Chapter XLI: Section III: of article 111 of the federal constitution is (9)

The new court-martial trial began at Rennes on the 7th of
August. When it had proceeded for a week, and had reached what
appeared to be a critical point—the opening of a
cross-examination of General Mercier by the counsel for
Dreyfus—M. Labori, the leading counsel for the defense, was
shot as he walked the street, by a would-be assassin who
escaped. Fortunately, the wound he received only disabled him
for some days, and deprived the accused of his presence and
his powerful service in the court at a highly important time.
The trial, which lasted beyond a month, was a keen
disappointment in every respect. It probed none of the
sinister secrets that are surely hidden somewhere in the black
depths of the extraordinary case. In the judgment of all
unimpassioned watchers of its proceeding, it disclosed no
proof of guilt in Dreyfus. On the other hand, it gave no
opportunity for his innocence to be distinctly shown.
Apparently, there was no way in which the negative of his
non-guiltiness could be proved except by testimony from the
foreign agents with whom he was accused of having treasonable
dealings: but that testimony was barred out by the court,
though the German and Italian governments gave permission to
the counsel for Dreyfus to have it taken by commission.
Outside of France, at least, the public verdict may be said to
have been unanimous, that the whole case against Captain
Dreyfus, as set forth by the heads of the French army, in
plain combination against him, was foul with forgeries, lies,
contradictions and puerilities, and that nothing to justify
his condemnation had been shown. But the military court, on
the 9th of September, by a vote of five judges against two,
brought in a verdict of Guilty, with "extenuating
circumstances" (as though any circumstances could extenuate
the guilt of an actual crime like that of which Dreyfus was
accused), and sentenced him to imprisonment in a fortress for
ten years, from which term the years of his past imprisonment
would be taken out.
{233}
Mr. G. W. Steevens, the English newspaper correspondent, who
attended the trial and has written the best account of it,
makes the following comment on the verdict, which sums up all
that needs to be said: "In a way, the most remarkable feature
about the verdict of Rennes was the proportion of the votes.
When it had been over a few hours, and numb brains had relaxed
to thought again, it struck somebody that on the very first
day the very first motion had been carried by five to two. The
next and next and all of them had been carried by five to two.
Now Dreyfus was condemned by five to two. The idea—the
staggering idea—dropped like a stone into the mind, and spread
in widening circles till it filled it with conviction.
Everyone of the judges had made up his mind before a single
word of evidence had been heard. The twenty-seven days, the
hundred-and-something witnesses, the baskets of documents, the
seas of sweat and tears—they were all utterly wasted. … The
verdict was, naturally, received with a howl of indignation,
and to endeavour to extenuate the stupid prejudice—that at
least, if not cowardly dishonesty—of the five who voted
against the evidence is not likely to be popular with
civilized readers. Yet it may be said of them in
extenuation—if it is any extenuation—that they only did as
almost any other five Frenchmen would have done in their
place. Frenchmen are hypnotized by the case of Dreyfus, as
some people are hypnotized by religion; in its presence they
lose all mental power and moral sense." The army chiefs had
had their way; the stain of their condemnation had been kept
upon Dreyfus; but the government of France was magnanimous
enough to punish him no more. His sentence was remitted by the
President, and he was set free, a broken man.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898.
State of the French Protectorate of Tunis.

See (in this volume)
TUNIS: A. D. 1881-1898.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April).
Lease of Kwangchow Wan from China.
Railway and other concessions exacted.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April-December).
In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May).
Demands on China consequent on the murder of a missionary.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MAY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May-November).
General Elections.
Fall of the Ministry of M. Meline.
Brief Ministry of M. Brisson, struggling with
the Dreyfus question.
Coalition Cabinet of M. Dupuy.

General elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held
throughout France on Sunday, May 8, with a second balloting on
Sunday, May 22, in constituencies where the first had resulted
in no choice. Of the 584 seats to be filled, the Progressive
Republicans secured only 225, so that the Ministry of M.
Méline could count with no certainty on the support of a
majority in the Chamber. It was brought to a downfall in the
following month by a motion made by M. Bourgeois, in the
following words: "The Chamber determines to support only a
Ministry relying exclusively on a Republican majority." This
was carried by a majority of about fifty votes, and on the
next day the Ministry resigned. It was succeeded by a Radical
cabinet, under M. Henri Brisson, after several unsuccessful
attempts to form a Conservative government. By announcing that
it would not attempt to carry out a Radical programme in some
important particulars, the Brisson Ministry secured enough
support to maintain its ground for a time; but there were
fatal differences in its ranks on the burning Dreyfus
question, as well as on other points. M. Cavaignac, Minister
of War, was bitterly opposed to a revision of the Dreyfus
ease, which the Premier and M. Bourgeois (now Minister of
Public Instruction) were understood to favor. M. Cavaignac
soon placed himself in an extremely embarrassing position by
reading to the Chamber certain documents which he put forward
as absolute proofs of the guilt of Dreyfus, but of which one
was shown presently to have been forged, while another had no
relation to the case. He accordingly resigned (September 4),
and General Zurlinden took his place. But Zurlinden, too,
resigned a few days later, when a determination to revise the
trial of Dreyfus was reached. The government was then exposed
to a new outburst of fury in the anti-Dreyfus factions, and
all the enemies of the Republic became active in new
intrigues. The Orleanists bestirred themselves with fresh
hopes, and the old Boulangist conspirators revived their
so-called Patriotic League, with M. Déroulède at its head. At
the same time dangerous labor disturbances occurred in Paris,
threatening a complete paralysis of railway communications as
well as of the industries of the capital. The Ministry faced
its many difficulties with much resolution; but it failed of
support in the Chamber, when that body met in October, and it
resigned. A coalition cabinet was then formed, with M. Charles
Dupuy in the presidency of the council, and M. de Freycinet as
Minister of War.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (June).
The Sugar Conference at Brussels.

