelve months before the

expiration of the said five years the intention of terminating it, it shall remain binding until the expiration of one year from the day on which either of the High Contracting Parties shall have denounced it. But if, when the date fixed for its expiration arrives, either ally is actually engaged in war, the alliance shall, ipso facto, continue until peace is concluded. In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this agreement, and have affixed thereto their seals."

In August, 1905, the above Treaty was replaced by a fresh Agreement of similar tenor.

See, below, JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).

JAPAN: A. D. 1902 (August). Success of Prince Ito’s Party in the Parliamentary Election.

"Thus far parties, so called, have been magnetized around men. They have not crystallized along the axes of principles. Marquis Ito, ultra-conservative in politics but radical and reformer in things social, is at one pole. Count Okuma, radical in politics, sternly conservative of social life and the traditionary ethics, is at the other.

"The August elections of 1902 show apparently at least that the day of party government has dawned, for now and for the first time Marquis Ito leads in the Lower House a host of the friends of the Constitution (_Rikken Seiyu Kai_) that has an overwhelming majority of seats and in time of a ‘division’ nearly if not wholly a plurality of votes. The returns are just in and the table stands about thus:

Seiyu Kai (Constitution Friends) 193 Progressists 106 Independents 56 Imperialists and others 21

"It was a smart stroke of policy for Ito, two years ago, to unite in one organization [see in Volume VI. of this work, Japan: A. D. 1900 (August-October)] the Radicals under Hoshi Toru and his own following of ‘clansmen, capacities and young statesmen.’ It was the union of the strong and the subtle, taking the name not of a party but of an ‘Association,’ with a purpose of upholding the constitution (in the Prussian sense), in order to control both the educational and the economic policy of the country, to complete the radical transformation of the Japanese into a modern man, and ‘to screen Japan’s Western evolution against all possibility of reaction.’"

_W. E. Griffis, in The Independent._

JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (June). The Marquis Ito accepts Presidency of the Council to strengthen the Government.

To strengthen the Ministry of Count Katsura in the Diet, the Marquis Ito, powerful head of the Rikken Seiyu-kai (Association of the Friends of the Constitution, foreseeing trouble to come from the proceedings of Russia in Manchuria, consented in June to accept the post of President of the Council, and was joined in the Council by Marquis Yamagata and Count Matsukata. The Government was thus greatly reinforced for dealing with the difficulties that now approached very fast. A section of the Seiyu-kai seceded from it, however, and formed the Doshishukai (Assembly of Fellow-thinkers), under Count Itagaki.

See (in Volume VI.) JAPAN: A. D. 1900, AUGUST-OCTOBER.

JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-July). War with Russia. Sudden opening of Hostilities. Occupation of Korea. Battles at the Yalu. The Armies in Manchuria. Movement of General Nogi on Manchuria.

Simultaneously with the rupture of diplomatic relations with Russia, on the 6th of February, 1904, the Japanese Government dispatched from Sasebo a fleet of 7 battle-ships, 18 cruisers, and flotillas of torpedo boats and destroyers, under Vice-Admiral Togo, with transports conveying troops, to open operations of war. The transports were convoyed to Chemulpho, the port of Seoul, Korea, by 4 cruisers and a number of torpedo boats, under Rear-Admiral Uryu; while Admiral Togo proceeded with the remainder of his fleet to Port Arthur. The troops sent to Chemulpho were landed on the 8th, and Admiral Uryu, the next day, attacked a Russian cruiser and gunboat in Chemulpho harbor with such effect that they were destroyed by their commanders. On the night of the 8th Togo’s torpedo boats were sent against the Russian fleet at Port Arthur and crippled it to a serious extent. A second body of 14,000 troops was landed at Chemulpho on the 15th.

The Japanese had now a strong footing in Korea, with Seoul securely in hand, and the First Japanese Army, under General Kuroki, was ready to begin its northward advance. Phyangyang was occupied on the 20th, after which further troops could be landed at Chinampho, saving a long march. By the end of March there were about 45,000 men in the force moving toward the Yalu. The first encounter with the Russians was near Chengju, where 600 of the latter’s cavalry were driven back. On the 4th of April the Japanese advance guard reached the Yalu, which forms the boundary between Korea and Manchuria, and occupied Wiju, near its mouth, the opposing cavalry having been withdrawn to the opposite bank of the river on the preceding day. The main body arrived at Wiju April 20. The Russians, on the other side of the Yalu, were then concentrating a force of about 25,000 men, with Liaoyang and Fenghuangcheng for its first and secondary bases.

For ten ensuing days both armies were busy in preparations and manoeuvres, the one for attempting to force a crossing of the Yalu, the other to resist it. How their preparations compared in effectiveness is described by an experienced correspondent, David Fraser, who accompanied the Japanese and wrote the story of the campaign, publishing it subsequently in a book entitled "A Modern Campaign." The difference that Mr. Fraser saw between the painstaking, the thoughtfulness and the carefully acquired knowledge which went into the Japanese preparation for their attack,—the concealment of their forces, the masking of their batteries, the obscuring of all that they did,—and the contrasting carelessness of the Russians in the same

## particulars, was the difference that gave success to the one

and brought defeat on the other. {344} Before the Japanese moved they knew everything they needed to know,—the fordable places on the streams they had to cross, the points of advantage on every mile of the ground to be traversed, the positions of the enemy,—and the Russians did not. And the Japanese were able to repeat much of the same feinting and maneuvering by means of which they had forced the passage of the Yalu at the same place, against the Chinese, in 1894.

On the 25th of April the Japanese were ready to bring their preparations into use, and on that and the next two days they drove the Russian outposts from the islands they needed to occupy, and began building bridges at night. In the end, ten bridges were built, some of them invisible to the enemy. Many signs of Japanese movement down the river were then exhibited to the Russians. A Japanese battery became busy at a point some distance below Wiju; gunboats and other vessels were collected in that direction; troops were in motion in the same direction; but quiet reigned at and around Wiju, the batteries behind which had not yet betokened their existence. That quiet in this part of the Japanese line was broken suddenly at midday on the 29th, when a pontoon train, with accompanying troops, was hurried to the river, the pontoons launched, manned and paddled to the opposite bank. A Russian outpost which fired on these invaders drew the first revelation of a hitherto hidden and silent Japanese battery, and fled from its shells. Possession of the further shore was thus secured for sufficient time to enable the construction of the pontoon bridge, which the strong current in the river made a difficult task. It was ready, however, for the crossing of the river that night by the infantry of the entire 12th division of the Japanese Army.

The thrilling episode of the battle of the next two days was the opening of fire from the hitherto hidden and unsuspected batteries of Japanese heavy guns. Mr. Fraser tells us that the Russians had believed it impossible to bring heavy artillery over the Korean roads, and were in consternation when the howitzers belched forth their shells in a fairly overpowering way. "The trees," he says, "screened the flashing of the Japanese guns from the Russian eyes. There was no smoke to indicate their whereabouts. The indirect fire of the howitzers was as deadly as if it had been aimed point-blank. The Russians, on the other hand, fired at random into the belt of trees; they had been able to locate only two of the Japanese guns. Their fire had little or no effect upon the well-protected Japanese gunners. In ten minutes the Russian shooting grew wild. … After twenty-five minutes both batteries were silenced."

It is the testimony of all witnesses of the fighting on both days of the battle, especially on the 1st of May, that the Russians showed desperate courage; but every advantage, of position, of equipment, of numbers, and, above all, of generalship, was in favor of the Japanese. They drove the enemy from all his entrenchments, and entered Manchuria, to pursue there an equally successful campaign, for the same reasons, of superior ability and more thorough preparation.

The reported loss of the Japanese in the conflicts on the Yalu was 5 officers and 218 men killed, 33 officers and 780 men wounded. They captured 22 field guns, 8 machine guns, a quantity of rifles and ammunition, and took 628 prisoners, including 18 officers. General Zasulich, the Russian commander, reported 70 officers and 2324 men killed, wounded and taken prisoners. Another Russian report of losses gave 28 officers and 564 men killed, 38 officers and 1081 men wounded, and 6 officers and 679 men missing.

The Russians retreated on Fenghuangcheng, but made no stand there, and the Japanese, who followed, occupied the place on the 6th of May. The advance of the latter was halted at that point until late in June, waiting for operations in other parts of the field.

Meantime, between the 4th and the 22d of May, the Second Japanese Army, General Oku commanding, had been landed near Pitsewo, on the western coast of the Liao-tung peninsula, and this began a general advance on the 25th. It fought a severe battle on the following day, at Nanshan, or Kinchou, from which the Russians fell back. The victory of the Japanese cost them heavily, their reported loss being 739 killed and 5455 wounded; while General Stössel, the Russian commander, reported a loss of 30 officers and 800 men killed and wounded.

On June 6th this Second Army was divided into two, one of which, passing to the command of General Nogi, became the Third Japanese Army, and was marched presently toward Port Arthur, to open the famous siege of that stronghold. General Oku, retaining about 50,000 men in the Second Army, and starting northward on the 15th, was opposed by Russian forces under General Stackelberg. The first important conflict was on June 15 at or near Telissu station, which gave the battle its name. Again the Russians were forced back, with a loss of 103 officers and about 2600 men, killed and wounded, besides a missing list of 764. The Japanese loss was 50 officers and 1113 men killed and wounded. Hard fighting occurred again between the 6th and 9th of July, on the approach of the Japanese to Kaiping and the Kaiping River, beyond which their opponents were driven. "The occupation of Kaiping and the country immediately to the north placed General Oku’s army on the edge of the Liao Valley, opened the way to the Yingkon and Newchwang, and facilitated his further advance to the north by allowing supplies to be received from the sea, thus shortening his line of communications."

A Fourth Japanese Army, under General Nodzu, had now been landed at Takushan, on the eastern coast of the Liao-tung peninsula, and was reconnoitering toward Oku’s forces, as well as toward the First Japanese Army, which had remained in the vicinity of Fenghuangcheng until the 24th of June, waiting for these cooperative masses of troops to be got into place. It was now being moved in three columns, one of which was soon in touch with the Fourth Army (Nodzu’s), and the two began working to the west and northwest. The Russians gave up Fenshuiling, and by the 9th of July, when Oku, with the Second Army, occupied Kaiping, the three Japanese armies in the northern part of the Liao-tung peninsula—the First, Second, and Fourth—"were united on a front from Kaiping east to Fenshuiling, thence northeast through Motienling, with covering detachments of Kobi troops eastward at Saimachi, Hsienchang and Huaijen. {345} The Russians were concentrated in the Liao Valley at Tashihchiao, Haicheng, Anping and Liaoyang." On the 6th of July Field Marshal Oyama had left Tokyo to take active command of this united army, and the great operations of the Manchurian campaign were about to begin.

_Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War, United States War Department, Second [Military Information] Division, General Staff, Number 11._

At this time General Nogi, with the Third Japanese Army, was fighting his way slowly toward Port Arthur, against obstinate resistance, not arriving at the front of the land defences proper until the 14th of August.

The Russians had evacuated Dalny (formerly called Talienwan), with its fine harbor, on Talienwan Bay, thirty miles distant from Port Arthur, and the Japanese had occupied it on the 30th of May. This was an acquisition of great importance to them.

JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-August). The War with Russia: Siege of Port Arthur. The Naval Surprise. Unreadiness of the Defence. Naval operations of the six months. Fate of the Russian fleets in the East.

Mr. E. K. Nojine, "accredited Russian War Correspondent," who went through the whole experience at Port Arthur, from first to last of the war, and who wrote what he entitles "The Truth about Port Arthur," opens his severely critical narrative with the following statement:

"When, one hour before midnight on February 8, 1904, our warships began to belch fire from their many steel mouths, and the seaward batteries suddenly thundered forth their angry death-dealing tidings, no one dreamed that the noise was War, for no one had taken the constant rumors of the rupture of diplomatic relations and of approaching hostilities at all seriously. … Although the sky in the East had for weeks been blood-red with the menace of immediate war, yet when it came the surprise was absolute, its horror intensified by our complete unreadiness."

What this writer tells of the unreadiness, and of the slowness with which the serious need of more readiness was comprehended by the controlling authority at Port Arthur, during the weeks that passed before the stronghold was fully invested, goes almost beyond belief. He writes bitterly and contemptuously of General Stössel, who held command of the district, and admiringly of General Smirnoff, Commandant of the fortress, whom Stössel could overrule. He seems to have been sustained in his judgment by the court-martial which subsequently condemned Stössel to death.

The sound of midnight battle on its sea-front (February 8-9) which announced a beginning of war to the surprised garrison of Port Arthur came from the attack of Admiral Togo’s torpedo boats on the Russian fleet in the harbor. Three of the Russian ships were crippled, but not seriously. The next day Togo made a general attack with his whole fleet of fifteen vessels, including five battle-ships, and did some damage to four more of his enemies’ vessels; but a fortnight is said to have repaired them all. The general result of the two operations was "to insure the at least temporary immobility of the Port Arthur fleet," so that "the transport of the army from Japan to Korea might go on without fear of molestation." A squadron was then detached to look after four cruisers at Vladivostock, and that harbor was cannonaded for the same purpose on the 6th of March. Meantime, on the 9th of February, a Russian cruiser and a gunboat, attempting to leave Chemulpho harbor, were driven back, and were then destroyed by their Russian commander.

The main Japanese fleet hovered constantly near Port Arthur, not only maintaining a strict blockade, but making frequent close approaches, to sink vessels and plant mines in the entrance channels of the harbor; to harass the Russian fleet with torpedo attacks, or to come boldly within range of its shore defenses and give battle to them, as well as to bombard the fortress and town. There were heavy bombardments on the 10th and the 22d of May. The Russian fleet, commanded by Vice-Admiral Makaroff, made retaliatory sorties, in returning from one of which, on the 13th of April, the admiral’s flag-ship, the Petropalovsk, struck and exploded a line of floating mines. The huge battle-ship was so shattered by the explosion that she sank in two minutes, carrying down the admiral, the famous painter, Verestchagin, who was his guest, and 550 other officers and men. Of all on board only 85 were saved.

In the course of the next month the Japanese suffered several of the same disasters, two of their battle-ships, the Hatsuse and the Yashima, and two other vessels of less importance, being blown up by the explosion of mines. Of the crew of the Hatsuse nearly 500 perished, while all on board the Yashima were said to have been saved. By collision in a fog one of the Japanese cruisers was sunk, with all but 90 of her crew. And the three most calamitous of these happenings, to the two battle-ships and the cruiser, occurred on the same day—the 15th of May. Admiral Togo’s fleet was weakened very seriously by these losses. Somewhat later the same fate befell a number of Russian ships, but the loss in them was less.

Though watched by a Japanese squadron under Vice-Admiral Kamimura, the Russian war-ships at Vladivostock were able to slip out for occasional cruises, in which they captured or destroyed Japanese transports and merchant ships. In more than one instance—notably that of the Kinshu-Maru—the soldiery on captured transports refused to surrender and committed "hara-kiri" in a body, or were engulfed by the sea. "It is quite true that the work done by the Vladivostock squadron was not great in amount, but they must have caused some inconvenience to the military forces of Japan engaged in the campaign."

On the 23d of June Rear-Admiral Vithöft, who had succeeded the late Admiral Makaroff in the naval command at Port Arthur, sailed out of the harbor with six battle ships, five cruisers and ten torpedo boats, apparently intending to offer battle to the Japanese. The Russians had repaired their damaged vessels and now seemed to have a fleet that was equal to Togo’s in strength, since he opposed only four battle-ships to their six. Nevertheless when the Japanese approached them they withdrew, returning to Port Arthur, pursued by torpedo-boats, and nearly losing the battle ship Sevastopol, which struck a mine and was disabled for six weeks.

{346}

Little occurred during that period on the naval side of the Port Arthur campaign. Then, on the 10th of August, it was reopened startlingly, to be ended with practical completeness within the next few days. On that morning the Port Arthur fleet and the Vladivostock squadron put to sea from their respective harbors, evidently attempting a junction. The Port Arthur fleet was the first to encounter its enemy, which it did the same day, when no more than 25 or 30 miles out from the port. Admiral Vithöft now had with him only five battle ships, having left one, probably disabled, behind. With these were the four cruisers, two gunboats and a number of torpedo craft. Admiral Togo brought against this force four battle-ships and four armored cruisers in the battle that ensued. It "took the form of a long-range engagement between the fleets, steering nearly the same course towards the east. … At a time which is variously reported, but probably about 6.15 p. m., a 12-inch shell … burst near the conning tower of the Cesarevitch [the flagship], killing Admiral Vithöft and wounding the captain of the ship. At the same time the Cesarevitch’s steering gear was damaged, the helm jammed, and she made a sudden sheer to port. This threw the Russian line into confusion. … The Russian formation was now broken up, and the ships fell into a confused group at which the Japanese directed a hot fire at the comparatively short range of 3500 yards. At times the Russian ships were hidden by the smoke of exploding shells, and about 7 p. m. their fire slackened perceptibly. One report states that a second-class battle-ship and two coast-defence vessels had joined the Japanese, besides another ship of a class not certainly known. The whole twelve Japanese ships concentrated their fire on the six Russian battle-ships and four unarmored cruisers till 8 p. m. Prince Ukhtomsk, who had succeeded to the Russian command on Admiral Vithöft’s death, then signalled to the fleet to follow him, and turned toward Port Arthur. All could not follow, and some made for shelter in other ports, harassed by torpedo attacks, but not otherwise pursued.