See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (September-November).
The Nile question with England.
Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.

See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899.
Demands upon China for attacks on Missions in Szechuan.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899 (JUNE-JANUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899.
Demand on China for extension of settlement at Shanghai.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June).
Convention with England defining possessions in West
and North Africa.
The great Empire in the Sudan and Sahara.

See (in this volume)
NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (February-June).
Death of President Faure.
Election of President Loubet.
Revolutionary attempts of "Nationalist" agitators.
The Ministry of M. Waldeck-Rousseau.

Felix Faure, President of the French Republic, died suddenly
on the 16th of February,—a victim, it is believed, of the
excitements and anxieties of the Dreyfus affair. The situation
thus produced was so sobering in its effect that the
Republican factions were generally drawn together for the
moment, and acted promptly in filling the vacant executive.
{234}
The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies were convened in joint
session, as a National Assembly, at Versailles, on the 18th,
and Emile Loubet, then President of the Senate, was chosen to
the presidency of the Republic on its first ballot, by 483
votes, against 279 for M. Meline, and 45 for M. Cavaignac. At
the funeral of the late President Faure, which occurred on the
23d, the pestilential Déroulède and his fellow
mischief-makers, with their so-called "League of Patriots,"
"League de Patrie Française," and party of "Nationalists,"
attempted to excite the troops to revolt, but without success.
Déroulède and others were arrested for this treasonable
attempt. During some months the enemies of the Republic were
active and violent in hostility to President Loubet, and the
cabinet which he inherited from his predecessor was believed
to lack loyalty to him. On the 4th of June, while attending
the steeple-chase races at Auteuil, he was grossly insulted,
and even struck with a cane, by a party of young royalists,
the leader of whom, Count Christiani, who struck the shameful
blow, was sentenced afterwards to imprisonment for four years.
The Ministry of the day was considered to be responsible for
these disorders, and, on the 12th of June, a resolution was
passed in the Chamber to the effect that it would support only
a government that was determined to defend republican
institutions with energy and preserve public order. Thereupon
the Ministry of M. Dupuy resigned, and a new cabinet was
formed with much difficulty by M. Waldeck-Rousseau. It
included a radical Socialist, M. Millerand, who became
Minister of Commerce, and a resolute and honest soldier, the
Marquis de Gallifet, as Minister of War. The latter promptly
cleared the way for more independent action in the government,
by removing several troublesome generals from important
commands. The new Ministry assumed the name of the "Government
of Republican Defense," and offered a front to the enemies of
the Republic which plainly checked their attacks. M. Déroulède
and some of his fellow conspirators were brought to trial
before the Court of Assizes, and acquitted.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May).
New Convention with Siam.

See (in this volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (July).
Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (December).
Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial
policy in China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1900 (August-January).
Arrest and trial of revolutionary conspirators.

In August, 1899, the government, having obtained good evidence
that treasonable plans for the overthrow of the Republic had
been under organization for several months, in the various
royalist, anti-Semitic, and so-called "Patriotic" leagues,
caused the arrest of a number of the leaders implicated, the
irrepressible Paul Déroulède being conspicuous among them. The
president of the Anti-Semitic League, M. Guérin, with a number
of his associates, barricaded themselves at the headquarters of
the League and defied arrest, evidently expecting a mob rising
in Paris if they were attacked. Serious rioting did occur on
the 20th of August; but the government prudently allowed
Guérin and his party to hold their citadel until the ending of
the excitements of the Dreyfus trial; then, on the showing of
a serious determination to take it by force, they gave
themselves up. The trial of the conspirators was begun in
September, before the Senate, sitting as a high court of
Justice, and continued at intervals until the following
January. Déroulède conducted himself with characteristic
insolence, and received two sentences of imprisonment, one for
three months and the other for two years, on account of
outrageous attacks on the Senate and on the President of the
Republic. These were additional to a final sentence to ten
years of banishment for his treasonable plotting, which he
shared with one fellow conspirator. Guérin was condemned to
ten years imprisonment in a fortified place. The remainder of
the accused were discharged with the exception of one who had
escaped arrest, and who was convicted in his absence. The
trial, wrote the Paris correspondent of the "London Times,"
"showed how strange a thing was this motley conspiracy between
men who had but one common bond of sympathy, namely, the
desire to upset the Republic,—men from whom the Bonapartist,
another variety of anti-Republican conspirators, had held
aloof. The latter fancied themselves sufficiently represented
in the conspiracy by the plebiscitary party [of Déroulède]
whose accession to office would have been tantamount to the
success of Imperialism. … The condemnation of these
conspirators of varied aspirations proved that the Nationalist
party was a mere conglomeration of ambitions which would end
in every form of violence if ever the conspirators were called
upon to share the booty. The harm that they have already done,
even before they have made themselves masters of France, shows
that the danger which they constitute to their country is
infinitely greater than the danger with which it was menaced
by Boulangism, for then at least at the moment of victory all
the ambitions would have been concentrated round a single
will, however mediocre that will, and General Boulanger would
at all events have been a rallying flag for the conspirators
visible all over France. The Nationalism condemned by the
Court in its various personifications has not even a head
around which at the moment of action the accomplices could be
grouped. It is confusion worse confounded. If it succeeded in
its aims it could only avoid at home the consequences of its
incoherent policy by some desperate enterprise abroad. The
judgment of the High Court, by restoring tranquillity in the
streets, preserved France from the dangers towards which she
was hastening, and which were increased, consciously or
unconsciously, by auxiliaries at the head of the executive
office. But owing to the verdict of the High Court France had
time to pull herself together, to breathe more easily, and to
take the necessary resolutions to secure tranquillity. The
approach of the Exhibition imposed upon everyone a kind of
truce, and M. Déroulède himself, with an imprudence of which
he is still feeling the consequences, declared that he would
return to France when once the Exhibition was over."

{235}

In a speech which he made subsequently, at San Sebastian, his
place of exile, Déroulède declared that the "coup d'état"
prepared by his party of revolutionists for the 23d of
February, 1899, on the occasion of the funeral of President
Faure (see above), was frustrated because he refused, at the
last moment, to permit it to be used in the interest of the
Duke of Orleans. "The following day," he said, "between midday
and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, a mysterious hand had upset all
the preparations made, the position of the troops, their
dislocation, their order and the officers commanding them, and
the same evening Marcel Habert and myself were arrested." The
intimation of his speech seemed to be that the hand in the
government which changed the position of the troops and upset
the revolutionary plot would not have done so if the royalists
had been taken into it.

Soon after the conclusion of the conspiracy trials, the
superior and eleven monks of the Order of the Assumptionist
Fathers, who had appeared to be mixed up in the plot, were
brought to account as an illegal association, and their
society was dissolved.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1901.
The Newfoundland French Shore question.

See (in this volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Military and naval expenditure.

See (in this volume)
WAR BUDGETS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Naval strength.

See (in this volume)
NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January).
Elections to the Senate.

Elections to the French Senate, on the 28th of January,
returned 61 Republicans, 6 Liberal Republicans, 18 Radicals, 7
Socialists, 4 Monarchists, and 3 Nationalists. "The Radicals
are as they were. The Socialists have just gained an entrance
to the Senate, and to this they were entitled by the large and
solid Socialist vote throughout France. The great mass of
solid and sensible Republicans have not only held their
ground, but have increased and solidified their position. The
reactionaries, whether avowed Monarchists, or supporters of
the Déroulède movement, have made one or two merely formal
gains, but have really fallen back, from the point of view of
their pretensions, and the long list of candidates they put
forward. On the whole, we may fairly say that the solid, sober
Republican vote of France has proved that it is in the ascendant.
Once more, in a deeper sense than he meant, the verdict of M.
Thiers has, for the moment at any rate, been verified,—that
France is really at bottom Left Centre. That is to say, the
nation is for progress, but for progress divested of vague
revolutionary pretensions, of mere a priori dogmas as to what
Republican progress involves. In the main the nation seems to
have supported the Government in repelling the aggressive
attacks of unbridled Clericalism, and in rejecting the
pretensions of the Army to dictate French politics. On the
other hand, the mass of the French electors do not desire a
crusade against the Roman Catholic Church, and they do not
care for an indiscriminate attack on the French Army."

_The Spectator (London),
February 3, 1900._

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January-March).
The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (April-November).
The Paris Exposition.

The Paris Exposition of 1900, which exceeded all previous
"world's fairs" in extent and in the multitude of its
visitors, was formally opened on the 14th of April, but with
unfinished preparations, and closed on the 12th of November.
The reported attendance during the whole period of the
Exposition was 48,130,301, being very nearly double the
attendance at the Exposition of 1889. The total receipts of
money were 114,456,213 francs, and total expenditures
116,500,000 francs, leaving a deficit of 2,044,787 francs. But
France and Paris are thought to have profited greatly,
notwithstanding. Forty countries besides France took part in
the preparations and were officially represented. The number
of exhibitors was 75,531; the awards distributed were 42,790
in number. The buildings erected for the Exposition numbered
more than 200, including 36 official pavilions erected by
foreign governments. The ground occupied extended on each side
of the Seine for a distance of nearly two miles, comprising,
besides the quays on each side of the river, the Champ de
Mars, the Esplanade des Invalides, the Trocadero Gardens, and
part of the Champs Elysées.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Co-operation with the Powers in China.

See (in this volume)
CHINA.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (August).
Annexation of the Austral Islands.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRAL ISLANDS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (September).
The centenary of the Proclamation of the French Republic.
A gigantic banquet.