The result of the Russian sally from Vladivostock was much the same. The three armored cruisers from that port were not intercepted by the Japanese until the morning of the 14th, three days after the defeat of the Port Arthur fleet which they had hoped to join. They were then attacked by four armored and two unarmored cruisers. They fought obstinately and suffered frightful losses in officers and men,—415 wounded and 251 killed. One of the ships, reduced to helplessness, was sunk by its own surviving crew, most of whom were picked up by the Japanese. The other two escaped to Vladivostock in a wrecked state.

These engagements "really ended the naval campaign of 1904. Of the ships [from Port Arthur] that got through the Japanese fleet, one battle ship, the Cesarevitch, and three destroyers were disarmed and interned at Kiachow (Tsingtau); one cruiser, the Askold, and one destroyer had the same fate at Shanghai, and another cruiser, the Novik, was destroyed … at Korsakovsk. A third cruiser, the Diana, was disarmed and interned at the neutral French port of Saigon. One destroyer had been seized at Chefoo by the Japanese for disregard of Chinese neutrality, and one was wrecked on the coast of Shantung. The rest of the fleet which got back to Port Arthur remained there only to be destroyed in nearly every case by their own crews, to save them from the fate of being surrendered to their enemy on the fall of the fortress. … The grand total of the Russian loss [of officers and men] in the six battle-ships and four cruisers amounted to 81 killed and 420 wounded. … The total Japanese loss, as reported at the time, was 61 killed and 124 wounded." Later statements brought the total loss up to 225.

_Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, The Naval Annual, 1905, chapter 7._

JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (July-September). The War with Russia: Campaign in Manchuria. Japanese advances; Russian retreats. The great battle and Japanese victory at Liao-Yang.

On the 4th of July the Russians, who had given up Motienling to the Japanese five days before, made an attempt to recover it, but failed. They repeated the attempt on the 17th, and again without success. On the 10th a force from the Fourth Japanese Army (Nodzu’s), advancing from Fenshuiling toward Tomucheng, met with a repulse. The right column of Kuroki’s army (the First) fought a considerable engagement with the Russians at Hsihoyen on the 19th. Oku’s army (the Second), advancing from Kaiping, fought them at Tashinchiao on the 24th. Nodzu was engaged with them again on the 31st at Tomucheng, and Kuroki’s right column at Yushulingtzu on the same day; while the left column, simultaneously, expelled them from Yangtzuling. On the 2d of August the Russians retired from Haicheng and the Japanese occupied it the following day. The Russians had been steadily forced back to the vicinity of Liao-Yang, where they had prepared themselves for a determined stand.

"The front of the Russian forces at and in the vicinity of Liao-Yang extended from Anshantien through Lantzushan and the mountain range east of Anping to the Taitzu River. The Japanese front extended from Haicheng through Tomucheng and Yantzuling to Yushulingtzu."

_Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War, United States War Department, Second [Military Information] Division. General Staff, Number 11._

Both sides were now making ready for the first of the two most terrific battles of the war; but the month of August was near its close before the Japanese began their assault on the formidable works behind which the Russians awaited their attack. In the "Epitome" cited above the effective Russian force taking part in this struggle is estimated at about 140,000, commanded by General Kuropatkin.

Lord Brooke, Reuter’s special correspondent in Manchuria, in his book entitled "An Eye-witness in Manchuria," describes the battle of Liao-Yang as "the biggest artillery battle of which history has record." The Russians occupied a line of rocky hills south and east of Liao-Yang. Oku opposed their right and center; Nodzu the center and left; Kuroki was farther east, intending to force the passage of the Tai-tze-ho and reach the rear of their main body. Artillery on both sides opened the battle at dawn, August 30, and a terrible duel was fought for five hours. {347} Then, at half-past eleven, General Oku delivered the first infantry assault, which cost a fearful loss of life, and failed. Late in the afternoon a resolute turning movement on the Russian right was attempted by the Japanese and pressed until darkness came, with success only to the extent of driving the enemy from one village. Then a night attack on the Russian center was made, and that, too, was repelled.

The morning of the 31st brought a renewal of the artillery duel, followed by assault after assault from Oku’s indomitable troops on the Russian right flank, with the result of driving it back to the cover of the railway embankment. Meantime General Kuroki, whose army was on the extreme right of the Japanese line, had forced the passage of the Tai-tze-ho River, at a ford 26 miles east of Liao-Yang. This compelled Kuropatkin to withdraw some of his troops from the outer fortifications south and east of Liao-Yang and send them against Kuroki. The crisis of the struggle was now in the battles fought on the next two days with Kuroki, in vain attempts to cut him off from the river ford and crush his not large army. At the same time the Japanese were making a direct attack on Liao-Yang and endeavoring to cut Kuropatkin’s communications with Mukden. Neither Russians nor Japanese had success in these attempts, but the former were brought to a situation which compelled retreat. On the fourth of September they evacuated Liao-Yang and withdrew from the surrounding works. "As soon as the evacuation began," wrote Lord Brooke, "the Japanese guns opened fire on the Russians, who had for line of retreat only the railway bridge and the two pontoons across the Tai-tze-ho. Nevertheless the retirement was carried on with great coolness, and the loss sustained in crossing the river was comparatively small in view of the difficult position from which the Russians had to extricate themselves. All the artillery was got away. But if the evacuation of Liao-Yang was cleverly effected, the army of Kuropatkin was still in great danger, and the Commander-in-chief seemed really afraid that a large part of his force would be cut off. It was a reasonable apprehension, for General Kuroki’s army began the day with renewed vigor. … In a melancholy frame of mind the whole army marched northward, with Kuroki continually pressing its flank and the fear that Oku would ere long be on his heels."

Pursuit by the Japanese was given up on the morning of September 6th.

In the "Epitome" of the war, prepared and published by the American Army Staff, the total Russian loss in the Liao-Yang battles is given as reported to have been 54 officers and 1810 men killed; 252 officers and 10,811 men wounded; 5 officers and 1211 men missing. The Japanese reported a total loss of 17,539 officers and men, without details.

JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (October). War with Russia: Quiet Aspect of Life during the War. Spartan Discipline of Japanese Feeling and Conduct.

"For all industrial civilization the contest is one of vast moment;—for Japan it is probably the supreme crisis in her national life. As to what her fleets and her armies have been doing, the world is fully informed; but as to what her people are doing at home, little has been written.

"To inexperienced observation they would appear to be doing nothing unusual; and this strange calm is worthy of record. At the beginning of hostilities an Imperial mandate was issued, bidding all non-combatants to pursue their avocations as usual, and to trouble themselves as little as possible about exterior events;—and this command has been obeyed to the letter. It would be natural to suppose that all the sacrifices, tragedies, and uncertainties of the contest had thrown their gloom over the life of the capital in especial; but there is really nothing whatever to indicate a condition of anxiety or depression. On the contrary, one is astonished by the joyous tone of public confidence, and the admirably restrained pride of the nation in its victories. Western tides have strewn the coast with Japanese corpses; regiments have been blown out of existence in the storming of positions defended by wire-entanglements; battle-ships have been lost; yet at no moment has there been the least public excitement. The people are following their daily occupations just as they did before the war; the cheery aspect of things is just the same; the theatres and flower displays are not less well patronized. The life of Tokyo has been, to outward seeming, hardly more affected by the events of the war than the life of nature beyond it, where the flowers are blooming and the butterflies hovering as in other summers. Except after the news of some great victory,—celebrated with fireworks and lantern processions,—there are no signs of public emotion; and but for the frequent distribution of newspaper-extras, by runners ringing bells, you could almost persuade yourself that the whole story of the war is an evil dream.

"Yet there has been, of necessity, a vast amount of suffering—viewless and voiceless suffering—repressed by that sense of social and patriotic duty which is Japanese religion. … The great quiet and the smiling tearlessness testify to the more than Spartan discipline of the race. Anciently the people were trained, not only to conceal their emotions, but to speak in a cheerful voice and to show a pleasant face under any stress of moral suffering; and they are obedient to that teaching to-day. It would still be thought a shame to betray personal sorrow for the loss of those who die for Emperor and fatherland."

_Lafcadio Hearn, A Letter from Japan (Atlantic Monthly, November, 1904)._

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (May-January). War with Russia: Operations against Port Arthur. Preliminary battles. Investment and Siege. The Defences. Desperate assaults in August. Story of Lieutenant Sakurai. The assault on 203 Metre Hill and its capture. Surrender of the Fortress. Trial and condemnation of General Stössel.

As stated heretofore, the Japanese began landing their Second Army, under General Oku, at Petsiwo, for operations against Port Arthur, on the 4th of May. Very quickly thereafter the railway was cut and Port Arthur was blockaded by land as well as by sea. On the 8th the last train from the north was brought in. By the 25th Oku was ready to advance, and on the following day he attacked the Russians at Kinchou (the battle bearing sometimes the name of Nan-shan), and expelled them from that position, the loss of which, according to the correspondent Nojine, sealed the fate of Port Arthur. {348} He accuses General Stössel of having boastfully assumed that the Japanese could never take Kinchou, denouncing as traitors all who questioned the sufficiency of its fortification and urged the strengthening of the works. The expulsion from Kinchou necessitated the abandonment of the important port of Dalny, which was done with great haste on the night of the 26th. "In Dalny," says Nojine, "there were numerous buildings, docks, and the most splendid breakwaters running out into the sea for a distance of one and a half miles. … Owing to want of time nothing except a few of the railway bridges was blown up. … Besides the numerous town, harbor and railway buildings, there was an immense amount of private house property, as well as large warehouses, stocked with food and stores of all sorts, both public and private. The enemy got possession of them all undamaged, just as they were. After the capture of Arthur the Japanese confessed that by not destroying Dalny we had assisted them enormously in their difficult task of disembarking their siege-train, and that the railway had enabled them easily to get it into position in the investing lines. …

"The enemy having now taken complete possession of Dalny, at once used it as their base. There, quietly and comfortably, without any interference from us, they carried out the landing of troops for the investment. Ten transports would arrive daily, bringing everything necessary for the concentrating army. The railway from Dalny and all the rolling stock was in perfect order; … our fleet did not hinder them in any way; they had command of both land and sea."

On the 6th of June Oku’s army was divided, that general leading part of it (still called the Second Army) northward, leaving the remainder, as a Third Japanese Army, under General Nogi, to conduct the investment and siege of Port Arthur.

At about this time, according to Nojine, Stössel was persuaded by Smirnoff to permit the latter to fortify some of the outer hills of the peninsula, which had been neglected hitherto; these were Kuen-san Hill, the Green Hills, Angle Hill, Wolf’s Hill, Ta-ku-shan and Sia-gu-shan hills. "The latter," says Nojine, "were of immense importance, as they were quite inaccessible, and protected the whole of the western front of the Fortress, but only so long as Wolf’s Hills were in our possession." On the 26th and 27th of June the Japanese attacked and captured Kuen-san and Green Hills. The latter were recovered by the Russians on the 4th of July, but they failed to retake Kuen-san. The loss of the latter was very serious; for the Japanese from its summit could look into the works on the Green Hills and, by telephone, direct the fire of their batteries on them.

Until the 26th of July not much occurred, as the assailants were busy strengthening the positions they had acquired. Then they began a determined attack on Green Hill, and continued it through two days. On the morning of the 28th the Russians gave up the position and drew back towards Port Arthur, to what is called the Wolf’s Hills line. They were driven from this on the 30th, and the close investment of Port Arthur began then.

_E. K. Nojine, The Truth about Port Arthur, chapters 11-22._

As described in the "Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War" prepared for the United States of America General Staff, the immediate "defences of Port Arthur, divided into eastern and western sectors by the valley through which the railway enters the town, consisted of permanent masonry forts whose gorges were connected by the old Chinese Wall, temporary works constructed just prior to and during the siege, and connecting and advance trenches. The west sector followed an irregular crest, with an elevation of about 500 feet, around the new town, and terminated on Laotiehshan, the highest point in the vicinity, with an elevation of about 1000 feet. The east sector encircled the old town at a distance of from two to two and a half miles, running along an irregular crest, about 350 feet in elevation, within which was an elevation (Wangtai or Signal Hill) of about 800 feet. The permanent forts were polygonal in trace and had ditches with caponieres and galleries. The gap between the two sectors was covered by the fort on Paiyushan (Quail Hill).

"Of the works most intimately connected with the siege the Sungshushan, Ehrlungshan, North and East Tungchikuanshan, Itzushan, and Antzushan forts were strong permanent fortifications. The two Panglungshan forts, East and West, were semi-permanent redoubt-shaped fortifications; 203 Meter Hill and Aksakayama were semi-permanent works with two lines of advance trenches. Kuropatkin Fort was a strong field-work with deep ditch; the Shuishihyung lunettes were also provided with ditches, but not so deep. P. H., Kobu and Hachimakiyama were more in the nature of semi-permanent trenches with bomb-proofs."

_Epitome of the Russo-Japanese War, United States War Department, Second [Military Information] Division, General Staff, Number 11, pages. 28-29._

"In this fortress, for the first time, were utilised all those terrible agencies of war which the rapid advance of science in the past quarter of a century has rendered available. Among these we may mention rapid-fire guns, machine-guns, smokeless powder, artillery of high velocity and great range, high explosive shells, the magazine rifle, the telescopic sight, giving marvellous accuracy of fire, the range-finder, giving instantaneously the exact distance of the enemy, the search-light, the telegraph and the telephone, starlight bombs, barbed-wire entanglements, and a dozen other inventions, all of which were deemed sufficient, when applied to such stupendous fortifications as those of Port Arthur, to render them absolutely impregnable.

"The Russians believed them to be so—certainly the indomitable Stössel did. And well he might, for there was no record in history of any race of fighters, at least in modern times, that could face such death-dealing weapons and not melt away so swiftly before their fury as to be swept away in defeat. But a new type of fighter has arisen, as the sequel was to tell."

_Richard Barry, How Port Arthur Fell (Fortnightly Review, March, 1905)._

"The first bombardment from the land side began suddenly on August 7. … The bombardment continued all day, though doing little material damage. Next morning, from 2 to 5 A. M., we heard heavy musketry fire from the direction of Ta-ku-shan: the enemy leaving the town and the main defences in peace, were turning their attention to it. {349} This hill corresponded in the east to 203 Metre Hill in the west, and was equally important and equally unfortified. It and Sia-gu-shan, the natural forts of Arthur on the eastern front, had a bad time. In the first place they had not been made the most of, for in the original plan of defence of Port Arthur they had been thought to be important points and so had been neither fortified nor armed as their position with regard to the Fortress warranted, and Smirnoff had only recently succeeded in arming them to a small extent. In the second place they became, after the abandonment of Wolf’s Hills, open to flanking fire, and therefore untenable. The companies of the 13th East Siberian Rifle Regiment sent there went literally to their death, but, together with the gunners, they held on as long as possible."

Both of the hills were taken by the Japanese that night. The Russians immediately concentrated a heavy artillery fire on the new occupants, and the next day they attempted to retake Ta-ku shan by assault, but failed. On the 11th they repeated the attempt, with no better success. On the 16th General Nogi sent in a flag of truce, bearing the proposal of "a discussion of negotiations for the surrender of the Fortress," saying: "The Russians have given signal proofs of their gallantry, but Arthur will be taken all the same." The invitation was declined. On the 20th the Japanese gained Angle Hill and Pan-lun-shan redoubt; but the Russians recaptured the latter on the following night.

The Japanese now hoped to be able to take the Fortress by a general assault, and made the attempt with extraordinary determination on the 21st, 22d, and 23d. "On the night of the 23d," writes Nojine, "the Japanese made the most desperate of all their attacks so far. They made three separate and most determined assaults on Zaredoubt Battery, on the line between it and Big Eagle’s Nest, and on Ruchevsky Battery. Though temporarily successful at one or two points, they were finally driven back out of all with shocking slaughter." It is of this assault that Lieutenant Tadayoshi Sakurai tells the terrible story in one of the chapters of his book, entitled "Human Bullets: A Soldier’s Story of Port Arthur," from which the following is quoted:

"I gathered my men around me and said: ‘I now bid you all farewell. Fight with all your might. This battle will decide whether Port Arthur is to fall or not. This water you drink, please drink as if at your death moment.’

"I filled a cup with water that was fetched by one or two soldiers at the risk of their lives, and we all drank farewell from the same cup. Soon we received orders to advance to a point half-way up the side of Panlung. … This fortress of Panlung had been captured with the flesh and blood of the Ninth Division of the Seventh and Eighth Regiments of the Second Reserve, and was now an important base from which a general assault on the northern forts of East Kikuan and Wantai was to be made. This critical spot was finally taken after a terrible struggle and a valiant action by the men of General Oshima’s command. The sad story was eloquently told by the horrible sights of the ravine. While running through the opening in the wire-entanglement beyond, I noticed many engineers and infantry men dead, piled one upon another caught in the wire, or taking hold with both arms of a post, or grasping the iron shears.