On the 22d of September, the centenary of the proclamation of
the French Republic was celebrated in Paris by a gigantic
banquet given by President Loubet, accompanied by his
Ministers, to the assembled Mayors of France, gathered from
near and far. Some 23,000 guests sat down to the déjeuner, for
which a temporary structure had been prepared in the Tuileries
Gardens. It was a triumphant demonstration of the culinary
resources of Paris; but it had more important objects. It was
a political demonstration, organized by the President of the
Republic, in concert with the Cabinet of M. Waldeck-Rousseau,
as a check to certain schemes of the Paris Nationalists,
against the government. It brought the municipal
representatives of the provinces to the capital to show the
array of their feeling for the Republic against that of the
noisy demagogues of the capital. It was a striking success.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (October).
Proposal of terms for negotiation
with the Chinese government.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December).
The Amnesty Bill.

With the object of making it impossible for the enemies of the
Republic to find such opportunity for a revival of the
dangerous Dreyfus controversy as any new trial of its issues
would give them, the French government, in December,
accomplished the passage of an amnesty bill, which purges
everybody connected with the affair, so far as legal
proceedings are concerned. The measure was strenuously opposed
by the friends of Dreyfus, Picquart and Zola, none of whom are
willing to be left unvindicated by law, nor willing to be
barred from future proceedings against some of the army staff.
It was also fought by the mischievous factions which wish to
keep the Dreyfus quarrel alive for purposes of disorderly
excitement.
{236}
The policy of the measure, from the governmental standpoint,
was thus described at the time it was pending: The Cabinet
"felt that this affair had done great injury to France, that
it was a dangerous weapon in the hands of all the conspirators
against the Republic, that no Court-martial would agree to
acquit Dreyfus, even though convinced of his innocence, and
that, in view of the futility of any attempt to secure an
acquittal, it was necessary to avoid danger to the Republic by
reopening the affair. France had already suffered irreparable
mischief from it. … The affair has falsified the judgment and
opinion of the army, so that it has no longer a clear notion
of its duty at home. In external affairs it is still always
ready to march to the defence of the country, but as to its
duties at home it is in a state of deplorable confusion. …
Considering that the Dreyfus affair has so armed the
adversaries of the Government that it cannot be sure of the
army in internal matters, the Cabinet, it is evident, could
not allow that affair to remain open and produce anarchy. On
the other hand, there was a prosecution pending against M.
Zola, who, it was clearly proved to all, was right in his
famous letter 'J'accuse.' There was a prosecution against
Colonel Picquart, who had sacrificed a brilliant future in the
defence of truth against falsehood. There was likewise a
prosecution against M. Joseph Reinach, who had accused Henry
of having been a traitor or the accomplice of a traitor. I do
not know how far Dr. Reinach had proofs of his allegations,
but these three prosecutions were so closely connected with
the Dreyfus case that, if they had been allowed to go on, that
affair, which was so dangerous to tranquillity, security, and
order, would be reopened. Now the Government will not at any
cost allow the affair to be reopened. The whole Amnesty Bill
hinges on this question. The Government agrees to amnesty
everybody except the persons condemned by the High Court, and
who continue to defy it. … It insists on these three
prosecutions being struck off the rolls of the Tribunals. This
is the whole question. Nothing else in the eyes of the
Government is essential, but it will not allow the further
serious mischief which would result from the reopening of the
affair. The Bill will not stop the civil proceedings against
MM. Zola, Picquart, and Reinach, but such proceedings do not
cause the same excitement as criminal prosecutions. If the
latter are stopped, the dangers occasioned by the confusion in
the spirit of the army will disappear, and it may then be
hoped that the excitement will calm down."

M. Zola protested vigorously against the Amnesty Bill, and, on
its passage, wrote an open letter to the President in which he
said: "I shall not cease repeating that the affair cannot
cease as long as France does not know and repair the
injustice. I said that the fourth act was played at Rennes and
that there would have to be a fifth act. Anxiety remains in my
heart. The people of France always forget that the Kaiser is
in possession of the truth, which he may throw in our face
when the hour strikes. Perhaps he has already chosen his time.
This would be the horrible fifth act which I have always
dreaded. The French Government should not for one hour accept
such a terrible contingency."

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December).
Award in the arbitration of French Guiana boundary
dispute with Brazil.

See (in this volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1900.

FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
The Bill on Associations.
A measure to place the Religious Orders under strict
regulations of law, and to limit their possession of property.

In a speech delivered at Toulouse on the 28th of October,
1900, the French Prime Minister, M. Waldeck-Rousseau,
announced the intention of the government to bring forward, at
the next session of the Chambers, a measure of critical
importance and remarkable boldness, being no less than the
project of a law (called in general terms a "Bill on
Associations ) for the stringent regulation and restriction of
the religious orders in France,—especially for the restriction
of their acquisition and ownership of property. Forecasting
the measure in that speech, he said: "The question is the
rendering free, and subject only to the common law, all the
associations which are in themselves lawful as regards the
safety of the State. Another object of the same Bill is to
cope with the peril which arises from the continuous
development in a Democratic society of an organism which,
according to a famous definition, the merit of which is due to
our old Parliaments, 'tends to introduce into the State under
the specious veil of a religions institution a political
corporation the object of which is to arrive first at complete
independence and then at the usurpation of all authority.' I
am filled with no sectarian spirit, but merely with the spirit
which dominated as well the policy of the Revolution as the
entire historical policy of France. The fundamental statute
determining the relations between the churches and the State
should be exactly applied so long as it has not been altered,
and we have always interpreted its spirit with the broadest
tolerance. But as things are now going, what will remain of
this pact of reciprocal guarantees? It had been exclusively
confined to the secular clergy owing hierarchic obedience to
their superiors and to the State and to questions of worship,
the preparation for ecclesiastical functions and preaching in
the churches. And, now, lo and behold, we find religious
orders teaching in the seminaries, the pulpit usurped by the
missions, and the Church more and more menaced by the chapel.
The dispersed but not suppressed religious communities cover
the territory with a close network, which has been evidenced
in a recent trial, and have been so bold as to defy the Church
dignitaries not accepting their vassalage. In pointing to the
peril of increasing mortmain threatening the principle of the
free circulation of property, it is sufficient to say that we
are influenced by no vain alarms, that the value of the real
property occupied or owned by the communities was in 1880 as
much as 700,000,000f., and that it now exceeds a milliard.
Starting from this figure, what may be the value of mortmain
personalty? Yet the real peril does not arise from the
extension of mortmain. In this country, whose moral unity has
for centuries constituted its strength and greatness, two
youths are growing up ignorant of each other until the day
when they meet, so unlike as to risk not comprehending one
another. Such a fact is explained only by the existence of a
power which is no longer even occult and by the constitution
in the State of a rival power. All efforts will be fruitless
as long as a rational, effective legislation has not
superseded a legislation at once illogical, arbitrary, and
inoperative. If we attach so much importance to a Law on
Association it is also because it involves the solution of at
least a portion of the education question. This Bill is the
indispensable guarantee of the most necessary prerogatives of
modern society."

{237}

This pre-announcement of the intentions of the government gave
rise, as it must have been intended to do, to a warm
discussion of the project in advance, and showed something of
the strength of the antagonists with whom its supporters must
make their fight. At length, late in December—a few days
before the opening of debate on the bill in the Chambers—the
attitude of the Church upon it was fully declared by the Pope,
in a lengthy interview which M. Henri des Houx, one of the
members of the staff of the "Matin," was permitted to publish
in that Paris journal. "After M. Waldeck-Rousseau's Toulouse
speech, and in presence of the Associations Bill," said the
Pope, "I can no longer keep silent. It is my Apostolic duty to
speak out. French Catholics will know that their father does
not abandon them, that he suffers with them in their trials,
and that he encourages their generous efforts for right and
liberty. They are well aware that the Pope has unceasingly
laboured in their behalf and for the Church, adapting the
means to the utility of the ends. The pilot is the judge of
the manœuvre at the bar. At one moment he seems to be tacking
before the tempest; at another he is bound to sail full
against it. But his one aim ever is to make the port. Now, the
Pope cannot consent to allow the French Government to twist
the Concordat from its real intent and transform an instrument
of peace and justice into one of war and oppression. The
Concordat [see, in volume 2, FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804]
established and regulated in France the exercise of Catholic
worship and defined, between the Church and the French State,
mutual rights and duties. The religious communities form an
integral part of the Apostolic Church as much as the secular
clergy. They exercise a special and a different mission, but
one not less sacred than that of the pastors recognized by the
State. To try to destroy them is to deal a blow at the Church,
to mutilate it, and to restrain its benefits. Such was not the
intent of the Concordat. It would be a misconstruction of this
treaty to declare illegal and to interdict whatever it was not
able to settle or foresee. The Concordat is silent as to
religious communities. This means that the regular clergy has
no share in the special rights and relative privileges granted
by the Concordat to the members of the secular ecclesiastical
hierarchy. It does not mean that religious orders are to be
excluded from the common law and put outside the pale of the
State. … There was no need of mentioning the religious
communities in the Concordat because these pious bodies were
permitted to live under the shelter of the equal rights
accorded to men and citizens by the fundamental clauses of
your Constitution. But if an exception is to be made to these
solemn declarations in the case of certain citizens it is an
iniquity towards the Church, an infraction of the intentions
of the negotiators of 1801. Look at the countries with which
the Holy See has signed no Concordat, and even at Protestant
countries like England, the United States, and many another.
Are religious communities there excluded from the liberties
recognized as belonging to other citizens? Do they not live
there without being harassed? And thither, perhaps, these
communities would take refuge, as in the evil days of the
Terror, from the iniquity of Catholic France! But since then
France has become bound by the Concordat, and she seems to
forget it. …

"Why does France figure to-day by the side of the great
nations in the concert of the Powers settling the Chinese
question? Whence have your Ministry for Foreign Affairs and
your representative in Peking the authority which gives weight
to their opinion in the assembly of plenipotentiaries? What
interest have you in the north of China? Are you at the head
there in trade and industry? Have you many traders there to
protect? No. But you are there the noblest champions of
Christian civilization, the protectors of the Catholic
missions. Your foreign rivals are envious of this privileged
situation. They are seeking to dispute your rights laid down
in treaties that assign to you the rôle of defenders of native
missions and Christian settlements. … Hitherto your
Governments had had a better notion of the importance of their
rights. It is in the name of treaties guaranteeing them that
they protested to me when the Chinese Emperor asked me to
arrange diplomatic relations directly with the Holy See. Upon
the insistence of M. de Freycinet, the then Minister, I
refused, so fearful was I that France might believe, even
wrongfully, that I wished in any way to diminish her prestige,
her influence, and her power. In the Levant, at
Constantinople, in Syria, in the Lebanon, what will remain of
the eminent position held by your Ambassador and Consuls if
France intends to renounce representing there the rights of
Christianity? …