"When we reached the middle of the side of Panlung, I saw the regimental flag that I used to carry, flying above our heads in the dark. My heart leaped at the sight of the dear flag. … As soon as we were gathered together the Colonel rose and gave us a final word of exhortation, saying: ‘This battle is our great chance of saving our country. To-night we must strike at the vitals of Port Arthur. Our brave assaulting column must be not simply a forlorn-hope ("resolved-to-die"), but a "sure-death" detachment. I as your father am more grateful than I can express for your gallant fighting. Do your best, all of you.’

"Yes, we were all ready for death when leaving Japan. Men going to battle of course cannot expect to come back alive. But in this particular battle to be ready for death was not enough; what was required of us was a determination not to fail to die. Indeed we were ‘sure death’ men, and this new appellation gave us a great stimulus. Also a telegram that had come from the Minister of War in Tokyo was read by the aide-de-camp, which said, ‘I pray for your success.’ This increased the exaltation of our spirits.

"Let me now recount the sublimity and horror of this general assault. I was a mere lieutenant and everything passed through my mind as in a dream, so my story must be something like picking out things from the dark. I can’t give you any systematic account, but must limit myself to fragmentary recollections. If this story sounds like a vain-glorious account of my own achievements, it is not because I am conscious of my merit when I have so little to boast of, but because the things concerning me and near me are what I can tell you with authority. If this partial account prove a clue from which the whole story of this terrible assault may be inferred, my work will not have been in vain.

"The men of the ‘sure-death’ detachment rose to their part. Fearlessly they stepped forth to the place of death. They went over Panlung-shan and made their way through the piled-up bodies of the dead, groups of five or six soldiers reaching the barricaded slope one after another. I said to the colonel, ‘Good-by, then!’ With this farewell I started, and my first step was on the head of a corpse. Our objective points were the Northern Fortress and Wang-tai Hill.

"There was a fight with bombs at the enemy’s skirmish-trenches. The bombs sent from our side exploded finely, and the place became at once a conflagration, boards were flung about, sand bags burst, heads flew around, legs were torn off. The flames mingled with the smoke, lighted up our faces weirdly, with a red glare, and all at once the battle-line became confused. Then the enemy, thinking it hopeless, left the place and began to flee. ‘Forward! forward! now is the time to go forward! Forward! Pursue! Capture it with one bound!’ and, proud of our victory, we went forward courageously. Captain Kawakami, raising his sword, cried, ‘Forward!’ and then I, standing close by him, cried, ‘Sakurai’s company, forward!’ Thus shouting I left the captain’s side, and, in order to see the road we were to follow, went behind the rampart. What is that black object which obstructs our view? It is the ramparts of the Northern Fortress. Looking back, I did not see a soldier. Alack, had the line been cut? In trepidation, keeping my body to the left for safety, I called the Twelfth Company.

{350}

"‘Lieutenant Sakurai!’ A voice called out repeatedly in answer. Returning to the direction of the sound, I found Corporal Ito weeping loudly. ‘What are you crying for? What has happened?’ The corporal, weeping bitterly, gripped my arm tightly. ‘Lieutenant Sakurai, you have become an important person.’ ‘ What is there to weep about?’ I say, ‘what is the matter?’ He whispered in my ear, ‘Our captain is dead.’ Hearing this, I too wept. Was it not only a moment ago that he had given the order ‘Forward’? Was it not even now that I had separated from him? And yet our captain was one of the dead. In a moment our tender, pitying Captain Kawakami and I had become beings of two separate worlds. Was it a dream or a reality, I wondered?

"Corporal Ito pointed out the captain’s body, which had fallen inside the rampart only a few rods away. I hastened hither and raised him in my arms. ‘Captain!’ I could not say a word more. But as matters could not remain thus, I took the secret map which the captain had, and, rising up boldly, called out, ‘From henceforward I command the Twelfth Company.’ And I ordered that someone of the wounded should carry back the captain’s corpse. A wounded soldier was just about to raise it up when he was struck on a vital spot and died leaning on the captain. One after another of the soldiers who took his place was struck and fell.

"I called Sub-Lieutenant Ninomiya and asked him if the sections were together. He answered in the affirmative. I ordered Corporal Ito not to let the line be cut, and told him that I would be in the center of the skirmishers. In the darkness of the night we could not distinguish the features of the country, nor in which direction we were to march. Standing up abruptly against the dark sky were the Northern Fortress and Wang-tai Hill. In front of us lay a natural stronghold, and we were in a caldron-shaped hollow. But still we marched on side by side.

‘The Twelfth Company forward!’ I turned to the right and went forward as in a dream. I remember nothing clearly of the time. ‘Keep the line together!’ This was my one command. Presently I ceased to hear the voice of Corporal Ito, who had been at my right hand. The bayonets gleaming in the darkness became fewer. The black masses of soldiers who had pushed their way on now became a handful. All at once, as if struck by a club, I fell down sprawling on the ground. I was wounded, struck in my right hand. The splendid magnesium light of the enemy flashed out, showing the piled-up bodies of the dead, and I raised my wounded hand and looked at it. It was broken at the wrist; the hand hung down and was bleeding profusely. I took out the already loosened bundle of bandages, tied up my wound with the triangular piece, and then wrapping a handkerchief over it, I slung it from my neck with the sunrise flag, which I had sworn to plant on the enemy’s fortress.

"Looking up, I saw that only a valley lay between me and Wang-tai Hill, which almost touched the sky. I wished to drink and sought at my waist, but the canteen was gone; its leather strap alone was entangled in my feet. The voices of the soldiers were lessening one by one. In contrast, the glare of the rockets of the hated enemy and the frightful noise of the cannonading increased. I slowly rubbed my legs, and, seeing that they were unhurt, I again rose. Throwing aside the sheath of my sword, I carried the bare blade in my left hand as a staff, went down the slope as in a dream, and climbed Wang-tai Hill.

"The long and enormously heavy guns were towering before me, and how few of my men were left alive now! I shouted and told the survivors to follow me, but few answered my call. When I thought that the other detachments must also have been reduced to a similar condition, my heart began to fail me. No reinforcement was to be hoped for, so I ordered a soldier to climb the rampart and plant the sun flag overhead, but alas! he was shot and killed, without even a sound or cry.

"All of a sudden a stupendous sound as from another world rose around about me. ‘Counter-assault!’ A detachment of the enemy appeared on the rampart, looking like a dark wooden barricade. They surrounded us in the twinkling of an eye and raised a cry of triumph. Our disadvantageous position would not allow us to offer any resistance, and our party was too small to fight them. We had to fall back down the steep hill. Looking back, I saw the Russians shooting at us as they pursued. When we reached the earthworks before mentioned, we made a stand and faced the enemy. Great confusion and infernal butchery followed. Bayonets clashed against bayonets; the enemy brought out machine-guns and poured shot upon us pell-mell; the men on both sides fell like grass. But I cannot give you a detailed account of the scene, because I was then in a dazed condition. I only remember that I was brandishing my sword in fury. I also felt myself occasionally cutting down the enemy. I remember a confused fight of white blade against white blade, the rain and hail of shell, a desperate fight here and a confused scuffle there. At last I grew so hoarse that I could not shout any more. Suddenly my sword broke with a clash, my left arm was pierced. I fell, and before I could rise a shell came and shattered my right leg. I gathered all my strength and tried to stand up, but I felt as if I were crumbling and fell to the ground perfectly powerless. A soldier who saw me fall cried, ‘Lieutenant Sakurai, let us die together.’"

_Tadayoshi Sakurai, Human Bullets, chapter 26 (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47548_

The soldier who offered to die with him stayed with the Lieutenant till morning, binding his wounds, and finally creeping away to find and bring help if he could. He, too, had been wounded, and Sakurai found him later in a hospital. At the end of many hours of constantly imminent death, the helpless and suffering Lieutenant was saved by two soldiers who bore him, stealthily and with infinite difficulty out of the range of the Russian rifles and to a field hospital, where he found himself among intimate friends.

{351}

Of the scene on the morning following the terrific assaults of August 23d, the correspondent Nojine writes:

"The rising sun showed up sheaves of corpses on the ground that was still ours. Death had indeed triumphed, and had claimed 22,000 lives. From this time forward the enemy remained content with the slower advance of regular siege operations. … The enemy had got close up to our positions, and the salient angle of the north-east was almost in their hands. I say ‘almost,’ because the ruins of these works remained the greater part of the time untenanted, neutralized by the gun-fire of both sides." A month passed before another serious assault was undertaken by the Japanese. Then, on the 21st of September, they attacked what was called "203 Metre Hill." "Column after column rushed forward on to 203 Metre Hill, covering all its fore hills and slopes with heaps of dead; but at 8.45 a. m. they were repulsed. This assault was distinguished by particular obstinacy. … Having got three-quarters of [the hill] they meant to get possession of the rest at all costs: they slowly crawled upwards, fell dead, rolled back, and others dashed forward; they lay concealed and waited for reinforcements; nothing would drive them back. All their thoughts, all their endeavors were to get possession of this hill. Our men began rolling down great boulders from the top. These bounded down, flattened out the dead and sought out the living, who, in trying to dodge, exposed themselves and were shot by our men on the lookout. … During the night of the 21st about 900 corpses were collected under 203 Metre Hill." Nevertheless the assault was repeated on the following day. "From the moment this assault was beaten back, the trenches in front of 203 Metre Hill were gradually evacuated and the enemy went to earth only on Angle Hill. All their sapping was confined to the north-east. On the western front of the Fortress there now remained in our possession only 203 Metre, Flat and Divisional Hills. … October 1 was an epoch in the history of the defence of Port Arthur, for it was on this day that the first of the 11-inch shells fell into the Fortress, and so changed the aspect of affairs. … Nowhere could we find real safety from them. … The concrete of the forts, the armor on the battle ships, were penetrated clean through." Mining and counter-mining, by the besiegers and the besieged, were now in progress, and the explosion of such mines was begun near the end of October. On the 30th of that month the Japanese made another general assault, after a "cruel bombardment" of four days. "The October attacks were short, but most determined and bloody. As regards their success, it was but slight. The enemy had gained some dozens of yards—no more. … The Japanese had fired over 150,000 shells." The "November assault season" began on the 20th. Its climax was on the 26th, "when time after time, the enemy threw themselves with extraordinary gallantry and persistence on forts Ehr-lung-shan, Chi-kuan-shan and B Battery. Thousands were mown down, but the living surged onwards. But it could not go on forever, and at 3.30 the infantry attacks slackened and ceased. … All next day and night an incessant stream of wounded poured into Arthur, our losses being more than 1500 men. … The slopes below and beyond Tumulus Hill were thickly spread with dead Japanese. A thick, unbroken mass of corpses covered the cold earth like a coverlet. On the day of the assault the following order had been issued by Major-General Nakamura, who commanded the Japanese force told off for that forlorn hope: … ‘Our objective is to sever the Fortress on two parts. Not a man must hope to return alive. If I fall, Colonel Watanabe will take over the command; if he also falls, Colonel Okuno will take his place. Every officer, whatever his rank, must consider himself his senior’s successor. The attack will be delivered mainly with the bayonet. No matter how fierce the Russian fire, our men will not reply by a single shot until we have established ourselves. Officers will shoot any men who fall out or retire without orders.’ … This is the kind of foe we had to fight. …

"We now come to the culmination of the tragedy, and perhaps the bloodiest scene of carnage of the whole war—the fight for and capture of 203 Metre Hill." The attack began November 27 and was continuous for eight days, excepting that an hour’s truce was obtained by the Japanese, December 2, for the burial of their dead. The next day "the fight on the hill was, if possible, more exasperated. In the Fortress the feeling of alarm was intensified, and all unemployed men had been got under arms, … and the other points denuded, in order to feed the maw of 203 Metre Hill. Even the hospitals gave their contribution. December 4—bright and frosty—ushered in a fresh hell. It was now hardly a fight between men that was taking place on this accursed spot; it was a struggle of human flesh against iron and steel, against blazing petroleum, lyddite, pyroxiline and mélinite, and the stench of rotting corpses. It was the last day but one of the long-drawn agony." At noon on the 5th the Japanese gained the top of the hill, and held it against an attempt that evening to drive them off. "203 Metre Hill was lost, and with it more than 5000 Russians."

The end was now near. On the 15th four generals, and other officers, including General Kondratenko, the most valued assistant of General Smirnoff, were holding a consultation in one of the casemates, and were killed by a 11-inch shell, which penetrated even that shelter. On the 18th Chi-kuan-shan Fort was captured; on the 28th Ehr-lung-shan was lost; on the 31st the Japanese took fortification Number 3, and on New Year’s Day they won the Eagle’s Nest. That day General Stössel sent a flag of truce to open negotiations for surrender. The capitulation was signed the next day. "Of 18,000 sick and wounded reported on the day the garrison marched out, 6000 only were wounded; the balance were cases of scurvy."

_E. K. Nojine, The Truth about Port Arthur (Dutton & Co., New York). https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59972_

General Stössel was subsequently ordered for trial before a military commission, on a number of charges, including disobedience of orders from the General Commanding in Manchuria, false reports to headquarters, improper interference with the commandant of the Fortress, and personal absence from most of the engagements that had taken place in and around Port Arthur. He was condemned to death, but the Tzar commuted the sentence to imprisonment for ten years. He began serving the sentence in March 1908, and was pardoned and released on the 19th of May, 1909.

{352}

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (September-March). War with Russia: The Campaign in Manchuria. From the Battle of Liao-Yang to the end of the Battle of Mukden.

Early in October, a month after the escape of the Russian army from its defeat at Liao-Yang, General Kuropatkin attacked the Japanese at the Sha-ho river and fought a desperate battle with no substantial success. Extensive movements were then interrupted by the approach of winter, and the campaign was practically suspended for the next four months. "The three Japanese armies had maintained the same relative positions in which they had fought their way from Hai-Cheng northward. Kuroki’s was the right, Oku’s the left, and Nodzu’s the center. By the middle of February, Marshal Oyama had been reënforced by Nogi’s one hundred thousand veterans of Port Arthur, hereafter to be known as the fourth Japanese army, operating to the west of Oku. A somewhat mysterious fifth army, under command of General Kawamura, had been operating somewhere between Kuroki and Vladivostok, and, while its movements had not been known definitely, it had been expected to threaten General Kuropatkin’s left. Both Russians and Japanese were within a few miles of Mukden, the sacred city of the Manchus. This city of half a million people lies in a plain,—really the valley of the Hun River,—with the Hun and the Liao rivers twenty to thirty miles west and southwest. Eastward are the Mao-Tien Mountains, extending along the line of the Port Arthur & Harbin Railway. The Russian and Japanese lines formed a huge bow or crescent, the Japanese to the southward, extending over a hundred miles of plains and hill from Chang-Tan eastward across the railway to Lone Tree (Putiloff) Hill, almost all the strong positions being held by the Russians." In this position of the two stupendous armies the long series of engagements known collectively as the Battle of Mukden was opened by the Japanese on the 20th of February, 1905. The center of the Russian army rested on the Sha-ho; its right wing, commanded by General Kaulbars, was distant from its left wing, commanded by General Linevitch, more than one hundred and twenty miles. The Japanese attack was begun by Kuroki, commanding their right. Crossing the Sha-ho, he "swung around the Russian left, driving it from the mountains in the vicinity of Tie Pass to Fushun, an important fortified post (and the Russian coal depot) on the Hun River; Nogi’s force had attacked General Kuropatkin from the west. Nogi had marched through the neutral zone south of the Liao River, to Sin-Min-Tun, a violation of neutrality against which the Russians and Chinese had protested. This neutral zone, however, had already been used by the Russians as a base to forward coal and supplies to their army, so the Japanese Government claimed that the neutrality had become null and void. On March 3, Nogi rolled up the Russians in flight, and his advance was not checked until his right wing had come into touch with Oku’s left, only about eight miles south of Mukden. While the armies of Oku and Nodzu continued to pound the Russian center, with tremendous losses to themselves and to the enemy, Nogi’s left, after a forced march of forty miles, fell upon the Russian center. Through this Oku and Nodzu drove a wedge, and, although Generals Linevitch and Kaulbars had made a desperate defense and General Rennenkampf’s Cossacks had performed prodigies of valor, the Russians had found themselves (by the end of the first week in March) attacked in so many places on the north of their flanks that it had become a question with Kuropatkin, not only of retreat, but of saving large bodies of troops from being surrounded and annihilated.

"Early on the morning of March 10, the Japanese occupied Mukden, and the Russian retreat had become a rout. The next day the important fortified town of Fushun was seized by the Japanese, and thereafter the Russians, disorganized and suffering from hunger and the weather, poured northward to Tie Pass, forty miles from Mukden,—outmarched, outgeneraled, and outfought."

_American Review of Reviews, April and May, 1905._

"The sufferings caused by the retreat cannot be exaggerated. It must be remembered that the weather remained intensely cold and that the arrangements for collecting the wounded were all disorganised. … Defeat, it may be added, was wholly unexpected by the Manchurian Army, and that view was shared by the foreign attaches and the war correspondents. Whatever their opinions might be as to the possibility of General Kuropatkin marching on Liao-Yang, they felt confident that the Japanese would be unable to turn the Russians out of the positions so long and so carefully prepared. The Japanese accomplished this seemingly impossible task. …

"Following on the disaster of Mukden, General Kuropatkin was relieved of his command, exchanging places with General Linevitch. The new Commander-in-Chief fixed his headquarters at Guntzuling, where the shattered army was re-formed."

_Lord Brooke, An Eye Witness in Manchuria,

## chapter 37._

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (October-May). War with Russia: The expedition of the Baltic Fleet to relieve Port Arthur. The Dogger Bank incident. The Seven Months Voyage. Battle of Tsushima. Destruction of the Fleet.

After the sea-fights of August 10-14, between Port Arthur and Vladivostok (see above, A. D. 1904, February-August) Russia had no naval force of any importance in the Pacific, and hastened preparations for sending out a fleet from the Baltic Sea.

See above, JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-August).

Under the command of Admiral Rozhdestvensky, this intended reinforcement of the defence of Port Arthur was despatched from Reval and Libau, sailing from the latter port on October 15. At the outset of its voyage, while traversing the North Sea, the Russian fleet experienced a misadventure which occasioned much excitement for a time and threatened to raise a serious question between the Russian and British governments. Briefly stated, the main facts of the case, according to evidence accepted subsequently by an International Commission of Inquiry, were these:

Before sailing from Reval, and, further, while anchored at the Skagen, making ready to pass to the North Sea, Admiral Rozhdestvensky had been warned by agents of his government that suspicious vessels were on the coast of Norway, and that he must beware of hostile undertakings, which were likely to have the form of torpedo attacks. Accordingly he sailed from the Skagen, October 20, twenty-four hours earlier than he had planned, sending off the fleet in six divisions, that which he accompanied being the last, and starting at 10 p. m. {353} In one of the preceding divisions a transport, by reason of defects in her engine, fell behind the cruisers which escorted her, and at 8 p. m. on October 21 was some fifty miles astern of the remainder of the fleet. She then met several Swedish vessels which she imagined to be torpedo craft, and fired on them, sending a wireless message to the Admiral that she was attacked by torpedo boats on all sides. This message led the Admiral to signal to his captains that they might expect attacks and must keep a doubly vigilant watch. At an early hour in the following morning his own immediate squadron arrived at the Dogger Bank, where, as usual, many fishing craft, mostly English, were "shooting their trawls," and doing so in a regulated way, under the direction of a fishing master or captain, who signalled with rockets to his fleet. One of the preceding divisions of the Russian armada had passed these without alarm, recognizing what they were; but Admiral Rozhdestvensky and the officers of his flagship were so expectant of enemies that the sight of a green rocket shot into the air, and a distant glimpse of some kind of a ship which seemed to be headed straight for them, at a great rate of speed, convinced them instantly that they were in the midst of swarming foes, and they opened fire.

According to testimony, their fire was kept up for about half an hour, as they passed through the fishing fleet, one of the vessels in which was sunk, her skipper and one other man killed, while all but one of the remaining crew received wounds. Two others of the fishing craft were struck, and the hospital ship of the National Mission which attended the fleet received some damage. Ultimately it was learned that the Russians, in their wild firing, did harm to one another, so seriously that the chaplain of one of their ships received a wound from which he died.

Wild excitement was created in England by the news of this strange performance. Hurried naval preparations were made for vigorous action, if found necessary, and formal demands for apology, inquiry and compensation were presented at St. Petersburg. Nothing, however, was done rashly, and the two governments concerned agreed sensibly and quickly to an investigation of the affair by an International Commission, which gave hearings in Paris soon afterwards. The Commission found precedents in recent naval experience—even in the manoeuvres of the British navy—of a similar mistaking of fishing boats and other vessels for torpedo craft, and was able to deal gently and pacifically with the facts brought before it. It decided that the fishing fleet had committed no hostile act, and that no torpedo boat was either among them or near them, and that, consequently, the Russian Admiral was not justified in opening fire. As for his not stopping to ascertain the damage he had done, the conclusion was that enough uncertainty on the subject of danger had been raised in his mind to warrant that neglect; but a majority of the commissioners expressed regret that he had not given notice of what had happened when he passed through the Straits. Then, as _The Naval Annual_ remarked, in reviewing the incident, "diplomacy steps in and seeks to soothe military and national susceptibilities by declaring that Admiral Rozhdestvensky’s ‘valeur militaire’ is unimpaired, and his ‘sentiments d’humanité’ unimpeachable."

_Naval Annual, 1905,

## chapter vi._

Between the English and Russian governments the affair was settled amicably by an indemnity of £65,000 from the latter to the fishermen who suffered.

The first halt in Rozhdestvensky’s voyage was off Tangier, where he divided his fleet, sending one division, under Admiral Folkersahm, by the Suez Canal route, and leading the other in person down the Atlantic and round the Cape. They met off Madagascar on the 3d of January, and got news there of the fall of Port Arthur and, later, of the defeat of the Russian army at Mukden. The stay of the reunited fleet at Nossi Bé island, off the west coast of Madagascar, near its northern extremity, was prolonged, awaiting orders, till the 17th of March. Nothing was known of its next movements until it was seen off Singapore, April 8. Thence it proceeded to Kam-ranh Bay, in French Indo-China, where it stayed for some weeks, waiting to be joined by another squadron from the Baltic, which came under the command of Admiral Nebogatoff. This use of the waters of a neutral Power was bitterly complained of in Japan and sharply criticised elsewhere. The whole fleet resumed its northward voyage on the 14th of May, and on the 27th, in the Korean Straits, off the island of Tsushima, it was intercepted by Admiral Togo’s fleet. An account of the circumstances of the interception, and of the wonderfully decisive battle which ensued, derived by Mr. George Kennan from both Russian and Japanese participants in the engagement, was published in _The Outlook_ of July 29, 1905. Mr. Kennan, who had been with the Japanese forces during the siege of Port Arthur, and had described it for _The Outlook_, obtained permission to visit some of the wounded and captured officers of Rozhdestvensky’s fleet in hospital at one of the naval stations in Japan. As he spoke their language they talked with him freely, and information from both victors and vanquished is thus combined in the account from which we quote a few passages, as follows:

"When the Baltic fleet left the coast of Annam, on its way to Vladivostok, Admiral Rojesvensky [so Mr. Kennan writes the name] had no accurate information with regard to the whereabouts of the Japanese squadrons. They might all be concentrated in the Tsushima Strait, between Japan and Korea, or they might be watching, in three separate detachments, the three channels that give access to the Sea of Japan, viz, Tsushima, Tsuguru, and La Perouse. Thinking that Togo would not dare to leave wholly unguarded the two northern passages, which are nearest to Vladivostok, Rojesvensky assumed that the Japanese fleet had been divided into three sections, and that, on any route which he might select, he would probably have to deal with only one of them. …

"Admiral Togo, however, did not divide his fleet. Anticipating, with acute prescience, the reasoning and the decision of the Russian commander, he concentrated his whole force in the Tsushima Strait, and concealed it so perfectly in unfrequented harbors at the southern end of Korea that nobody ever saw it or discovered its location. … It seems to have had its main base near Masampho, Korea. The arrangements made for discovering the approach and reporting the movements of the Russian fleet were as comprehensive and perfect as possible. {354} All along the southwestern coast of Japan signal stations had been established on prominent islands and on the tops of high mountains, and every one of these ‘watch-towers,’ as they were called, was connected by telephone, either with Sasebo or with Maizuru. Fast scouting ships, equipped with wireless telegraph instruments, patrolled the entrance to the strait, and on the charts carried by them, as well as by all other vessels of the Japanese fleet, the whole stretch of water between Japan and Korea had been divided into small numbered squares, so that the exact location of the enemy at any moment might be designated by a number. There was no possibility of Rojesvensky’s getting through the strait unobserved unless he should be favored by dense fog.

"At five o’clock on the morning of Saturday, May 27, the scouting ship Shinano-maru reported by wireless telegraphy from the vicinity of Quelpart Island, ‘Enemy's fleet sighted in square 203. He seems to be steering for the East Channel’ (the passage between Tsushima Island and the Japanese mainland, which is called on English charts Krusenstern Strait). The Japanese fleet, which was all ready for sea, left its Korean base at once. Admiral Togo himself, with four battle-ships and eight armoured cruisers, took a northerly course in order to get ahead of the enemy and stop his progress at or near Oki Island (Okinoshima), while Admirals Kamimura, Uriu, Dewa, and Kataoka sailed in a southeasterly direction for the purpose of enveloping his rear. The officers last named came into touch with the Russian fleet between Iki Island and Tsushima soon after ten o’clock; but as the Japanese plan of action did not contemplate an attack at that point, they merely kept the enemy in sight and reported to Admiral Togo by wireless telegraphy the number and disposition of his ships. Rojesvensky had in all thirty-eight vessels, and they entered the strait in two parallel columns.

"The Russians, of course, saw on their left flank and in their rear the squadrons of Admirals Kamimura, Kataoka, Uriu, and Dewa, but, as these ships showed no disposition to attack, they (the Russians) were confirmed in their belief that only a part of the Japanese fleet was there, and that they should get through the strait without a serious fight. They remained under this delusion until half past one o’clock in the afternoon, when, to their great surprise, Admiral Togo, with four battle-ships and eight armored cruisers, appeared directly ahead. … At 1.55 p. m., when the flag-ships of the two fleets were a little more than four miles apart, Togo hoisted the following signal: ‘The fate of the Empire depends upon this battle. Let every man do his best.’ At two o’clock the Japanese squadrons on the flank and rear of the Russians closed in a little, and eight minutes later the fight began, Admiral Togo opening fire at a distance of about four miles. It became evident at once to the officers of the Orel that in the matter of marksmanship they were wholly outclassed. The fire of the Japanese was a little wild at first, but in a few minutes they got the range with surprising accuracy, and struck the leading battle-ships of the two Russian columns with almost every shot. Ten minutes after the fight began, a twelve-inch shell entered the forward turret of the Kniaz Suvaroff, burst there with terrific violence, exploded three or four rounds of ammunition that had just been brought up from the magazine, wrecked both guns, and blew the top of the turret completely off. In less than an hour the Russian flag-ship had lost one mast and both funnels, and had taken fire fore and aft; the Oslabya and the Alexander III. were also in flames; the Orel, the Sissoi Veliki, and the Borodino had been severely if not fatally injured; the Russian columns had been broken up and thrown into disorder; and the issue of the battle had been fully determined. In other words, the Baltic fleet had been overwhelmed and defeated, by gun-fire alone, in less than forty-five minutes. Most of the second-class Russian vessels were still in fighting condition, but the battle-ship section had lost more than half of its original efficiency, and there was no longer any doubt as to the outcome of the engagement. … Admiral Togo says, in his detailed official report, that ‘at 2.45 p. m. the result of the battle had been decided.’ And in this judgment the officers of the Orel virtually coincide. They frankly admit that they were overwhelmed from the very first by the accuracy and destructiveness of Admiral Togo’s long-range gun-fire."

Though the result of the battle was made certain within its first hour, the destruction of Russian ships went on to the end of the day and through most of the night, with pursuit of those in flight continued until the 26th. Twenty-two of the Russian vessels of all classes were sunk, 6 were captured, 6 were afterwards interned in neutral ports, and two only made their way to Valdivostok. The Japanese lost 3 torpedo boats; 116 of their officers and men were killed, and 538 received wounds. The prisoners they captured numbered about 6000.

Admiral Rozhdestvensky, accused of cowardice in the battle, was tried by court-martial and acquitted by a verdict rendered in July, 1906.

JAPAN: A. D. 1904: A. D. 1904-1905. War with Russia: Japan’s greatest achievement. Sanitation of the Army.

"Without minimizing for a moment the splendor of Japanese victories on land and sea, at Mukden, Port Arthur, Liao-Yang, or with Togo off Tsushima, in the Korean Straits (and two of these battles are among the bloodiest in history), I yet unhesitatingly assert that Japan’s greatest conquests have been in the humanities of war, in the stopping of the needless sacrifice of life by preventable diseases. This dreadful and unnecessary waste of life, especially in conflicts between so-called civilized and Anglo-Saxon races, is one of the most ghastly propositions of the age. The Japanese have gone a long way toward eliminating it. …

"Longmore’s tables, which are accepted as the most reliable statistics of war, and which are based on the records of battles for the past two hundred years, show that there has rarely been a conflict of any great duration in which at least four men have not perished from disease for every one from bullets. In the Russo-Turkish War, 80,000 men died from disease and 20,000 from wounds. In the Crimean campaign, it is asserted on eminent French authority that in six months the allied forces lost 50,000 soldiers from disease and only 2,000 from casualties. {355} In the French campaign in Madagascar, in 1894, of the 14,000 men sent to the front 29 were killed in action and 7,000 from disease, most of which was preventable. In our Spanish American War, in 1898, in a campaign the actual hostilities of which lasted six weeks, the deaths from casualties, as given me by the surgeon-general of the United States army, last week, were 293, while those from disease amounted to 3,681, or nearly 14 to 1.

"Compare these frightful figures with the record of killed, wounded, and sick in the Japanese army from February, 1904, to May, 1905, as furnished me by Minister of War General Terauchi, in Tokio, in August last. There were killed on the field 43,892, or 7.32 per cent. of the entire army in the field; there were wounded 145,527, or 24.27 percent.; there died of wounds 9,054, or 1.51 percent.; there died from sickness and disease, including contagious cases, 11,992, or about 2 per cent. of the army. In other words, the total number of deaths from casualties and wounds amounted to 52,946, or nearly 9 per cent, of the army, while the total deaths from sickness amounted to 11,992, or 2 per cent. of the army. This record is unparalleled and unapproached in the history of warfare. How did the Japanese accomplish it? In three preeminently fundamental ways. First, thorough preparation and organization for war, such as was never before made in history; second, through the simple, non-irritating, easily digested ration furnished the troops; and third, because of the brilliant part played by the members of the medical profession in the application of practical sanitation and the stamping out of preventable disease in the army, thereby saving its great hosts for the legitimate purpose of war, the defeating of the enemy in the field. …

"She organized her medical department on broad, generous lines, and gave its representatives the rank and power their great responsibilities merited, recognizing that they had to deal with a foe which history has shown has killed 80 percent. of the total mortality in other wars. She even had the temerity (strange as it may seem to an American or an English army official) to grade her medical men as high as the officers of the line, who combat the enemy who kills only 20 per cent., and to accord them equal authority, except, of course, in the emergency of battle, when all authority devolves, as it should, on the officers of the line. In her home land she organized the most splendid system of hospitals that has ever been devised for the treatment of sick and wounded, and with her army at the front she put into execution the most elaborate and effective system of sanitation that has ever been practised in war. Upon the declaration of war, she was prepared to house, scientifically treat, and tenderly care for 25,000 wounded in Japan alone, and as the war progressed the hospital capacity was rapidly increased, so that one and one-half years after its commencement, or on the sixth day of July, 1905, the twelve military home hospitals possessed a normal capacity of 58,261."

_Major Louis L. Seaman, M. D., Lessons for America in the Japanese Medical Service (American Review of Reviews November, 1905)._

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905. War with Russia: Casualties of the entire war on the Japanese side.

The following is an official Japanese statement of the casualties of the entire war on the Japanese side:

"Killed in battle. 47,387 Died of wounds 11,500 Wounded, but recovered 161,925

Total killed and wounded 220,812

Died of sickness 27,158 Sick, but recovered 209,065

Total sick 236,223

Total of killed, wounded, and sick 457,035

Total of fatal casualties 86,045

"These figures relate to the field only, not including cases among the troops in Japan or Formosa, and they may be slightly altered when all the reports of hospitals are compiled. Of those who succumbed to disease nearly three-fourths died in the field and one-fourth after reaching home.

"To find the total number of killed in battle and patients treated the following additions must be made:

Total of killed, wounded, and sick in the field 457,035

Patients treated at home 97,850

Russian prisoner patients 77,803

Grand total 632,688

"The above figures do not include slight cases remaining with the Japanese regiments. In April, 1906, when these figures were published, the Japanese missing had been reduced to 3,000.

"Comparative statement of the result of treatment, by wars:

Sick and wounded Wounded treated treated in Hospital. in Hospital.

Recovered Died. Recovered Died. completely. completely. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.

Chinese-Japanese war 50.94 14.24 63.23 7.49

Russo-Japanese war 54.81 7.65 71.58 8.83

"The difference between each of the totals and 100 represents men incapacitated for active service.

"Comparative statement of cases and deaths from sickness and wounds, by wars:

Wounded. Sick. Died of Died of Wounds. Disease.

Chinese-Japanese 1 6.93 1 12.09

North China 1 4.37 1 1.97

Russo-Japanese 1 1.07 1 0.46

"Comparative statement of percentage of sickness in total number of troops in field, by war:

Percentage of Percentage of deaths sickness for all from sickness for troops engaged. all troops engaged.

Chinese-Japanese 59.20 9.29

North China war 34.88 4.33

Russo-Japanese 36.04 2.99

"The average monthly percentage of sickness during the twenty-one months of the Russo-Japanese war was 8.69, while the average monthly percentage for 1902, which is said to have had an exceptionally good medical record, was 10.21."

_Charles Lynch, Report (United States War Department, Reports of Military Observers … during the Russo-Japanese War, part 4)._

{356}

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905. General Consequences in Europe of the Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905. Conventions with Korea, establishing a Protectorate over that Empire, with Control of its Finances and its Foreign Relations.

See (in this Volume) KOREA: A. D. 1904-1905.

JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905. The Red Cross Society.

See (in this Volume) RED CROSS SOCIETY.

JAPAN: A. D. 1905. Report on treatment of the Opium Problem in Formosa.

See (in this Volume) OPIUM PROBLEM.

JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (June-October). Ending of the war with Russia. Mediation offered by the President of the United States and accepted. Negotiation and Conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Portsmouth.

In the third article of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes agreed to and signed at the First International Peace Conference, at The Hague, in 1898, it was recommended, "in case of serious disagreement or conflict," "that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should on their own initiative, and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance." To this recommendation was added the declaration that "Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities"; and "that the exercise of this right can never be regarded by one or the other of the parties in conflict as an unfriendly act."

The first important action on this recommendation was taken by the President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, on the 8th of June, 1905, when he directed a communication from the then

## acting Secretary of State, Mr. Loomis, to be dispatched by

telegraph to the Ambassadors of the United States at Tokyo and St. Petersburg, identically the same to each, and to be presented by the latter to the Governments of Russia and Japan. The communication was in the following words:

"The President feels that the time has come when, in the interest of all mankind, he must endeavor to see if it is not possible to bring to an end the terrible and lamentable conflict now being waged. With both Russia and Japan the United States has inherited ties of friendship and good will. It hopes for the prosperity and welfare of each, and it feels that the progress of the world is set back by the war between these two great nations. The President accordingly urges the Russian and Japanese Governments, not only for their own sakes, but in the interest of the whole civilized world, to open direct negotiations for peace with one another. The President suggests that these peace negotiations be conducted directly and exclusively between the belligerents—in other words, that there may be a meeting of Russian and Japanese plenipotentiaries or delegates without any intermediary, in order to see if it is not possible for these representatives of the two powers to agree to terms of peace. The President earnestly asks that the Russian Government do now agree to such meeting, and is asking the Japanese Government likewise to agree. While the President does not feel that any intermediary should be called in in respect to the peace negotiations themselves, he is entirely willing to do what he properly can if the two powers concerned feel that his services will be of aid in arranging the preliminaries as to the time and place of meeting; but if even these preliminaries can be arranged directly between the two powers, or in any other way, the President will be glad, as his sole purpose is to bring about a meeting which the whole civilized world will pray may result in peace."

The despatch to Tokyo was delayed in transmission and did not reach Minister Griscom until the evening of the 9th, but was delivered to the officials of the foreign office the same night, and the following reply from Baron Komura was handed to Mr. Griscom at 1 o’clock on the morning of the 10th:

"The Imperial Government have given to the suggestion of the President of the United States, embodied in the note handed to the minister for foreign affairs by the American minister on the 9th instant, the very serious consideration to which, because of its source and its import, it is justly entitled. Desiring in the interest of the world as well as in the interest of Japan the reestablishment of peace with Russia, on terms and conditions that will fully guarantee its stability, the Imperial Government will, in response to the suggestion of the President, appoint plenipotentiaries of Japan to meet plenipotentiaries of Russia at such time and place as may be found to be mutually agreeable and convenient, for the purpose of negotiating and concluding terms of peace directly and exclusively between the two belligerent powers."

At St. Petersburg, the reply from Count Lamsdorff, Minister for Foreign Affairs, was given to Ambassador Meyer on the 12th as follows:

"I have not failed to place before my august master the telegraphic communication which your excellency has been pleased to transmit to me under instructions of your government. His Majesty, much moved by the sentiments expressed by the President, is glad to find in it a new proof of the traditional friendship which unites Russia to the United States of America, as well as an evidence of the high value which Mr. Roosevelt attaches, even as His Imperial Majesty does, to that universal peace so essential to the welfare and progress of all humanity. With regard to the eventual meeting of Russian and Japanese plenipotentiaries, ‘in order to see if it is not possible for the two powers to agree to terms of peace,’ the Imperial Government has no objection in principle to this endeavor if the Japanese Government expresses a like desire."

This Russian response seemed somewhat equivocal to the Japanese Government, and Foreign Minister Komura asked for an assurance as to the powers to be conferred on the peace plenipotentiaries from St. Petersburg. How the assurance was obtained has not been made known to the public; but Japan received it soon through President Roosevelt, and Baron Komura requested Mr. Griscom to "assure the President that the attitude taken by the Japanese Government regarding the nature of the powers to be conferred on the peace plenipotentiaries was not in any degree inspired by a desire to raise difficulties or delay negotiations. {357} Experience has taught the necessity of caution, and the Japanese Government thought that by securing at the outset a common understanding upon this subject they would preclude possibility of any difficulty arising in the initial stage of negotiations and would smooth the way for the real work of the negotiators; but having entire confidence in the wisdom of the President, the Japanese Government accepts his interpretation of the intention of Russia and will without further question appoint plenipotentiaries with full powers to negotiate and conclude terms of peace."

In consultations as to the place of meeting, Russia suggested Paris and Japan proposed Chefu, but objections were raised to both, as well as to The Hague and Geneva, recommended by President Roosevelt. Japan wanted it nowhere in Europe and Russia would have it nowhere in the East; so Washington became the chosen point. But, when one of the first ten days of August became the appointed time of assembly for the negotiation, the probable heat of Washington was forbidding, and Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where the Government of the United States possesses an island domain of its own, for navy-yard uses, was finally fixed on for the most important peace-parley that has taken place in the world within a century, at the least.

The plenipotentiaries commissioned by Japan were Baron Komura Iutaro and Mr. Takahira Kogoro, then Japanese Minister at Washington. Mr. Nelidoff, Russian Ambassador at Paris, was named in the first instance for chief plenipotentiary by the Tzar, but illness prevented his serving. Mr. Nicholas Mouravieff, Ambassador at Rome, was then appointed, but became equally disabled in health, and M. Sergius Witte took his place, with Baron Roman Rosen, Russian Ambassador at Washington, associated in the mission. On Saturday, the 5th of August, on board the Government yacht _Mayflower_, at Oyster Bay, the summer residence of President Roosevelt, the four plenipotentiaries, attended by members of their respective suites, were received by the President, introduced to each other, and entertained at a lunch. Thence they were conveyed, by separate vessels, first to Newport, where Sunday was spent, and afterwards to Portsmouth. Their conference was opened on Wednesday, the 9th, and the resulting Treaty of Peace was signed by the negotiators, September 5th.

At the outset of their communications with each other the differences of mind seemed insurmountable. How they were brought to agreement has been told by two writers who had better opportunities, perhaps, for knowing the inner circumstances of the negotiation than any other persons outside of the plenipotentiaries themselves. One of these was Dr. Frederick de Martens, the eminent Russian Professor of International Law, who came as a special consulting delegate with M. Witte. In an article on "The Portsmouth Peace Conference," published in _The North American Review_ of November, 1905, he wrote:

"During three long weeks the _pourparlers_ between the representatives of the two Powers seemed to show the absolute impossibility of attaining the desired object, that is, peace. There were especially two obstacles in the way—the Japanese demands that Russia should cede Saghalin and that Russia should pay Japan a war indemnity. These two conditions Russia categorically rejected, and the failure of the Conference seemed inevitable. Then it was that the President of the United States, again basing his action on the principles of the Hague Convention, considered himself once more justified in intervening between the two disputing nations. At first, Mr. Roosevelt proposed that a Commission composed of neutrals, whose decision however, would not be binding on the contending

## parties, should fix the amount of the sum that Russia should

pay to Japan. But this proposal was immediately abandoned because of its evidently impracticable nature. The second intervention of the President was more effective and happy. Japan was now to be asked to withdraw her demand for an indemnity, and the Tsar, who desired sincerely to see the unfortunate war ended, was to consent to the cession of the southern portion of the island of Saghalin. It was at the sitting of August 29th that an accord, based on these mutual concessions, was brought about; and, during the six days that followed, the stipulations of the definitive treaty of peace were drawn up by a commission named for that purpose. At last, on September 5th, the treaty was concluded, and a battery of artillery, in front of the building where the sittings had been held, fired a salute of nineteen guns in honor of the great event."

_F. de Martens, The Portsmouth Peace Conference (North American Review, November, 1905)._

To the same effect Dr. E. J. Dillon, the well known publicist, who had been an intermediary in some of the preliminary unofficial diplomacy, wrote in _The Contemporary Review_ of October as follows:

"The Peace of Portsmouth is the outcome of rare moral courage meeting, assailing and worsting a combination of forces, the classification and labelling of which had best be left to the future historian and biographer who can appreciate, without bias and blame, without apprehension. The first man to display that unwonted moral courage was Theodore Roosevelt, whose influence for good on the living and working of nations is a beneficent force to which the world is beginning to look as to some permanent institution. It is not too much to say that if Japan and Russia are at peace today, if countless human beings doomed seemingly until a few weeks ago to a terrible death on the battlefield are now about to return to their homes and families and set about building up instead of pulling down, the credit for this welcome change in international relations is due in the first place to the President of the United States. …

"There was hardly a man in Russia acquainted with the elements of the problem who considered Mr. Roosevelt’s invitation to a peace conference as other than a voice crying in the wilderness. He had felt his way some months before and convinced himself that it then led nowhither. Soon afterwards I was myself authorised to put forth a feeler and inquire whether a war indemnity formed part of Japan’s irreducible minimum. And the result of that inquiry was that hostilities were allowed to take their course.

{358}

"After the Battle of Mukden Mr. Roosevelt again returned to the attack, moving slowly and very cautiously, but creating his opportunity as well as utilising it, advising as well as questioning, exhorting almost as much as he argued. With Japan, whose statesmen he knew well, and with the mainsprings of whose action he was perfectly familiar, he experienced no difficulty. What Nippon said, she really meant; what she promised—but not one iota more—she religiously fulfilled; and both her declarations and her promises apparently flowed from a desire to do what every man in the forum of his own conscience would term the right thing. Probably never before in human history has the world’s cultivated sense of what is fair and just been taken by any nation, Christian or non-Christian, as its own standard of ethics, its own rule of

## action regardless of immediate consequences. …

"And Japan’s capacity and readiness to sacrifice the less to the greater, the material to the moral, was, so to say, the fulcrum on which Mr. Roosevelt rested his lever. All the force of his endeavours was concentrated here, all his fund of optimism was derived from this source.

"But it takes two to make peace as well as to make war. And the President’s great and greatest difficulty was to persuade Russia, not indeed to imitate Japan’s example, but to consult what to outsiders appeared to be her own national interest and to make peace on acceptable terms."

_E. J. Dillon, The Story of the Peace Negotiations (Contemporary Review, October, 1905)._

The Treaty of Peace thus happily agreed upon at Portsmouth was duly ratified by the Emperors of Russia and Japan, at St. Petersburg and at Tokyo simultaneously, on the 14th of October, 1905. The following is the text of the Treaty in full:

JAPAN: The treaty of peace signed at Portsmouth.

By the helping grace of God, we, Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, etc., hereby declare that, in consequence of a mutual agreement between us and His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, our plenipotentiaries concluded and signed at Portsmouth, August 23, 1905, a treaty of peace which, word for word, reads as follows:

His Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, on the one hand, and His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, on the other baud, being animated by the desire to restore the benefits of peace for their countries and their peoples, have decided to conclude a treaty of peace and have appointed for this purpose their plenipotentiaries, to wit:

His Majesty the Emperor of Russia—

His Excellency, Mr. Sergius Witte, his secretary of state and president of the committee of ministers of the Empire of Russia, and

His Excellency, Baron Roman Rosen, master of the Imperial Court of Russia and his ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the United States of America:

And his Majesty, the Emperor of Japan—

His Excellency, Baron Komura Iutaro, Iusammi, knight of the Imperial Order of the Rising Sun, his minister of foreign affairs, and His Excellency, Mr. Takahira Kogoro, Iusammi, knight of the Imperial Order of the Sacred Treasure, his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the United States of America;

Who, after having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, concluded the following articles:

Article I. There shall be in the future peace and friendship between Their Majesties the Emperor of all the Russias and the Emperor of Japan, as well as between their respective nations and subjects.

Article II. The Imperial Government of Russia, recognizing that Japan has predominant political, military, and economic interests in Korea, agrees not to interfere or place obstacles in the way of any measure of direction, protection, and supervision which the Imperial Government of Japan may deem necessary to adopt in Korea.

It is agreed that Russian subjects in Korea shall be treated in exactly the same manner as the citizens of other foreign countries; that is, that they shall be placed on the same footing as the citizens of the most-favored nation.

It is likewise agreed that, in order to avoid any cause of misunderstanding, the two high contracting parties shall refrain from adopting, on the Russo-Korean frontier, any military measures which might menace the security of the Russian or Korean territory.

Article III. Russia and Japan mutually engage:

1. To completely and simultaneously evacuate Manchuria, with the exception of the territory over which the lease of the peninsula of Liao tung extends, in accordance with the provisions of additional Article I annexed to this treaty, and

2. To entirely and completely restore to the exclusive administration of China all parts of Manchuria now occupied by Russian and Japanese troops, or which are under their control, with the exception of the above-mentioned territory.

The Imperial Government of Russia declares that it has no territorial advantages or preferential or exclusive concessions in Manchuria of such a nature as to impair the sovereignty of China or which are incompatible with the principle of equal opportunity.

Article IV. Russia and Japan mutually pledge themselves not to place any obstacle in the way of general measures which apply equally to all nations and which China might adopt for the development of commerce and industry in Manchuria.

Article V. The Imperial Government of Russia cedes to the Imperial Government of Japan, with the consent of the Government of China, the lease of Port Arthur, of Talien, and of the adjacent territories and territorial waters, as well as the rights, privileges, and concessions connected with this lease or forming part thereof, and it likewise cedes to the Imperial Government of Japan all the public works and property within the territory over which the above-mentioned lease extends.

The high contracting parties mutually engage to obtain from the Government of China the consent mentioned in the foregoing clause.

The Imperial Government of Japan gives on its part the assurance that the property rights of Russian subjects within the above-mentioned territory shall be absolutely respected.

{359}

Article VI. The Imperial Government of Russia obligates itself to yield to the Imperial Government of Japan, without compensation and with the consent of the Chinese Government, the Chan-chun (Kwan-Chen-Tsi) and Port Arthur Railroad and all its branches, with all the rights, privileges, and property thereunto belonging within this region, as well as all the coal mines in said region belonging to this railroad or being operated for its benefit.

The two high contracting parties mutually pledge themselves to obtain from the Chinese Government the consent mentioned in the foregoing clause.

Article VII. Russia and Japan agree to operate their respective railroads in Manchuria for commercial and industrial purposes exclusively, but by no means for strategic purposes. It is agreed that this restriction does not apply to the railroads within the territory covered by the lease of the Liao tung peninsula.

Article VIII. The Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan, with a view to favoring and facilitating relations and traffic, shall conclude, as soon as possible, a separate convention to govern their operations of repair on the railroads in Manchuria.

Article IX. The Imperial Government of Russia cedes to the Imperial Government of Japan, in perpetuity and full sovereignty, the southern part of the island of Saghalin, and all the islands adjacent thereto, as well as all the public works and property there situated. The fiftieth parallel of north latitude is adopted as the limit of the ceded territory. The exact boundary line of this territory shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of additional Article II annexed to this treaty.

Japan and Russia mutually agree not to construct within their respective possessions on the island of Saghalin, and the islands adjacent thereto, any fortification or similar military work. They likewise mutually agree not to adopt any military measures which might hinder the free navigation of the Straits of La Perouse and Tartary.

Article X. The right is reserved to Russian subjects inhabiting the territory ceded to Japan to sell their real property and return to their country; however, if they prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they shall be guarded and protected in the full enjoyment of their property rights and the exercise of their industries, provided they submit to the laws and jurisdiction of Japan. Japan shall have perfect liberty to withdraw the right of residence in this territory from all inhabitants laboring under political or administrative incapacity, or to deport them from this territory. It pledges itself, however, to fully respect the property rights of these inhabitants.

Article XI. Russia obligates itself to reach an understanding with Japan in order to grant to Japanese subjects fishing rights along the coast of the Russian possessions in the Seas of Japan, Okhotsk, and Bering. It is agreed that the above-mentioned obligation shall not impair the rights already belonging to Russian or foreign subjects in these regions.

Article XII. The treaty of commerce and navigation between Russia and Japan having been annulled by the war, the Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan agree to adopt as a basis for their commercial relations, until the conclusion of a new treaty of commerce and navigation on the basis of the treaty in force before the present war, the system of reciprocity on the principle of the most favored nation, including import and export tariffs, custom-house formalities, transit and tonnage dues, and the admission and treatment of the agents, subjects, and vessels of one country in the territory of the other.

Article XIII. As soon as possible, after the present treaty takes effect, all prisoners of war shall be mutually returned. The Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan shall each appoint a special commissioner to take charge of the prisoners. All prisoners in the custody of one of the governments shall be delivered to the commissioner of the other government or to his duly authorized representative, who shall receive them in such number and in such suitable ports of the surrendering nation as the latter shall notify in advance to the commissioner of the receiving nation.

The Governments of Russia and Japan shall present to each other, as soon as possible after the delivery of the prisoners has been completed, a verified account of the direct expenditures made by them respectively for the care and maintenance of the prisoners from the date of capture or surrender until the date of their death or return. Russia agrees to refund to Japan, as soon as possible after the exchange of these accounts, as above stipulated, the difference between the actual amount thus spent by Japan and the actual amount likewise expended by Russia.