"M. Waldeck-Rousseau, in his Toulouse speech, spoke of the
moral unity of France. Who has laboured more than I for it?
Have I not energetically counselled Catholics to cease all
conflict against the institutions which your country has
freely chosen and to which it remains attached? Have I not
urged Catholics to serve the Republic instead of combating it?
I have encountered warm resistance among them, but I believe
that their present weakness arises from their very lack of
union and their imperfect deference to my advice. The
Republican Government at least knows in what degree my
authority has been effective towards bringing about that
public peace and moral unity which is proclaimed at the very
moment when it is seriously menaced. It has more than once
thanked me. If the Pontifical authority has not been able
entirely to accomplish the union so much desired I at least
have spared no effort for it. Is there now a desire to
reconstitute the union of Catholics against the Republic? How
could I prevent this if, instead of the Republic liberal,
equitable, open to all, to which I have invited Catholics to
rally, there was substituted a narrow, sectarian Republic,
governed by an inflamed faction governed by laws of exception
and spoliation, repugnant to all honest and upright
consciences, and to the traditional generosity of France? Is
it thought that such a Republic can obtain the respect of a
single Catholic and the benediction of the Supreme Pontiff? I
still hope that France will spare herself such crises, and
that her Government will not renounce the services which I
have been able to render and can still render it.
{238}
On several occasions, for instance, and quite recently, I have
been asked by the head of a powerful State to allow disregard
of the rights of France in the East and Far East. Although
compensations were offered to the Church and the Holy See, I
resolved that the right of France should remain intact,
because it is an unquestionable right, which France has not
allowed to become obsolete. But if in your country the
religious orders, without which no Catholic expansion is
possible, are ruined and suppressed, what shall I answer
whenever such requests are renewed to me? Will the Pope be
alone in defending privileges the possessors of which prize
them so little?"

Of the seriousness of the conflict thus opening between the
French Republicans and the Roman Catholic Church there could
be no doubt.

The threatened bill was brought forward by the government and
debate upon it opened on the 15th of January, 1901. The most
stringent clauses of the measure were translated and
communicated to the "London Times" by its Paris correspondent,
as follows:

"II. Any association founded on a cause, or for an illicit
end, contrary to the laws, to public order, to good manners,
to the national unity, and to the form of the Government of
the Republic, is null and void.

"III. Any member of an association which has not been formed
for a determined time may withdraw at any term after payment
of all dues belonging to the current year, in spite of any
clauses to the contrary.

"IV. The founders of any association are bound to publish the
covenants of the association. This declaration must be made at
the prefecture of the Department or at the sub-prefecture of
the district which is the seat of the association. This
declaration must reveal the title and object of the
association, the place of meeting and the names, professions,
and domiciles of the members or of those who are in any way
connected with its administration. … The founders, directors,
or administrators of an association maintained or
reconstituted illegally after the verdict of dissolution will
be punished with a fine of from 500f. to 5,000f. and
imprisonment ranging from six days to a year. And the same
penalty will apply to all persons who shall have favoured the
assemblage of the members of the dissolved association by the
offer of a meeting place. …

"X. Associations recognized as of public utility may exercise
all the rights of civil life not forbidden in their statutes,
but they cannot possess or acquire other real estate than that
necessary for the object which they have in view. All personal
property belonging to an association should be invested in
bonds bearing the name of the owner. Such associations can
receive gifts and bequests on the conditions defined by Clause
910 of the Civil Code. Real estate included in an act of donation
or in testamentary dispositions, which is not necessary for
the working of the association, is alienated within the period
and after the forms prescribed by the decree authorizing
acceptance of the gift, the amount thereby represented
becoming a part of the association's funds. Such associations
cannot accept a donation of real estate or personal property
under the reserve of usufruct for the benefit of the donor.

"XI. Associations between Frenchmen and foreigners cannot be
formed without previous authorization by a decree of the
Conseil d'Etta. A special law authorizing their formation and
determining the conditions of their working is necessary in
the case, first of associations between Frenchmen, the seat or
management of which is fixed or emanates from beyond the
frontiers or is in the hands of foreigners; secondly, in the
case of associations whose members live in common. …

"XIV. Associations existing at the moment of the promulgation
of the present law and not having previously been authorized
or recognized must, within six months, be able to show that
they have done all in their power to conform to these
regulations."

Discussion of the Bill in the Chamber of Deputies was carried
on at intervals during ten weeks, the government defeating
nearly every amendment proposed by its opponents, and carrying
the measure to its final passage on the 29th of March, by a
vote of 303 to 220. Of the passage of the bill by the Senate
there seems to be no doubt. After disposing of the Bill on
Associations, on the 27th of March, the Chamber adjourned to
May 14.

----------FRANCE: End--------

FRANCHISE LAW, The Boer.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1899 (MAY-JUNE); and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

FRANCHISES, Taxation of public,

See (in this volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1899 (MAY).

FRANKLIN, The Canadian district of.

See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1895.

FRANZ JOSEF LAND: Exploration of.