Article XIV. The present treaty shall be ratified by Their Majesties the Emperor of all the Russias and the Emperor of Japan. This ratification shall, within the shortest possible time and at all events not later than fifty days from the date of the signature of the treaty, be notified to the Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan, respectively, through the ambassador of the United States of America at St. Petersburg and the minister of France at Tokyo, and from and after the date of the last of these notifications this treaty shall enter into full force in all its parts. The formal exchange of the ratifications shall take place at Washington as soon as possible.

Article XV. The present treaty shall be signed in duplicate, in the French and English languages. The two texts are absolutely alike; however, in case of difference of interpretation the French text shall prevail.

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present treaty of peace and affixed thereto their seals.

Done at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the twenty-third day of August (fifth of September) of the year one thousand nine hundred and five, corresponding to the fifth day of the ninth month of the thirty-eighth year of Meiji.

IUTARO KOMURA. [L. S.] K. TAKAHIRA. [L. S.] SERGIUS WITTE. [L. S.] ROSEN. [L. S.]

In conformity with the provisions of Articles II and IX of the treaty of peace between Russia and Japan under this date, the undersigned plenipotentiaries have concluded the following additional articles:

{360}

I. To Article III:

The Imperial Governments of Russia and Japan mutually agree to begin the withdrawal of their military forces from the territory of Manchuria simultaneously and immediately after the entrance into force of the treaty of peace; and within a period of eighteen months from this date the armies of the two powers shall be entirely withdrawn from Manchuria, with the exception of the leased territory of the peninsula of Liao-tung.

The forces of the two powers occupying advanced positions shall be withdrawn first.

The high contracting parties reserve the right to maintain guards for the protection of their respective railroad lines in Manchuria.

The number of these guards shall not exceed 15 men per kilometer, and within the limit of this maximum number the commanders of the Russian and Japanese armies shall, by mutual agreement, fix the number of guards who are to be employed, this number being as low as possible and in accordance with actual requirements. The commanders of the Russian and Japanese forces in Manchuria shall reach an understanding regarding all the details connected with the evacuation, in conformity with the principles herein above set forth, and shall, by mutual agreement, adopt the measures necessary to carry out the evacuation as soon as possible and at all events within a period not exceeding eighteen months.

II. To Article IX:

As soon as possible after the present treaty takes effect, a boundary commission composed of an equal number of members appointed respectively by the two high contracting parties shall mark on the spot and in a permanent manner the exact line between the Russian and Japanese possessions on the island of Saghalin. The commission shall be obliged, as far as topographical conditions permit, to follow the 50th parallel of north latitude for the line of demarcation, and in case any deviations from this line are found necessary at certain points compensation shall be made therefor by making corresponding deviations at other points. It shall also be the duty of said commission to prepare a list and description of the adjacent islands which are comprised within the cession, and finally the commission shall prepare and sign maps showing the boundaries of the ceded territory. The labors of the commission shall be submitted to the approval of the high contracting parties.

The additional articles mentioned hereinabove shall be considered as being ratified by the ratification of the treaty of peace, to which they are annexed.

Portsmouth, August 23 (September 5), 1905, corresponding to the 5th day, 9th month and 28th year of Meiji.

IUTARO KOMURA. K. TAKAHIRA. SERGIUS WITTE. ROSEN.

The ratification by the Tsar was in the following terms:

Therefore, after mature consideration of this treaty and the two additional articles, we approved, confirmed, and ratified them, and do hereby approve, confirm, and ratify them in their full purport, pledging our imperial word for ourselves, our successors, and our heirs, that everything set forth in the above-mentioned acts shall be inviolably observed. In witness whereof we, having signed this, our imperial ratification, with our own hand, have ordered affixed thereto our imperial seal.

Given at Peterhoff, the first day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and five and of our reign the eleventh.

On the original is written in His Imperial Majesty’s own hand:

L. S. "NICHOLAS."

countersigned

COUNT LAMSDORFF, _Secretary of State, Minister of Foreign Affairs._

JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (August). New Defensive Agreement between Great Britain and Japan.

On the 12th of August, 1905, three days after the plenipotentiaries of Japan and Russia had held their first meeting at Portsmouth and opened the negotiations which resulted in a Treaty of Peace, a new Agreement of defensive alliance between Japan and Great Britain, replacing that of three years before, was signed at London, but not made public until the 6th of September, the day following the conclusion of the Russo-Japanese Treaty of Peace.

See, above, JAPAN: A. D. 1902.

It was then communicated to the Governments of Russia and France, through the medium of the British Ambassadors at St. Petersburg and Paris, with an accompanying explanatory despatch from Lord Lansdowne, as follows:

"Sir, I inclose, for your Excellency's information, a copy of a new Agreement concluded between His Majesty’s Government and that of Japan in substitution for that of the 30th January, 1902. You will take an early opportunity of communicating the new Agreement to the Russian Government. It was signed on the 12th August, and you will explain that it would have been immediately made public but for the fact that negotiations had at that time already commenced between Russia and Japan, and that the publication of such a document whilst those negotiations were still in progress would obviously have been improper and inopportune.

"The Russian Government will, I trust, recognize that the new Agreement is an international instrument to which no exception can be taken by any of the Powers interested in the affairs of the Far East. You should call special attention to the objects mentioned in the preamble as those by which the policy of the Contracting Parties is inspired. His Majesty’s Government believe that they may count upon the good-will and support of all the Powers in endeavouring to maintain peace in Eastern Asia, and in seeking to uphold the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in that country.

"On the other hand, the special interests of the Contracting

## Parties are of a kind upon which they are fully entitled to

insist, and the announcement that those interests must be safeguarded is one which can create no surprise, and need give rise to no misgivings.

"I call your especial attention to the wording of Article II, which lays down distinctly that it is only in the case of an unprovoked attack made on one of the Contracting Parties by another Power or Powers, and when that Party is defending its territorial rights and special interests from aggressive

## action, that the other Party is bound to come to its

assistance.

{361}

"Article III, dealing with the question of Corea, is deserving of especial attention. It recognizes in the clearest terms the paramount position which Japan at this moment occupies and must henceforth occupy in Corea, and her right to take any measures which she may find necessary for the protection of her political, military, and economic interests in that country. It is, however, expressly provided that such measures must not be contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of other nations. The new Treaty no doubt differs at this point conspicuously from that of 1902. It has, however, become evident that Corea, owing to its close proximity to the Japanese Empire and its inability to stand alone, must fall under the control and tutelage of Japan.

"His Majesty’s Government observe with satisfaction that this point was readily conceded by Russia in the Treaty of Peace recently concluded with Japan, and they have every reason to believe that similar views are held by other Powers with regard to the relations which should subsist between Japan and Corea.

"His Majesty’s Government venture to anticipate that the alliance thus concluded, designed as it is with objects which are purely peaceful and for the protection of rights and interests the validity of which cannot be contested, will be regarded with approval by the Government to which you are accredited. They are justified in believing that its conclusion may not have been without effect in facilitating the settlement by which the war has been so happily brought to an end, and they earnestly trust that it may, for many years to come, be instrumental in securing the peace of the world in those regions which come within its scope.

JAPAN: Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan.

"PREAMBLE. The Governments of Great Britain and Japan, being desirous of replacing the agreement concluded between them on the 30th of January, 1902, by fresh stipulations, have agreed upon the following articles, which have for their object—

(a) The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India.

(b) The preservation of the common interests of all powers in China, by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China.

(c) The maintenance of the territorial rights of the high contracting parties in the regions of eastern Asia and of India, and the defense of their special interests in the said regions.

"ARTICLE I. It is agreed that whenever in the opinion of either Great Britain or Japan any of the rights and interests referred to in the preamble of this agreement are in jeopardy, the two governments will communicate with one another fully and frankly and will consider in common the measures which should be taken to safeguard those menaced rights or interests.

"ARTICLE II. If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever arising, on the part of any other power or powers either contracting party should be involved in war in defense of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this agreement, the other contracting party will at once come to the assistance of its ally and will conduct the war in common and make peace in mutual agreement with it.

"ARTICLE III. Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic interests in Korea, Great Britain recognizes the right of Japan to take such measures of guidance, control, and protection in Korea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, provided always that such measures are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations.

"ARTICLE IV. Great Britain having a special interest in all that concerns the security of the Indian frontier, Japan recognizes her right to take such measures in the proximity of that frontier as she may find necessary for safeguarding her Indian possessions.

"ARTICLE V. The high contracting parties agree that neither of them will without consulting the other enter into separate arrangements with another power to the prejudice of the objects described in the preamble of this agreement.

"ARTICLE VI. As regards the present war between Japan and Russia, Great Britain will continue to maintain strict neutrality unless some other power or powers should join in hostilities against Japan, in which case Great Britain will come to the assistance of Japan and will conduct the war in common and make peace in mutual agreement with Japan.

"ARTICLE VII. The conditions under which armed assistance shall be afforded by either power to the other in the circumstances mentioned in the present agreement, and the means by which such assistance is to be made available, will be arranged by the naval and military authorities of the contracting parties, who will from time to time consult one another fully and freely upon all questions of mutual interest.

"ARTICLE VIII. The present agreement shall, subject to the provisions of Article VI., come into effect immediately after the date of its signature and remain in force for ten years from that date. In case neither of the high contracting parties should have notified twelve months before the expiration of the said ten years the intention of terminating it, it shall remain binding until the expiration of one year from the day on which either of the high contracting parties shall have denounced it. But if when the date fixed for its expiration arrives either ally is actually engaged in war the alliance shall _ipso facto_ continue until peace is concluded."

JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (December). Treaty with China relative to Manchuria.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905 (DECEMBER).

JAPAN: A. D. 1905-1909. Korea under Japanese Control. The rule of Prince Ito. Insurrection and its suppression. Constructive and Reformative Work.

See (in this Volume) KOREA: A. D. 1905-1909.

JAPAN: A. D. 1905-1909. Disputes with China. The Fa-ku-menn Railway and the Antung-Mukden Railway Questions. Settlement of the latter by Japanese Ultimatum.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905-1909.

JAPAN: A. D. 1906. Chinese Students in the Country.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: CHINA: A. D. 1906.

{362}

JAPAN: A. D. 1906. Resentment at Segregation of Oriental Children in San Francisco Schools.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.

JAPAN: A. D. 1907. Riotous attacks on Japanese laborers in British Columbia and the State of Washington.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: CANADA.

JAPAN: A. D. 1907 (June). Treaty with France concerning affairs in the East.

A treaty between the governments of Japan and France was signed on the 10th of June, 1907, according to which France recognizes the rights of Japan in Korea and her special interests in Manchuria, and Japan, on her side, promises not to interfere with French possessions in Siam and Indo-China.

JAPAN: A. D. 1908 (May). Slender victory of the Saionji Ministry in the Parliamentary Elections.

Parliamentary elections in May, 1908, gave the Ministry a bare probability of support by combinations of the party of Prince Ito—the Rikken Seiyu-kai—with some of the other partly sympathetic groups. The maintenance of the prudent policy of Government since the close of the great war, against the Jingo element, was left somewhat precarious.

JAPAN: A. D. 1908 (November). Exchange of Notes with the United States, embodying an important Declaration of Common Policy in the East.

On the 30th of November, 1908, distinct form was given to a common understanding between Japan and the United States, as to their agreement in purposes and policy touching affairs in the East. The form was not that of a treaty, but of a simple Declaration, identical in notes exchanged at Washington between Secretary Root and Ambassador Takahira. The following is the text of the Declaration:

"I. It is the wish of the two Governments to encourage the free and peaceful development of their commerce on the Pacific Ocean.

"II. The policy of both Governments, uninfluenced by any aggressive tendencies, is directed to the maintenance of the existing _status quo_ in the region above mentioned, and to the defense of the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and industry in China.

"III. They are accordingly firmly resolved reciprocally to respect the territorial possessions belonging to each other in said region.

"IV. They are also determined to preserve the common interests of all Powers in China by supporting, by all pacific means at their disposal, the independence and integrity of China and the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and industry of all nations in that Empire.

"V. Should any event occur threatening the _status quo_ as above described, or the principle of equal opportunity as above defined, it remains for the two Governments to communicate with each other, in order to arrive at an understanding as to what measures they may consider it useful to take.

JAPAN: A. D. 1908-1909. Suppression of Race-track Gambling.

See (in this Volume) GAMBLING.

JAPAN: A. D. 1909. Material Development of the Country.

"The mileage of Japanese railways, now over 5,000 miles, has been quadrupled within 20 years—without counting the Korean and South Manchurian railways, which are owned by Japanese companies. The development of posts, telegraphs, and telephones has proceeded on an even greater scale, and the revenues of the department, which only amounted in 1899 to £1,740,000, exceeded £3,850,000 in 1909, whilst the amount invested in postal savings banks rose during the same decade from under £2,200,000 to £10,698,409. The Japanese merchant flag, represented by a steam tonnage of nearly one and a quarter million tons, is known in every sea, and the Nippon Yusen Kaisha, on one of whose excellent steamers I crossed the Pacific a few weeks ago, has alone a well-equipped fleet of 265,000 tons in the aggregate, running not only to the United States and to Europe, but to South America and Australia, besides local services in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean waters. …

"Powerful firms like the Mitsui, the Mitsubishi, Messrs. Okura, Messrs. Takata, &c., take a leading part in every branch of a national import and export trade which has risen within 30 years from under £6,000,000 to nearly £100,000,000 in 1907. Great industrial cities have grown up like Osaka, the centre of the cotton-spinning industry, whose population, less than 400,000 a quarter of a century ago, now exceeds 1,200,000. The aggregate capital of Japanese industrial companies, which in 1882 was estimated at £10,000,000, rose within the same period to more than £126,000,000, and in the cotton industry alone the number of spindles increased from 65,000 to over one and a half million. According to statistics collected by Mr. Takahashi and Mr. Igarashi, the national wealth of Japan was assessed at the beginning of 1905 at close upon £2,500,000,000, to which must now be added, over and above any normal increment, the economic value of the position she has acquired in Southern Manchuria and Korea."

_Correspondent of The Times, London._

JAPAN: A. D. 1909.

## Parties in Domestic Politics.

The present parties in the lower house of the Japanese Parliament were thus described by the Tokio correspondent of the London _Times_, in January, 1909:

"The Lower House consists of 379 members. These are divided into five sections—namely, the _Seiyu-kai_ (192 members), the Progressists (67), the _Boshin_ Club (42), the _Yushin-kai_ (44) and the _Daido_ Club (34). If any man were required to indicate clearly the lines of division between these sections, he would be much perplexed to do so. On the broad bases of Liberalism and Conservatism the first four occupy the same Liberal platform, while the last stands as the sole exponent of Conservative views. Yet the four Liberal sections are not more hostile to each other than the fifth is to all. They are held asunder by traditions and by prejudices.

"The Seiyu-kai has fought its way to an overwhelmingly strong position in the face of perennial opposition from the Progressists. Once only did the two join hands, but their union lasted no more than a few weeks, and they separated with a strong access of mutual rancour. Yet both had entered the arena originally as champions of the same cause, constitutional government, and nothing held them apart save personal rivalries. In the course of their 28 years of strenuous evolution, they gradually sloughed off their extremists, and these constitute the present _Yushin-kai_, a coterie of brilliant Radical free-lances, whose hand may be said to be against every one. {363} The _Daido_ Club are frank Conservatives. They are the only unequivocal supporters of the Cabinet now in office. … There remain the _Boshin_ Club. They are an association of business men—the first political association of that complexion in Japan. The early Diets were all conspicuously deficient in representatives of the commercial and manufacturing classes; mainly because politics had become a more or less discredited pursuit before ever a general election was held, and partly because the urban population did not return a due proportion of members. The latter defect having been remedied by the new election law of 1901, there was thereafter found in the Lower House a group of men calling themselves ‘Independents,’ but always seen in the Government lobby. In fact their sense of business interests prompted them to lend their support to the principle of stable Cabinets above everything."

JAPAN: A. D. 1909. Present Status of Christianity.

See (in this Volume) MISSIONS, CHRISTIAN.

JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (July-September). The State of the War Debt and its Payment.

The following is a Press despatch from Tokyo to London, July 17, 1909:

"At the close of 1906, when Japan came to make out the accounts of her war with Russia, she found that she had incurred a total expenditure of about 1,700 million yen (£170,000,000). By that amount her national debt was increased. She then determined to lay aside every year a sum of at least 110 million yen (£11,000,000) for the service of the debt. That did not mean, of course, that redemptions aggregating 110 millions were to be made annually. These 110 millions were for the service of the debt; in other words, they were for the purpose of paying interest as well as principal. The portion applicable to redemption would be from 30 to 37 millions yearly, and the loan would thus be completely paid off in about 30 years. That was the programme when the Marquis Katsura came into office. But very soon he announced the Treasury’s intention of increasing the redemption fund to 50 millions. That is to say, he added some 16 millions to the money available for paying off the debt; and evidently, if the increase were permanent, the whole indebtedness would be wiped off in about 20 years instead of 30, as originally planned. Still better things, however, are said to be contemplated. The sum actually devoted to the sinking fund during the last fiscal year was 50,800,000 yen, and since the interest on that amount will go to augment the redemption fund during the current year, the amount paid off from that source will be 53,340,000 yen. To this it is proposed to add another 10 millions obtained from the national growth of the State’s income, for the experience of the last year encourages the belief that such growth may be confidently expected, the actual development of the ordinary revenue having reached a sum of over 30 millions. It is further expected that from 1912 onwards the yield from the Customs duties will advance from 38 to 53 millions, unless Japan manages her negotiations for tariff revision clumsily."

Speaking to the Bankers’ Club at Tokyo in September, 1909, Premier Katsura expressed the belief that the financial condition of the country was encouraging, and while maintaining that the present system of finances was excellent, he expressed the hope to improve it steadily until perfection is reached. The premier said that the government’s policy would begin this year, and the development of resources and the avoidance of unproductive expenditure would be consistently followed. He announced the following measures as forming part of the financial programme for the ensuing year:—

1. Reduction and modification of the war taxes in order to relieve the pressure on the people.

2. Increase of the sinking fund. By the allocation of a considerable amount out of the surplus of previous years the sum of 53,000,000 yen (£5,300,000) previously fixed for this service will be greatly exceeded.

3. The raising of the salaries of all Government officials by 30 per cent. This reform had been delayed by the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war.

JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (August). The Burning of Osaka.

See (in this Volume) OSAKA.

JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (September). Visit of a Commercial Commission to the United States.

A large party of prominent Japanese business men, headed by Baron Shibusawa, and coming as a Commercial Commission to seek more intimate commercial relations between Japan and the United States, landed at Seattle on the 1st of September, 1909, and toured the country for a number of weeks. The party received much attention and were entertained most hospitably everywhere, nowhere with more warmth than on the Pacific Coast, where ill-feeling toward Japan had been manifested in some circles a few years before. In a statement to the Press at Seattle Baron Shibusawa said: "It is interesting to note that while different European nations are talking about the increase of armament, and when especially great rulers are exchanging visits accompanied by warships, the Japanese people are perfectly satisfied in sending us plain business men on a peaceful mission to this great commercial country. I have been told that Japan is spoken of as a warlike nation, but this is altogether absurd. We are all deeply interested in the development of the Japanese-American commercial relations, which, of all reasons, prompts us to pay a visit to your country. Let us therefore work for the extension of commercial relations to our mutual interests. We must go hand in hand with you to develop the vast field in the East."

JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (October). Assassination of Prince Ito.

Prince Hirobumi Ito, the man of most light and leading, as he appears to have been, in the transformation of Japan within the past half century, was foully assassinated on the 26th of October, 1909, at Kharbin, or Harbin, Manchuria. He had gone to Kharbin to meet M. Kokovsoff, Russian Minister of Finance, for a conference on the Manchurian questions that had arisen between Russia and Japan. As he stepped from the railway train which brought him to the city, and was approaching the Minister, who came to welcome him, he was fired upon from the surrounding crowd. Three revolver shots struck the Prince, two of which inflicted wounds that caused his death within twenty minutes. Three of his attendants were wounded, not fatally, by other shots. All were found to have been fired by one bystander, who proved to be a Korean. The assassin made no attempt to escape, but exclaimed when seized: "I came to Kharbin for the sole purpose of assassinating Prince Ito, to avenge my country." He had two companions who boasted of being

## parties to the crime. He was subsequently identified as Indian

Angan, formerly editor of a newspaper at Seoul.

{364}

Since retiring from his responsible post in Korea, as Resident-General, Prince Ito had resumed the presidency of the Privy Council, in the Japanese Government, which Prince Aritomo Yamagata had filled during his absence. Prince Yamagata was now reappointed to that office. He and Prince Ito had been intimate friends, and yet political opponents, differing in opinions and heading rival parties, but always

## acting together on the vital questions of national policy.

JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (December). Naval Armament, Present and Prospective.

See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL: JAPAN.

----------JAPAN: End--------

JAPANESE IMMIGRATION: The Resistance to it in America, Australia, and South Africa.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS.

JEANES, Miss Anna T.: Great Gift to Schools for Southern Negroes.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES. A. D. 1907.

JEROME, William Travers: Reelection as District Attorney of the County of New York.

See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905.

JEWS, THE: In Roumania. Oppressions. Remonstrance of the United States.

See (in this Volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: ROUMANIA.

JEWS, THE: Persecution and Massacre in Russia.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904, and 1903 (APRIL).

JIMENEZ, President: His overthrow.

See (in this Volume) SAN DOMINGO: A. D. 1904-1907.

JOAN OF ARC, Beatification of.

See (in this Volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1909 (APRIL).

JOINT STATEHOOD ACT.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906.

JOLO, Sultan of.

See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901-1902.

JONES, John Paul: Recovery and removal of his remains from Paris.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

JOUBERT-PIENAAR, General F.: On Slavery in Portuguese Africa.

See (in this Volume) AFRICA: PORTUGUESE: A. D. 1905-1908.

JUAREZ, BENITO: Celebration of his centenary.

See (in this Volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1906.

JUDSON, Harry Pratt: President of the University of Chicago.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: A. D. 1901-1909.

JUNIOR REPUBLIC, The.

See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.

JUSTH, M. de.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.

JUVENILE COURTS.

See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.

JUVENILE REFORM.

See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.

K.

KAFFIR, The Problem of the.

See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: IN SOUTH AFRICA.

KAIPING.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

KAJAR TRIBE, The: The Tribe of the Persian Imperial Dynasty.

See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

KAMIMURA, Admiral.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

KANO: British capture.

See (in this Volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1903 (NIGERIA).

KANSAS: A. D. 1904. Legislation and action against the Standard Oil Company.

See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.

KARAGEORGEVICH.

See (in this Volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: SERVIA.

KATANGA, Railway Lines to.

See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: CENTRAL AFRICA.

KATSURA, Count: His Ministry strengthened by Marquis Ito.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1903 (JUNE).

KAULBARS, General.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (SEPTEMBER-MARCH).

KAWAMURA, General.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (SEPTEMBER-MARCH).

KELANTAN: Cession of Suzerainty to Great Britain.

See (in this Volume) SIAM: A. D. 1909.

KELLY, Charles F.: Confessions as a "Boodler."

See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

KENNEDY, John Stewart, the Bequests of.

See (in this Volume) GIFTS AND BEQUESTS.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1905-1909. The Tobacco Farmers’ Union and its Night Riders.

"Kentucky has been having an experience unique, costly, tragic, and probably to some extent valuable, with the farmers engaged in the chief agricultural industry of the state— growing tobacco. Some 80,000 of them, representing probably 400,000 of the population of the state, have been engaged in a union demonstration for the purpose of securing higher pay. The result has been in some sections anarchy, in all great distress. …

"A trust having arisen in New York which was able to control the output, and therefore to make prices to suit itself, the farmers have answered this trust by forming under the equity society a union of their own, and going on a strike for higher prices. … The union to which I refer is the Burley Tobacco Society, in Kentucky. It is organized to oppose the exactions of the American Tobacco Company of New Jersey. Tobacco is grown in several distinct districts in Kentucky, and there, as elsewhere, each district has, by reason of soil or climate, a virtual monopoly of its own type. Down in the southwestern corner, in the so-called Black Patch, embracing several counties of Tennessee, a dark and heavy leaf is grown and fire-cured for the foreign trade. This is bought by government, or so-styled ‘regie’ buyers. North of this is a heavy leaf stemmed for the British trade. North and east of this is the region in which a dark air-cured leaf is grown for domestic uses. East of this, embracing all Blue Grass and extending to Maysville, is the Burley district, in which is grown the famous red and white Burley tobacco. …

{365}

"Pooling tobacco in Kentucky started down in the Black Patch, or received its greatest impetus there. The regie buyers combined, or were formed into a combination by their superiors, and the Patch was districted, each man being given an exclusive territory, and no farmer being allowed to sell to any one but his own buyer. In this way a set price as low as four cents was made, and the farmer had no option but to take it; no option, at least, that was open to the farmer not rich enough to ship his crop to Bremen and seek European competition. In this situation a group of canny planters formed a tight little corporation of $200 capital, for the avowed purpose of holding, handling, buying, and selling tobacco. They induced about a thousand of their neighbors—there are forty thousand dark-tobacco growers in the Patch—to pledge their crops with them, and they planned to hold this much off the market and compel the regie buyers to pay a higher price for it. This proving popular, they soon had five thousand pledges. Then they—or interests closely allied with them—organized a band of Ku-Klux, called Night Riders, who, first by so-called ‘peace armies,’ and then by raiding at night all who resisted, frightened or forced—during the next three years—all the forty thousand to sign.

"The tight little corporation thus had a monopoly of the dark tobacco. It forced the regie buyers to pay a price raised by slow degrees to 11 cents round, exacted large commissions and profits,—as much as 1500 per cent a year on the capital,—and now controls the Black Patch absolutely. All its pledges expire in January, 1909, and the situation will then become anarchistic. The success of this Black Patch plan was entirely due to the employment of Night Riders, who correspond to the professional ‘sluggers’ of a labor union, or the hired assassins of a Black-Hand league."

_J. L. Mathews, The Farmers’ Union and the Tobacco Pool (Atlantic Monthly, October, 1908)._

KHARBIN, OR HARBIN, RUSSIAN CONTROL AT.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1909 (MAY).

KHARBIN: A. D. 1909. Assassination of Prince Ito.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).

KHARKOFF, DISTURBANCES IN.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

KHARTUM, THE NEW.

See (in this Volume) SUDAN, THE: A. D. 1907.

KHARTUM, THE NEW: Gordon Memorial College.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: EGYPT.

KIAMIL PASHA: GRAND VIZIER.

See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.

KIEFF, DISTURBANCES IN.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

KINCHOU, BATTLE OF.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (February-July), and 1904-1905 (May-January).

KINGSTON, Jamaica: A. D. 1907. Destruction of Kingston.

See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: JAMAICA.

KINSHU-MARU, THE INCIDENT OF THE.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

KIPLING, RUDYARD.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

KIRDORF, HERR: Head of the Coal and Steel Syndicates in Germany. His attitude towards the Workingmen.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1907.

KISHINEFF, JEWISH MASSACRE AT.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1903 (APRIL).

KITCHENER OF KHARTUM, GENERAL LORD: In South Africa.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.

KITCHENER OF KHARTUM, GENERAL LORD: In India.

See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).

KLERKSDORP CONFERENCE.

See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.

KNIAZ POTEMKIN, MUTINY ON THE.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).

KNIGHTS OF LABOR.

See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES.

KNOX, PHILANDER C.: Attorney-General.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.

KNOX, PHILANDER C.: Secretary of State.

See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).

KOCH, Robert.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

KOCHER, E. T.

See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.

KOMURA, BARON IUTARO, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.

KOMURA, BARON IUTARO, Japanese Plenipotentiary for negotiating Treaty of Peace with Russia.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

KONDRATENKO, General.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).

KOREA: A. D. 1901-1904. Japanese distrust of Russian designs. Negotiations and demands.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.

KOREA: A. D. 1902. Agreement respecting Korea between Great Britain and Japan.

See (in this Volume) Japan: A. D. 1902.

KOREA: A. D. 1904 (February). Occupation by the Japanese.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

KOREA: A. D. 1904-1905. Conventions with Japan, creating Protectorate Relations with that Empire and submitting Financial and Diplomatic Affairs to Japanese control.

On the 25th of February, 1904, the text of a protocol, concluded on the 23d, between the Governments of Japan and Korea, was communicated to the Government of the United States (and, of course to others), by the Government of Japan, with an accompanying explanation, as follows:

"In the prosecution of the present war the use of some of the ports and some portions of the territory of Korea is found inevitable, and therefore, with a view to facilitate military operations and to show that such use of ports and territory is made with the full knowledge and consent of Korea, and not in disregard or violation of her independence or territorial integrity, and also in order to prevent future complications, the Japanese Government concluded with the Korean Government on the 23d instant the following protocol. …

"ARTICLE I. For the purpose of maintaining permanent and solid friendship between Japan and Korea and firmly establishing peace in the Far East, the Imperial Government of Korea shall place full confidence in the Imperial Government of Japan and adopt the advice of the latter with regard to improvements in administration.

"ARTICLE II. The Imperial Government of Japan shall, in a spirit of firm friendship, insure the safety and repose of the Imperial House of Korea.

{366}

"ARTICLE III. The Imperial Government of Japan definitively guarantee the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire.

"ARTICLE IV. In case the welfare of the Imperial House of Korea or the territorial integrity of Korea is endangered by the aggression of a third power or internal disturbances, the Imperial Government of Japan shall immediately take such necessary measures as circumstances require, and in such case the Imperial Government of Korea shall give full facilities to promote the action of the Imperial Japanese Government. The Imperial Government of Japan may, for the attainment of the above-mentioned object, occupy, when circumstances require it, such places as may be necessary from strategic points of view.

"ARTICLE V. The Government of the two countries shall not in future, without mutual consent, conclude with a third power such an arrangement as may be contrary to the principles of the present protocol.

"ARTICLE VI. Details in connection with the present protocol shall be arranged as the circumstances may require between the representative of Japan and the minister of state for foreign affairs of Korea."

On the 30th of August, 1904, an additional Agreement between the Governments of Japan and Korea, signed in part on the 19th and in part on the 22d of that month, was communicated by the Japanese Ambassador to the United States to the State Department at Washington, with a note saying: "In communicating this agreement to the Government of the United States I am instructed to say that it is nothing more than the natural consequence or development of the protocol concluded between the Japanese and Korean Governments on the 23rd of last February, which I had the honor to communicate at that time for the information of the Government of the United States. I am further directed to say that the agreement does not in anywise interfere with the full operation or validity of Korea’s existing treaties; and that Article II thereof is not intended to place any impediment in the way of legitimate enterprise in Korea, but merely to check, as far as possible, the future conclusion of unwise and improvident engagements, which in the past have been fruitful sources of trouble and complication."

The Agreement thus announced was in the following terms:

"ARTICLE I. The Korean Government shall engage a Japanese subject recommended by the Japanese Government as financial adviser to the Korean Government, and all matters concerning finance shall be dealt with after his counsel shall have been taken.

"ARTICLE II. The Korean Government shall engage a foreigner recommended by the Japanese Government as diplomatic adviser to the foreign office, and all important matters concerning foreign relations shall be dealt with after his counsel shall have been taken.

"ARTICLE III. The Korean Government shall consult the Japanese Government before concluding treaties and conventions with foreign powers, and also in dealing with other important diplomatic affairs, such as grants of concessions to or contracts with foreigners."

Writing of this Agreement a few days later to the State Department at Washington, the American Minister to Japan, Mr. Lloyd Griscom, remarked:

"It is interesting to note that Mr. Megata, selected to be financial adviser to the Korean Government, was educated in America and is a graduate of Harvard University, and Mr. Stevens, who has been chosen as adviser to the foreign office, is an American gentleman about whom it would be superfluous to inform you."

Under a third Agreement, signed April 1, 1905, Japan took over the control and operation of the post, telegraph, and telephone services of Korea, in order to "rearrange the system of communications in that country, and, by amalgamating it with that of Japan, to unite the two systems into one."

Finally, on the 17th of November, 1905, a fourth Agreement was signed, which definitely surrendered to Japan the "control and direction of the external relations and affairs of Korea," in the following stipulations:

"ARTICLE I. The Government of Japan, through the department of foreign affairs in Tokyo, will hereafter have control and direction of the external relations and affairs of Korea and the diplomatic and consular representatives of Japan will have the charge of the subjects and interests of Korea in foreign countries.

"ARTICLE II. The Government of Japan undertake to see to the execution of the treaties actually existing between Korea and other powers, and the Government of Korea engage not to conclude hereafter any act or engagement having an international character, except through the medium of the Government of Japan.

"ARTICLE III. The Government of Japan shall be represented at the court of His Majesty the Emperor of Korea by a resident general, who shall reside at Seoul primarily for the purpose of taking charge of and directing the matters relating to diplomatic affairs. He shall have the right of private and personal audience of His Majesty the Emperor of Korea. The Japanese Government shall have the right to station residents at the several open ports and such other places in Korea as they may deem necessary.

"Such residents shall, under the direction of the resident general, exercise the powers and functions hitherto appertaining to Japanese consuls in Korea, and shall perform such duties as may be necessary in order to carry into full effect the provisions of this agreement.

"ARTICLE IV. The stipulations of all treaties and agreements existing between Japan and Korea not inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement shall continue in force.

"ARTICLE V. The Government of Japan undertake to maintain the welfare and dignity of the Imperial House of Korea."

With the communication of this Agreement to foreign Powers there went a declaration by the Japanese Government, in part as follows:

"The relations of propinquity have made it necessary for Japan to take and exercise, for reasons closely connected with her own safety and repose, a paramount interest and influence in the political and military affairs of Korea. The measures hitherto taken have been purely advisory, but the experience of recent years has demonstrated the insufficiency of measures of guidance alone. {367} The unwise and improvident action of Korea, more especially in the domain of her international concerns, has in the past been the most fruitful source of complications. To permit the present unsatisfactory condition of things to continue unrestrained and unregulated would be to invite fresh difficulties, and Japan believes that she owes it to herself and to her desire for the general pacification of the extreme East to take the steps necessary to put an end once for all to this dangerous situation."

KOREA: A. D. 1904-1905. Status of the Korean Empire under Japanese Control. The Japanese View.

"After her quick entry into Seoul at the outbreak of the war, Japan found herself precisely in the position which she had long desired to establish. The plan of joint non-intervention in Korean affairs as agreed upon between Japan and Russia in 1896 and 1898 [see, in Volume VI. of this work, Korea], which had again and again resulted in competitive intervention, had proved disastrous to the interest of Japan and of general reform; but now Russia had abruptly withdrawn from Seoul, and Japan found herself free to move alone. Thereupon she hastened to impose upon the Korean Foreign Minister a treaty of alliance [as above], on February 23, 1904, which laid the foundation for all Japan’s subsequent conduct in the peninsula. …

"An analysis and interpretation of the forces which the war has set loose and which are bringing their inevitable consequences would be highly instructive. Let us, however, content ourselves here by pointing to the Korean clauses in the three important documents concluded within the last two years, in which the rapid development of the Korean problem is easily traceable,—namely, the Korean-Japanese treaty of alliance of February 23, 1904, the Russo-Japanese treaty of peace signed on September 5, 1905 [see, in this Volume, JAPAN; A. D. 1905 (June-October)], and the Anglo Japanese agreement of alliance concluded on August 12 [see JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (August)], and published with Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch to the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg on September 26, 1905. It will be remembered that the first instrument at once placed Korea under Japan’s military protection and administrative guidance, and bound Japan to uphold Korea’s independence and territorial integrity, including the safety of her Imperial house. One will readily observe that two distinct points are here involved. These two points the further progress of events, some of which have already been described, seems to have put so far apart, that in the treaty of Portsmouth Japan’s preponderance over Korea was recognized by Russia, while little was said of the independence of the peninsular empire. It was even said that M. Witte insisted during the discussion of the clause that Baron Komura should declare in his proposed terms that Japan intended to make of Korea a province of the Japanese Empire. This the Baron is reported to have emphatically declined, presumably because he would not consider the protection by Japan and the territorial integrity of Korea incompatible with each other. The difference between the theoretical and practical situation is, however, reflected unmistakably in the Anglo-Japanese agreement, the third article of which reads: ‘Japan possessing paramount political, military, and economic interests in Korea, Great Britain recognizes Japan’s right to take such measures for the guidance, control and protection of Korea as she may deem proper and necessary to safeguard and advance those interests, providing the measures so taken are not contrary to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations.’ In other words, Japan is left free to control Korea and then prevail upon the latter to open her door equally wide to all nations, including Japan herself. After specially dwelling on the substance of this article, Lord Lansdowne says in his dispatch: ‘The treaty at this point differs conspicuously from that of 1902. It has, however, become evident that Korea, owing to its close proximity to the Japanese Empire, and to its inability to stand alone, must fall under the control and tutelage of Japan. His Majesty’s Government observes with satisfaction that this point has been readily conceded by Russia in the treaty of peace, and there is every reason to believe that similar views are held by the other Powers with regard to the relations which should subsist between Japan and Korea.’ Thus are Korea’s alleged incapacity of self-government and Japan’s need of control over the peninsular affairs openly recognized by a third Power, and it is taken for granted that no other Power will deny these points. Such a declaration could not be made, it is admitted, in 1902, when the first treaty of alliance was concluded, nor perhaps even at the time when the Korean-Japanese protocol was signed in February, 1904. Yet the doctrine of Korea’s independence is still not theoretically contradictory with this situation now recognized by the Russian and British governments, nor has it become less effective than in the last year, for, while the control by Japan has since been tightened, Korea remains a separate empire with all the sovereign rights of an independent State. Japan, speaking technically, exercises a supervisory control and discharges administrative functions entrusted to her care. The future trend of affairs—whether the Korean independence will vanish into a mere fiction as the Japanese control advances, or whether under the latter the peninsular people will be trained to an effective self-government—must largely be determined by the mutual interaction of the complex factors, both Korean and Japanese, public and private, conscious and unconscious, which are steadily working out the destiny of the peninsula."

_K. Asakawa, Korea and Manchuria under the New Treaty (Atlantic Monthly, November, 1905)._

KOREA: A. D. 1905 (August). New Agreement concerning Korea between Great Britain and Japan.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).

KOREA: A. D. 1905-1909. Japanese Control of Korean Affairs. Under Prince Ito. Attempted appeal of Korea to the Hague Conference of 1907. Enforced abdication of the Emperor. Elevation of his Son to the Throne. Extensive and fierce Revolt rigorously fought down. Retirement of Prince Ito. Recent Measures.

As to the use made by the Japanese of the entireness of their domination in Korea, as conceded to them in the treaties referred to above, by the Government of Korea, primarily, and by Great Britain and Russia, secondarily, in their recognition and endorsement of the status thus established, there has been much controversy since. {368} The Koreans themselves have been loud complainants of harsh and oppressive exercises of Japanese power in their country, and have found many sympathizers among the western peoples to denounce their alleged wrongs. On the other hand, many foreign visitors to Korea, after careful observation of conditions in the country, have borne strong testimony in favor of the Japanese conduct of Korean affairs. Professor George T. Ladd, for example, of Yale University, is one of these witnesses whose judgment has great weight. Having gone to Japan to give a course of lectures there, Professor Ladd was asked by Prince Ito, the Japanese Resident-General in Korea, to visit the latter country as an observer, and lend counsel to the Prince relative specially to some matters that touched American missions. His subsequent book, entitled "In Korea with Prince Ito," represents, beyond question, a careful and candid study of conditions which he had the best of opportunities for becoming rightly acquainted with. It does not approve or justify everything that the Japanese dictators of Korean administration were doing, but it represents the general motive and intent of their undertakings to have been for the improvement of the people and country whose affairs they had taken into their hands. The same may be said of what has been written of Korea since the Russo-Japanese war by Mr. George Kennan, the experienced traveller in the East and student of its peoples and their life.

The truth appears to be that the Japanese are using their power in Korea as justly, as honestly, as rightly as the English are using similar power in Egypt, as the Americans are using it in the Philippine Islands, or as any people has ever used the power to dictate government to another people. The question of right and wrong in all such cases goes back of the mode of using the overlordship, and is a question of the right to hold it for any mode of use. That there was compulsion in the procurement of the convention by which the Emperor of Korea and his decadent Government surrendered themselves to the dictatorial protection of Japan goes without saying. That there is not a strong nation in the world to-day that would not, in the same circumstances, have exercised the same compulsion and wrung the same surrender, is just as indisputable; but the political morality of the world is still too undeveloped for that fact to be exonerating. It only "sights" the political ethics of Japan along the level of our Christendom, and finds her to be, at least, not below it.

Soon after the Convention of November 17, 1905 had been signed, Marquis Ito, the Japanese Resident-General in Korea, invited the newspaper editors in Seoul to a luncheon, at which he addressed them, as reported at the time, partly in these words:

"If the state of affairs in Korea be examined, it is found that the relations between sovereign and subject, government and governed, are of a very distant nature, and are by no means so close as those in Japan. Hence it becomes inevitable to adopt toward the Government measures of a more or less compulsory nature. The people, however, are eminently peaceful and quiet, and toward them, therefore, the policy pursued must be one of gentle persuasion. Those are points which have to be kept in view not merely by our officials, but also by all Japanese subjects residing in Korea. Such Japanese subjects must carefully refrain from all acts of violence to which their country’s victories may prompt them, and must be guided by a spirit of kindness in their dealings with the Koreans. Already the United States representative in Seoul has received instructions from his Government for the removal of the legation, and it may be assumed that the other powers will similarly recognize Japan’s convention. It will then be for Japan not to forget the duties that heaven has delegated to her, but to lead Korea gently and helpfully along the path of progress, for assuredly anything like arbitrary or coercive conduct will earn for Korea the sympathy of the nations, and will defeat the true and abiding policy of Japan."

Discontent, complaint, resistance in Korea were inevitable, whatever treatment the country in so helpless and humbled a situation might receive. By a dexterous movement in 1907 it compelled the world to take notice of its plight. The Emperor, or his immediate entourage, succeeded by some means in fairly smuggling out of the country a delegation commissioned to claim a hearing before the Peace Conference at The Hague. Their claim was effectually extinguished by the agreement of 1904, which turned over to Japan the whole management of the foreign affairs of Korea; but the Korean situation was discussed widely for a time. Nothing of benefit to the native Korean Government, however, came from the event. The iron hand of Japanese control was laid in heavier pressure on the feeble court, at once. The nominal Korean Ministry was made to demand and compel the abdication of the Emperor, on the ground that he had endangered the national welfare by violation of the treaty of August, 1904. His young son was crowned in his stead, and Korea was required to submit to a new Agreement, signed on the 24th of July, 1907, by which the Resident-General "acquired initiative as well as consultatory competence to enact and enforce laws and ordinances, to appoint and remove Korean officials, and to place capable Japanese subjects in the ranks of Korean officialdom." Special provision was made for the separation of the Judiciary and the Executive, so as to put an end, wrote an English correspondent, "to the grievous corruption practised under a system which invested provincial governors and district magistrates with judicial functions, reducing the administration of justice to a mere matter of favour or interest." Under this new agreement the Resident-General acquired authority sufficient to overcome obstruction, for it pledged the Government of Korea to act under his guidance in matters of administrative reform; not to enact any laws or take any important measures without his previous assent; and not to appoint or dismiss high officials without his concurrence.

The attempt to carry an appeal to the Hague Conference was not fortunate for Korea in the result. As a coup it was skilfully executed, but can hardly be regarded as shrewd in the planning. It was attributed, in both plan and execution, to an American, Mr. Homer B. Hurlbert, who went to Korea as an educator some years before, under an appointment by the Government of the United States, on an official request from Korea; who had acquired much influence there and was strenuously a partisan of the Koreans, as against the Japanese. {369} Publishing a small periodical, the _Korean Review_, Mr. Hurlburt became an effective champion of their cause, publicly as well as privately in the native counsels of the overlorded empire. In the latter capacity he was pitted against another American, Mr. Durham White Stevens, whose appointment by Japanese selection, in 1904, to be adviser to the Korean Foreign Office, is mentioned above. Originally in the service of his own country, Mr. Stevens had then become official adviser to the Japanese Legation at Washington, and passed from that to the service in Korea. His fidelity to Japanese interests centered on him the animosity of the rebellious element in Korea, and he fell a victim to their hate.

The forcing of the old Emperor from the throne and the exaction of a more direct and complete submission of Korea to Japanese rule had provoked an extensive revolt. This was made more serious by an acknowledged mistake committed by Prince Ito, in disbanding the Korean army. A correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_, who wrote from Tokyo on the 14th of December, 1908, gave this account of the effect, and of the dreadful suffering of the country from the conflict that followed, in 1907-1908:

"The discharged soldiers, stung by the disgrace of dismissal and the dishonor of forced submission to hated intruders, quickly spread all over the country, stirring up their compatriots to a fearless and often a fatal zeal against the alien administration. The Japanese authorities forthwith set about a vigorous suppression of the malcontents, even to the extent of a merciless annihilation of life and a wholesale destruction of property. … The rebel forces only waxed more formidable, until by the approach of spring the insurgent bands were so widely distributed and menacing that no Japanese could safely venture beyond the confines of well-guarded towns and cities.

"Accordingly the imperial authorities were driven to replace their new policy of remaining on the defensive by the former one of extermination, and no quarter. Last summer, therefore, a well-organized campaign for completely wiping out the insurrectionary forces was resolved upon and put into execution. … A proclamation had previously been issued to the effect that all Koreans affording food or shelter to the insurgents, or in any way rendering assistance liable to involve a charge of complicity, would be summarily dealt with; while those who surrendered to the proper authorities would be pardoned. The message placed the people between the devil and the deep sea. If the natives refused assistance to the insurgents, obedience would be required of them at the point of the bayonet by their insulted fellow-patriots; while if they were suspected of thus acquiescing, they perished at the hands of the Japanese soldiery. Under the circumstances the Koreans naturally chose rather to die serving their own people than to suffer the same fate by resisting them."

A tragical incident of this fierce struggle was the assassination of Mr. Durham White Stevens, while visiting the United States. He had been marked for death by the Korean insurgents, and was slain by their emissaries, in March, 1908, soon after his landing in California.

The correspondent above quoted regarded the insurrection as having spent its force at the time of his writing, December, 1908. Against the enormous destruction of life and property which the suppression of it had cost, he proceeded to set a brief summary of the simultaneous constructive and reformative work which the Japanese had been carrying on. This was described more broadly, however, a little later, by a writer in the London _Times_, from whom we quote;

"The coasts have been lighted and buoyed; posts, telegraphs, and, telephones have been provided; roads and railways have been built; public buildings have been erected; various industrial enterprises have been started, as printing, brick-making, forestry, and coal-mining; model farms have been laid out; the cultivation of cotton has been commenced and promises to become a great industry; an industrial training school has been built and equipped; an exposition has been held in Seoul; sanitary works have been inaugurated; fine hospitals and medical schools have been opened; an excellent educational system modelled on that of Japan has been organized; waterworks have been constructed in several towns; and, last though not least, complete freedom of conscience has replaced the old anti-Christian bigotry."

In June, 1909, the veteran statesman, Prince Ito, was relieved of the trying office of Resident-General in Korea, and succeeded by Viscount Sone, who had previously served with him as Vice Resident-General. A Tokyo correspondent wrote of the change:

"It was first planned to appoint Viscount Terauchi, minister of war in the Japanese Cabinet, to the residency in Korea, but Prince Ito objected, pointing out to the ministers that the selection of Viscount Terauchi, a lieutenant-general, would be considered as a triumph for the military regime and an abandonment and disavowal of Prince Ito’s policy for the peaceful development of Korea. As usual, Prince Ito’s advice was accepted by his fellow statesmen, and Viscount Sone, who received his training in Korea under the administration of Prince Ito, was named to the post.

"A high officer said to-day that when the Korea residency was created it was incumbent upon Japan to send her most able statesman, Prince Ito, to fill the important post. He formulated his policy of administration without interference, and while some of the leading men of Japan were inclined to doubt the wisdom of that policy they are now virtually converted to his ideas, and it is generally believed that the feeling of confidence and friendship for Japan can be created among the Koreans and make the country doubly valuable."

Further changes in the administration of Korean affairs attended this official change. They were reported to the London _Times_ by its Tokyo correspondent, July 18, as follows:

"Japan has just taken some important steps in Korea, the occasion chosen being the simultaneous presence of the outgoing and the incoming Residents-General in Seoul. She has made arrangements for the establishment of a central bank under official auspices, and she has negotiated for the abolition of the two Departments of War and Justice. … The capital will be one million sterling in £10 shares, 30,000 of which shares will be allotted to the Korean Government, the remainder being offered for subscription in Korea and Japan. … An important feature is that all the bank’s officers will be nominated by the Japanese Government, though they may include Korean subjects.

{370}

"This being a purely financial measure which falls naturally into its place in the sequence of Japan’s protectorate programme has not attracted any special attention. Not so, however, the abolition of the Korean Department of Justice, and its replacement by a bureau in the Residency-General. The immediate effect of that change is to convert the Korean Courts of law into branches of the Japanese tribunals of justice. Korean laws will, of course, be administered—and their revision and codification cannot be accomplished in a moment—but all the occupants of the bench will be selected and appointed by Japan, and if competent Koreans cannot be found, or until they are educated, Japanese alone will be nominated. Japan is to bear the charges of this arrangement— namely, £50,000 annually. The innovation is not so radical as it appears at first sight. Already the assistant Judges in the principal Courts were Japanese subjects, so that what is now done is to extend the system rather than to alter it. …

"These things may be regarded as a definite step towards the reality of Japan’s control in Korea. There have been three distinct stages in her attitude towards her neighbour: first, the advisory stage; then the stage of subordinate administration; and finally the stage of well-nigh effective direction. The first stage was antecedent to the Convention of November, 1906. During that period Japan limited herself to tendering counsels which Korea adopted or rejected at will. The second stage was marked by assumption of entire authority in the realm of foreign affairs; entire authority in the domain of communications; practically entire authority in military and police affairs, and vicarious authority in the Departments of State by means of Vice-Ministers, in the field of justice by the agency of assistant judges, and in provincial administration by means of secretaries who ranked as assistant-governors. The third stage has just been inaugurated; military control has been made complete; judicial control has been made complete, and financial control has been made well-nigh complete. Very little remains to be done."

----------KOREA: End--------

KOSSUTH, Ferencz: Leader of the Independence Party in Hungary.

See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903; 1904; 1905-1906; 1908-1909.

KRATZ, Charles: Municipal "Boodler" of St. Louis.

See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

KRONSTADT: Revolutionary Disturbances. The treachery that defeated the Rising of 1906.

See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER), and 1906 (AUGUST).

KUANG-HSU: Emperor of China. His death.

See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).

KUENSAN HILL, CAPTURE OF.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).

KULTURKAMPF, The.

See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: PRUSSIA; A. D. 1904.

KURINO: JAPANESE MINISTER AT ST. PETERSBURG.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904.

KUROKI, General.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.

KUROPATKIN, General: In the Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.

KUYPER, REVEREND DR. ABRAHAM.

See (in this Volume) NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.