See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1896;
1897; 1898-1899; 1900-; and 1901.

FREE SILVER QUESTION, The.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

FREE SPEECH:
Restrictions on, in Germany.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898; and 1900 (OCTOBER 9).

FREE TRADE.

See (in this volume)
TARIFF LEGISLATION.

FREE ZONE, The Mexican.

See (in this volume)
MEXICAN FREE ZONE.

FRENCH SHORE QUESTION, The
Newfoundland.

See (in this volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRENCH WEST AFRICA.

See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895;
and NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

FRIARS, Spanish, in the Philippines.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (NOVEMBER).

{239}

G.

GALABAT, Battle of.

See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.

GALVESTON: A. D. 1900.
The city overwhelmed by wind and waves.

"The southern coast of the United States was visited by a
tropical hurricane on September 6-9, the fury of which reached
its climax at and near Galveston, Texas, 1:45 A. M., on
Sunday, the 9th. Galveston is built upon the east end of a
beautiful but low-lying island some thirty miles long and six
or seven miles wide at the point of greatest extent, though
only a mile or two wide where the city is built. The pressure
of the wind upon the waters of the Gulf was so powerful and so
continuous that it lifted the waves on the north coast many
feet above the ordinary high-tide level, and for a short time
the entire city was submerged. … The combined attack of
hurricane and tidal-wave produced indescribable horrors—the
destruction of property sinking into insignificance when
compared with the appalling loss of life. The new census taken
in June accredited Galveston with a population of 37,789. The
calamity of a few hours seems to have reduced that number by
20 per cent. The loss of life in villages and at isolated
points along the coast-line will probably bring the sum total
of deaths caused by this fatal storm up to 10,000. The
condition of the survivors for two or three days beggars
description. The water had quickly receded, and all means of
communication had been destroyed, including steamships,
railroads, telephone and telegraph lines, and public highways.
Practically all food supplies had been destroyed, and the
drinking-water supply had been cut off by the breaking of the
aqueduct pipes. The tropical climate required the most summary
measures for the disposition of the bodies of the dead. Military
administration was made necessary, and many ghoulish looters
and plunderers were summarily shot, either in the act of
robbing the dead or upon evidence of guilt. …

"Relief agencies everywhere set to work promptly to forward
food, clothing, and money to the impoverished survivors. Great
corporations like the Southern Pacific Railroad made haste to
restore their Galveston facilities, and ingenious engineers
brought forward suggestions for protection of the city against
future inundations. These suggestions embraced such
improvements as additional break-waters, jetties, dikes, and
the filling in of a portion of the bay, between Galveston and
the mainland. The United States Government in recent years has
spent $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 in engineering works to deepen
the approach to Galveston harbor. The channel, which was
formerly only 20 or 21 feet deep across the bar, is now 27
feet deep, and the action of wind and tide between the jetties
cuts the passage a little deeper every year. The foreign trade
of Galveston, particularly in cotton, has been growing by
leaps and bounds."

_American Review of Reviews,
October, 1900, page 398._

GARCIA, General:
Commanding Cuban forces at Santiago.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).

GENEVA CONVENTION:
Adaptation to maritime warfare.

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

GEORGE, Henry:
Candidacy for Mayor of Greater New York, and death.

See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1897 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

GERMAN ORIENT SOCIETY:
Exploration of the ruins of Babylon.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA:
GERMAN EXPLORATION.

GERMAN PARTIES, in Austria.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

----------GERMANY: Start--------

GERMANY: A. D. 1891-1899.
Recent commercial treaties.
Preparations for forthcoming treaties.

"The new customs tariff of July 15, 1879 [see, in volume 4,
TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892] exhibited the
following characteristics: An increase of the existing duties
and the introduction of new protective duties in the interests
of industrial and agricultural products. The grain and wood
duties, abolished in 1864, were reintroduced, and a new
petroleum duty was adopted. Those on coffee, wine, rice, tea,
tobacco, cattle, and textiles were raised. Those on iron were
restored; and others were placed on many new articles formerly
admitted free. In 1885 the tariff was again revised,
especially in the direction of trebling the grain and of
doubling the wood duties. Those on cattle, brandy, etc., were
raised at the same time. The year 1887 saw another general
rise of duties. But, on the other hand, some reductions in the
tariff for most-favored nations came about in 1883 and in 1889 in
consequence of the tariff treaties made with Switzerland and
Spain. Other reductions were made by the four tariff treaties
of 1891 with Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Switzerland,
and again in 1892 and 1893, when like treaties were
respectively made with Servia and Roumania. Increases in some
duties took place in 1894 and 1895, such as those on cotton
seeds, perfumes, ether, and honey. … In consequence of the
higher price, rendered possible at home from the protective
duty, the German manufacturer can afford to sell abroad the
surplus of his output at a lower price than he could otherwise
do. His average profit on his whole output is made up of two
parts: Firstly, of a rather high profit on the sales in
Germany; and, secondly, of a rather low profit on the sales
abroad. The net average profit is, however, only an ordinary
one; but the larger total quantity sold (which he could not
dispose of without the foreign market, combined with the extra
low price of sale abroad) enables him to produce the commodity
in the larger quantities at a lower cost of production than he
otherwise could if he had only the German market to
manufacture for. He thereby obtains abroad, when selling
against an Englishman, an indirect advantage from his home
protection, which stands him in good stead and is equivalent
to a small indirect benefit (which the Englishman has not) on
his foreign sales, which is, however, paid for by the German
consumer through the higher sale price at home.

{240}

"The customs tariff now in force provides one general or
'autonomous' rate of duty for all countries, from which
deviations only exist for such nations as have tariff treaties
or treaties containing the most-favored-nation clause. Such
deviations are 'treaty' or 'conventional' duties. At the
present moment treaties of one kind or another exist with most
European powers (excepting Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal)
and with the majority of extra-European countries. So that,
with few exceptions, the German Empire may now be said to
trade with the world on the basis of the lower 'conventional'
or 'treaty' tariff. Most of the tariff treaties existing in
Europe expired early in 1892, whereupon many countries
prepared higher customs tariffs in order to be prepared to
grant certain concessions reciprocally when negotiating for
the new treaties. Germany, therefore, under the auspices of
General Caprivi, set to work to make a series of special
tariff treaties with Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and
Switzerland, which were all dated December 6, 1891. Later
additions of the same class were those with Servia in 1892,
with Roumania in 1893, and with Russia in 1894.

"Perhaps almost the greatest benefit conferred upon the
country by these seven tariff treaties was the fact of their
all being made for a long period of years and not terminable
in any event before December 31, 1903. This secured for the
mercantile classes the inestimable benefit of a fixed tariff
for most of the important commodities of commerce over a long
period of time—a very valuable factor in trade, which has in
this case greatly assisted the development of commerce. The
reductions in Germany granted by these treaties were not great
except on imported grains, and those in the various foreign
countries were not very considerable either. … The
preparations for the negotiation of the new commercial
treaties which are to replace those which expire on January 1,
1904, were begun in Germany as early as 1897. Immense trouble
has been and is being taken by the Government to obtain
thoroughly reliable data on which to work, as they were by no
means content merely to elaborate a new tariff on the wide
experience already gained from the working of the seven
commercial treaties of 1891 to 1893."

_Diplomatic and Consular Reports of the British Government,
January, 1899
(quoted in Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance
of the United States, January, 1899)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895.
The Emperor and the Social Democrats.
His violent and autocratic speeches.
Failure of the Anti-Revolutionary Bill.
Socialist message to France.

At the opening of the winter session of the Reichstag, in
December, 1894, the Emperor, speaking in person, declared it
to be "necessary to oppose more effectually than hitherto the
pernicious conduct of those who attempt to disturb the
executive power in the fulfilment of its duty," and announced
that a bill to that end, enlarging the penal provisions of
law, would be introduced without delay. This was well
understood to be aimed at the Social Democrats, against whom
the Emperor had been making savagely violent speeches of late.
At Potsdam, in addressing some recruits of the Foot Guards, he
had gone so far as to say: "You have, my children, sworn
allegiance to me. That means that you have given yourselves to
me body and soul. You have only one enemy, and that is my
enemy. With the present Socialist agitation I may order
you,—which God forbid!—to shoot down your brothers, and even
your parents, and then you must obey me without a murmur." In
view of these fierce threatenings of the Emperor, and the
intended legislative attack upon their freedom of political
expression and action, six members of the Social Democratic
party, instead of quitting the House, as others did, before
the customary cheers for his Imperial Majesty were called for,
remained silently sitting in their seats. For that behaviour
they were not only rebuked by the president of the Reichstag,
but a demand for proceedings against them was made by the
public prosecutor, at the request of the Imperial Chancellor.
The Reichstag valued its own rights too highly to thus gratify
the Emperor, and the demand was refused, by a vote of three to
one. His Imperial Majesty failed likewise to carry the
bill—the Anti-Revolutionary Bill, as it was called—on which
he had set his heart, for silencing critical tongues and pens.
The measure was opposed so stoutly, in the Reichstag and
throughout the Empire, that defeat appeared certain, and in
May (1895) it was dropped. The Emperor did not take his defeat
quietly. Celebrating the anniversary of the battle of Sedan by
a state dinner at the palace, he found the opportunity for a
speech in which the Socialists were denounced in the following
terms: "A rabble unworthy to bear the name of Germans has
dared to revile the German people, has dared to drag into the
dust the person of the universally honoured Emperor, which is
to us sacred. May the whole people find in themselves the
strength to repel these monstrous attacks; if not, I call upon
you to resist the treasonable band, to wage a war which will
free us from such elements." The Social Democrats replied by
despatching the following telegram to the Socialists in Paris:
"On the anniversary of the battle of Sedan we send, as a
protest against war and chauvinism, our greeting and a clasp
of the hand to our French comrades. Hurrah for international
solidarity!" Prosecutions followed. The editor of "Vorwärts"
got a month's imprisonment for saying the police provoked
brawls to make a pretext for interference; Liebknecht, four,
for a caustic allusion to the Emperor's declarations against
Socialism, and for predicting the collapse of the Empire; and
Dr. Forster, three, for lèse-majesté.

GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1899.
The Emperor's claim to "Kingship by Divine Right,"

A great sensation was produced in Germany by a speech
addressed on September 6, 1894, by the German Emperor to the
chief dignitaries and nobles of East Prussia in the Royal
Palace at Königsberg. The following are the principal
passages of this speech: