Chapter XCIV: Section 29 (14)

The legislation in other countries which followed the German
measure of 1896 was set forth briefly in a memorial from the
Belgian beet-root sugar makers, in February, 1897, to the
Belgian Chamber of Representatives, a translation of which was
transmitted at the time to the State Department at Washington
by the United States Consul at Ghent. Said that memorial:

"The fiscal system applied to sugar factories in force
[previously] in the various countries mentioned [was] chiefly
established by the following laws: Germany, law of May 31,
1891; Austria, law of May 20, 1888; France, law of July 29,
1884; Russia, law of July 13, 1891; Belgium, law of April 16,
1887; Holland, law of April 15, 1891, and preceding
legislation. Since the dates above mentioned, the basis
established in these various countries had undergone only
secondary modifications, rather local than international, and,
generally, of a nature to diminish the fiscal favors instead
of increasing them. From the point of view of competition
among the countries of Europe, a sort of peaceful stability
was thus acquired, resulting in a corresponding equilibrium in
the interior relations of each country between the rural and
industrial systems, as well as between the cultivator and
owner. This situation, slowly established, has, during the
last year, suffered the most serious disturbances. Important
modifications have been adopted by all our competitors, Russia
excepted; the latter, enjoying a special system, suffices
almost entirely for itself without having much to export, it
is, therefore, not necessary to give it special consideration.

"The modifications to which we allude are the following: In
Germany, the law of May 27, 1896, increased the export
bounties in the following proportions: (1) For raw sugar, from
30 cents to 60 cents per 220 pounds; (2) for white sugar, from
41 cents to 72 cents; (3) for refined sugar, from 48 cents to
89 cents. This is not meant to interfere with other measures,
notably the imposition of supplementary taxes, and the
provision by which a factory, under the penalty of having its
proportion of export bounties reduced, is, so to speak,
obliged to increase its output or at least to maintain it at
the same level, even under the most unfavorable circumstances.
Immediately afterwards, Austria, by the law of July 7, 1896,
took corresponding protective and defensive measures,
especially increasing from about $2,000,000 to $3,600,000 the
amount of public funds destined for export bounties. In
France, the Chamber of Deputies has just voted export bounties
even more important than those of other countries, amounting
to—(1) raw sugar, 68 cents per 220 pounds; (2) white sugar,
77 cents; (3) refined sugar, 87 cents. All these export
bounties are independent of the interior advantages accorded
in Germany and Austria, in various forms less tangible,
although not less real, and in France in the form of bonuses
upon the manufacture, which, in the official French
statistics, appear for sums varying from $1.16 to $l.54½ per
220 pounds, and which may be normally fixed at $1.35 per 220
pounds. Holland, in turn, has just revised its system, giving
from the beginning to its producers a bounty of $1.06½ per 220
pounds on raw sugars. It is an economic war to the finish
between rival nations, each desiring the ruin of the others,
which these measures unchain on the sugar interests of Europe."

_United States Consular Reports,
June, 1897, page 304._

{523}

The effect of bounty-payments is to enable the sugars-makers
of the country which pays them to sell sugar to foreign buyers
at a lower price than to buyers at home. Consumers in such a
country as England, where no sugar is produced, and where no
duties on imported sugar are levied, reap an enormous gain
from them, at the expense of the sugar consumers of the
bounty-paying countries. At the same time, the cane-sugar
growing colonies of England, especially those in the West
Indies, suffer from the competition which is made unnatural by
this method of governmental support. England, therefore, has
conflicting interests in the matter. The mass of her home
population, who are great consumers of "sweets," delight in
the continental bounties, which give them cheap sugar; while
her West India colonists, and the English sugar refiners, are
groaning under the hard competition they maintain.

In the bounty-paying countries the same conflict of interest
exists between beet-growers and sugar consumers, and
governmental attitudes on the question of adhering to the
bounties seem to depend on the relative strength, or political
weight, of the two bodies. Repeated attempts have been made to
come to an international agreement for their abolition or
modification. A general conference on the subject was held
without result in London, 1887; and another was undertaken in
June, 1898, at Brussels, on the invitation of the Belgian
government. The latter made manifest a strong desire to be rid
of the bounty-paying system, on the part of Germany,
Austria-Hungary, Belgium and the Netherlands. France was
willing to withdraw her direct bounties on the exportation of
sugar, but insisted on maintaining an internal system of taxes
which was said to have the real effect of a bounty. Russia,
likewise, would adhere to a domestic system of regulations
which had that effect. Great Britain declined to engage
herself to impose a duty on what was called "bounty-fed"
sugar, for the purpose of neutralizing the bounty, and so
placing that commodity on a footing of equality with its
rivals in her markets. Hence no agreement of common action
could be reached, and the Conference adjourned without result.
Continental consumers of sugar continue to pay a high price
for the prosperity of their beet-growers and sugar-makers; but
Englishmen, who have reveled in cheap "jams" at foreign
expense, are probably to lose that privilege, since the
exigencies of their Boer war expenditure have forced the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, at last, to introduce a duty of
4s. 2d. per cwt. on refined sugar in his budget for 1901. But
in his speech on introducing the budget, in the House of
Commons (April 18, 1901), the Chancellor expressed hopefulness
that the foreign sugar bounty might save England from a rise
in price for sugar, notwithstanding the tax. His remarks were
as follows:

"What is likely to be the effect on the price of sugar of the
imposition of a duty? In my opinion that is a very doubtful
question, because the price of sugar is not governed solely by
the ordinary conditions, but it is governed largely by the
bounty system. The great bulk of our imports of sugar come
from bounty-giving countries; and what is that system? Why,
Sir, it amounts to this, that the country giving the bounty
encourages the production of sugar within its borders, and at
the same time does its best to restrict the consumption of
sugar by its own people by every possible means, so that the
result is that there is an enormous surplus of sugar produced
which must find a foreign market, and which under present
circumstances can only find a market here. Therefore, it is
quite conceivable, unless, of course, a bounty-giving country
either reduced the area of their sugar production or lowered
their own excise duties on sugar for the benefit of their own
population—both of which would mean the abolition of the
bounty system—it is quite conceivable that the result of the
imposition of a tax on sugar here might be that, though at
first the price might go up and the consumption of sugar might
be consequently decreased, there would be such an influx into
this country of bounty-paid sugar that could not go anywhere
else that the price might be brought down. I merely put the
hypothesis to the Committee, because I think it is one that
ought to be considered by anyone who looks into this
question."

_London Times, April 19, 1901._

"The geographical poles of the sugar trade are now Great
Britain and the United States, and the two great areas of
production are the beet-sugar countries of the continent of
Europe and the cane-growing countries of the American and the
Asiatic tropics. These two areas of production have been in
active rivalry for the past thirty years, and out of this
rivalry have come some striking results. The first is, that
beet sugar controls the world's sugar market; for of the
8,000,000 tons that constitute the commercial supply of sugar,
about 5,000,000 are produced from the beet, and the price of
this portion of the supply practically determines the price of
the 3,000,000 tons of cane sugar also. Still more significant
results are the removal of Great Britain from her once
dominant position in tropical sugar production and the
elimination of France and Spain from the struggle for
leadership in the same line of enterprise, as economic
conditions have centered the cane-sugar trade and industry in
America. To-day the continental beet-sugar countries supply
the United Kingdom with seventy-five per cent. of its annual
sugar imports (2,500,000 tons), leaving only one-quarter to
come from the tropics. The United States, on the other hand,
has become the chief market for tropical sugar. …

"India and the United States exclude bounty fed beet sugar;
and the reciprocity treaties with the United States, by
favoring tropical sugar with a minimum duty, put a narrower
limit to beet-sugar development, now prospering under a
protective tariff and state bounties. The general effect of
these positive aids to trade, as well as of the negative
restraints, has been to encourage tropical enterprise in which
sugar plays a leading role. …

"As things stand now, Germany continues to control the world's
sugar situation—not because of any superiority over the
tropics in machinery, nor because of the advantages of fiscal
bounties over tropical resources of the soil, but because all
the natural advantages under the prevailing slipshod methods
of tropical cane cultivation are more than counterbalanced by
the scientific methods of European agriculture applied to beet
farming. When the tropics apply to the cultivation of canes
(which covers half of the cost of producing sugar) the same
degree of scientific attention that has been given to the
methods of manufacturing the canes into sugar, then—and not
until then—need the beet-sugar interests of Europe look to
their laurels, under the present conditions of the trade."

_J. F. Crowell, The Sugar Situation in the Tropics
(Political Science Quarterly. December, 1899)._

{524}

In the United States, the Dingley Tariff law of 1897 required
the Secretary of the Treasury to levy a special countervailing
duty on all bounty-fed sugar equal to the benefit derived by
the manufacturers of it from the bounty systems under which it
was produced. German and French sugars have had to bear such
countervailing duty, and it was exacted on Russian sugar for a
time after the passage of the Dingley Act; but the Russian
government succeeded in bringing about a suspension of it,
pending negotiations for a commercial treaty, which came to
nothing. It was the Russian contention, that the system
operating in that country for the benefit of the sugar
producers, by means of internal taxes which are not collected
on exported sugar, and by paternal regulations which control
prices in the domestic market, is not a bounty system, within
the meaning of the American law. (The full text of the Russian
law on the subject may be found translated in the
"Congressional Record," February 26, 1901, page 3335.) By
these arguments and by protracted negotiations the Russians
succeeded in keeping the door of the American market open to
their sugar, with no extra levy of duties, until February,
1901, when the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
arrived at the decision that he is required by the law to levy
and collect a countervailing duty or tax of 32 cents on each
pood (about 36 pounds) of Russian sugar imported into the
United States. The order to that effect, issued on the 12th of
February, gave great satisfaction to the American sugar-trust,
and more than equal dissatisfaction to other important
interests in the country, which are threatened by the danger
of retaliatory tariffs on the Russian side. The situation
produced is thus described in a Washington letter to the
"Tribune" of New York: "The iron and steel manufacturers have
been clamoring for the continued suspension of the
countervailing duty on Russian sugars. They have begun, they
say, to build up a market in Russia for American steel
products, and that market will be lost to them if Russia in
retaliation imposes maximum instead of minimum duties on steel
and iron manufactures. The steel industry all over the world
is threatened with a glut in production, and the American
manufacturers especially are keenly looking about for every
possible opportunity to dispose of an increasing surplus. They
deplore, therefore, the reimposition of the sugar duty, and
will help to fight for a reversal of Secretary Gage's action
by the Board of General Appraisers or by the courts. The
Secretary contends that the Russian scheme of encouraging the
sugar interest should be submitted for judgment to some legal
tribunal, and that in such an evident case of doubt it is his
duty to favor the Government to the extent of reimposing the
disputed duty. The case will go to the Board of General
Appraisers in New York, and then to the Federal courts, and a
final decision is, perhaps, two years off. Meanwhile the
German, French and other Continental governments have been
somewhat appeased, and the Sugar Trust has won a substantial
victory at the expense of the iron and steel consolidation.
Russia is disposed to resort to retaliatory decrees, and the
whole horizon is more or less clouded with threats of
commercial warfare."

The immediate consequence of the order of the United States
Treasury Department was a retaliatory order by M. De Witte,
the Russian Minister of Finance, issued four days later
(February 16), directing the collection of an additional
tariff of 30 per cent net upon American hardware, iron, steel,
boilers, pipes, forgings, castings, tools, gas and water
meters, dynamos, sewing machines, when such articles are of
American manufacture. This includes motors and machinery of
all kinds.

SUGAR TRUST, The.

See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY);
and SUGAR BOUNTIES.

SULU ARCHIPELAGO:
Acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the United States.
The Sultan's Government.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (MAY-AUGUST).

SUMER.

See (in volume 1)
BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;
(in volume 4)
SEMITES;
and (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1895.
Decision against the constitutionality of the Income Tax.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (APRIL-MAY).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1900-1901.
Hearing of cases involving questions concerning the status of
the new possessions of the United States.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900-1901.

SURGERY, Recent advances in.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: MEDICAL AND SURGICAL,
and CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS (X RAYS).

SUSA, Recent exploration of the ruins of.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: PERSIA.

SUWAROFF ISLAND:
Proposed annexation to New Zealand.

See (in this volume)
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).

SUZERAINTY:
The question between Great Britain and
the South African Republic.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1884-189-1;
1897 (MAY-OCTOBER); and 1898-1899.

SWAT VALLEY:
British India and the tribes of the.

See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1895 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER);
1897-1898; and 1901 (FEBRUARY).

SWAZILAND:
Administration assumed by the Transvaal Government.

See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (THE TRANSVAAL).

{525}

SWEDEN AND NORWAY:
Norwegian discontent with the union.

"The question of representation in foreign countries has now
convulsed Scandinavia for some years. A race of democratic
tendencies usually thinks more of its Consular than of its
Diplomatic Service, and Norway, in demanding immediate
permission to appoint her own Consuls, announces that she is
willing to leave for future consideration the subject of
separate Ambassadors for the two countries. Professor Harald
Hjärne crystallizes the reply of Sweden in the words: 'By
granting such a request we run the risk of our foreign policy,
and with it also our satisfactory relations with foreign
Powers, in fact, the whole external safety of our country,
becoming a mere ball for the Norwegian parties during their
contests for power.' However, the King, who is ever ready to
grant privileges to his Norwegian subjects, even when acting
against his better judgment, declared himself willing to
accede to the petition as to the Consuls, and to allow the
sister country to have the direct voice in the regulation of
foreign affairs which she has so long demanded, but only on
condition that she would contribute to the defence of the two
Kingdoms in proportion to her population. … Many leading
Norwegians declare that those who shout so loudly for a
revision of the Constitution are, after all, in the minority.
They argue that claims on Sweden are, for the most part,
merely advanced as a party cry, and that if a general appeal
were made to the country, the majority would pronounce,
without hesitation, in favor of a continuation of the Union to
the State which has given Norway, for the first time in her
history, a period of nearly a century of peace and
uninterrupted prosperity. …

"The Left support their plea for separate Consuls by pointing
out that the mercantile navy of Norway is far larger than that
of Sweden; they claim for it, in fact, that it is the third
largest in the world. A reply to this is that a large
proportion of this navy consists of old wooden sailing-boats,
unfit for any purpose but that of carrying timber, that Norway
has increased her mercantile navy at the expense of her
warships, and that in time of war she would have to depend
exclusively on the splendid modern battleships of Sweden for
the defence both of her harbours and her shipping, since she
is not now herself the owner of one single modern ironclad. It
may be mentioned, in connection with this matter, that the
exports and imports of Sweden are nearly treble those of
Norway, the timber trade of the former country alone being the
largest in Europe, and that it is in consequence of Sweden
leaving so much of her carrying trade in the hands of the
sister country, thereby contributing no little to her
prosperity, that she has been encouraged and enabled to
increase her merchant navy to such an extent. Sweden has
throughout the century made enormous sacrifices for her navy,
and especially has this been the case since King Oscar came to
the throne. She is, therefore, so far as can be foreseen, in a
position to defend both her own ports and her merchant
vessels. She does not, however, profess to be equal to the
task of protecting the long coast-line of Norway and that vast
fleet of merchant vessels, of which the land last named is
justly proud, without any aid whatever from the sister
country, and statistics prove that, however willing in an
emergency Norway might be, she would be unable to offer for
this purpose help that would be of any practical use. …

"In March, 1895, during the Consular crisis, King Oscar went
over to Christiania and did his utmost to effect a compromise.
Demands were made on him by the Extreme Left, to which he
could not consent, and he referred the Storthing to the Act of
Union proving that should he agree to the claim, he would
himself be guilty of a violation of the Constitution. Some
painful scenes ensued, and the King left Norway almost at
once. On his arrival in Stockholm he received an ovation such
as few Swedish monarchs can ever have had before. Every
distinguished man in the country seemed to have assembled at
the railway-station to greet him; each public body was
represented by its leading member, the whole of the Swedish
Parliament was present, and the fervour and enthusiasm with
which he was saluted is beyond description. The Press, without
a single exception, took the King's side, praising His
Majesty's action in most lavish terms; this produced more
effect than anything in Norway, where the Left had counted on
the support of the Radical Press in Sweden, not realising
that, when once there was a question of attacks on the Union
and the Constitution, all parties were equally prepared to
rally round the King. …

"In view of the strained relations between Sweden and Norway,
it may be said that Russia's encroachment on the liberties of
Finland is extremely ill-timed if, as is probable, she
contemplates offering her protection to Norway as she did to
the neighbouring country at the beginning of the century.
Even if no such extreme step on the part of Russia be in view,
should those among Norway's two million inhabitants who demand
separation, have their way, the country would be able to offer
the Imperial Government a splendid bribe as the price of its
non-intervention, for to the north of the territory of
Norrland lies the Varanger Fjord, an inlet including several
fine harbours, which is practically free from ice throughout
the year. This bay, so much coveted by the greater power, is
only separated from the Czar's dominions by a narrow strip of
Norwegian soil, which has already been crossed by a railway
constructed by Russia with the permission of Norway. The value
of this fjord to the Empire in time of war would be
incalculable, and to have this magnificent gift at its
disposal is a perpetual temptation to Norway to win the
suffrages of the only European Power she has reason to fear
should she ever hoist the flag of revolt she has so long held
half-unfurled in her hand."

_Constance Sutcliffe,
Scandinavia and her King
(Fortnightly Review, October, 1897)._

In 1899, an Act directing the removal of the emblem of union
from the flag of Norway was passed by the Norwegian Storthing
for the third time over the veto of the King, and became law,
under the provisions of the Constitution.

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

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894-1898.
The Initiative and the Referendum in practice.

Three times during the year 1894, with a conservative result
in each instance, important questions of legislation were
submitted to the vote of the Swiss people. In one instance
they were asked to demand that a portion of the federal
customs dues should be assigned to the cantons for cantonal
use, the avowed aim of the proposition being to weaken the
Confederation. They rejected the scheme by a vote of 347,491
against 145,270.
{526}
A still heavier majority was given against Socialist proposals
for a constitutional article guaranteeing the right of every
Swiss citizen to remunerated work. This was supported by only
75,880 votes, against 308,289. For another Socialist proposal,
of gratuitous medical attendance, the necessary petition (with
50,000 signatures) in order to bring it to a popular vote, could
not be obtained. A third, for extending factory regulations to
all shops in which manual work is done, and for establishing
obligatory trade syndicates, to fix salaries, prices, number
of apprentices, was lost by a vote of 135,713 against 158,492.

Again, in 1895, the result of appeals made to the Referendum
seemed to show that the disposition of the people was more
conservative than that of the government. An Army Reform Bill,
which enlarged the federal control of military administration,
was rejected by 270,000 votes, against 195,000. Two or three
other proposals of less moment were voted down by considerable
majorities, and it appeared unmistakably that changes dependent
on the popular will were not to be easily made.

In 1896 a proposal from the Federal Council to make the head
of the War Office commander-in-chief of the army in time of
peace was voted down, on a referendum, by 310,992 against
77,169. During that year there was much agitation of a project
for the establishment of a State Bank, which the Chambers had
sanctioned; but, on being submitted to the people, early in
1897, it was defeated by a majority of about 60,000.

Another measure, supported by the Federal Council and adopted
in the Chambers, for the purchase of the five principal
railways of the republic, was submitted to the decision of the
Referendum in February, 1898, and carried by 384,272 votes
against 176,002. Accordingly, the five railways known as the
Swiss Central, the Union, the Northeastern, the St. Gothard,
and the Jura Simplon, about 1,650 miles in total length,
became the property of the state. The general plan of the
government was to purchase the railways at twenty-five times
the average net annual earnings for the past ten years,
providing this was not less than the actual cost. The
companies to have the privilege of deducting surplus capital,
but to turn over the roads in first-class condition.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1897.
Constitutional amendments.

Consul Germain wrote from Zurich, July, 1897:

"Constitutional amendments were voted on and adopted by the
Swiss people on Sunday last, July 11. The first amendment
relates to forestry and gives the Federal Government control
over and power to enact uniform laws to regulate Swiss
forests. The second amendment puts the manufacture, sale, and
importation of food products under federal control. These two
amendments will relieve the cantons from vexatious
legislation, heretofore differing in each of the twenty
cantons and four half cantons, and give the whole of
Switzerland uniform laws on forestry and the manufacture,
sale, and importation of food products."

_United States Consular Reports,
October, 1897, page 296._

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

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1900.
Rejection of new electoral proposals.

On the 4th of November the Swiss nation gave its decision
regarding two important proposals which under the name of the
"double initiative" had been causing great excitement among
the population of the Confederation. One of these proposals
had for its object the election of members of the National
Council on the system of proportional representation, the
other the election of the Federal Council by the people. Both
proposals were rejected, the first by 242,004 popular votes to
163,548, and by 11½ cantonal votes to 10½, and the second by
264,087 popular votes to 134,167 and by 14 cantonal votes to
8.

SYRIA:
Exploration of ruined cities of the Roman province.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: SYRIA.

SZECHUAN.

See (in this volume)
CHUNG-KING.

T.

TA TAO HUI, The.

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

TACNA, The question concerning.

See (in this volume)
CHILE: A. D. 1894-1900.

TAGALOS, TAGALOGS, The.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.

TAGALOS:
Revolt against the sovereignty of the United States
in the Philippines.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and after.

TAKU FORTS, Allied capture of the.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE 10-26).

TALANA HILL, Battle of.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

TALIENWAN: A. D. 1895.
Russo-Chinese Treaty.

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

TALIENWAN: A. D. 1898.
Lease to Russia.

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

TALIENWAN: A. D. 1899.
Declared a free port.

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

TAMMANY HALL.

See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1894-1895;
and 1897 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

TARIFF, Chinese.

See (in this volume)
LIKIN.

TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Australia: A. D. 1894-1895.
Defeat of Protection in New South Wales.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA (NEW SOUTH WALES): A. D. 1894-1895.

TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Australia: A. D. 1901.
Promised protective policy for the new Commonwealth.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1901 (MAY).

TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Canada: A. D. 1897.
Revision of tariff, with discriminating duties in favor of
Great Britain, and provisions for reciprocity.

See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1896-1897.

TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Europe and America: A. D. 1896-1901.
The question of sugar bounties and countervailing duties.

See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES; and GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (MAY).

{527}

TARIFF LEGISLATION:
Germany: A. D. 1891-1899.
Recent commercial treaties.
Preparations for forthcoming treaties.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1891-1899.

TARIFF LEGISLATION: Germany: A. D. 1895-1898.
Demands of the German Agrarian Protectionists.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1895-1898.

TARIFF LEGISLATION: Germany: A. D. 1901.
Promised increase of protective duties.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).

TARIFF LEGISLATION: Japan: A. D. 1897.
New tariff law.

See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1897.

TARIFF LEGISLATION: Philippines: A. D. 1901.
New tariff for the Islands.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).

TARIFF LEGISLATION: Porto Rico. A. D. 1900
Tariff between Porto Rico and the United States.

See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900.

TARIFF LEGISLATION: United States: A. D. 1897.
The Dingley Tariff.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY);
and 1899-1901.

TARIFF LEGISLATION: United States: A. D. 1899-1901.
Reciprocity treaties.

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

TARIFF LEGISLATION: United States: A. D. 1900.
Relations of the tariff to steel and tin plate industries.

See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.

TASMANIA.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.

TEHUANTEPEC RAILWAY, The.

See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1898-1900.

TELEGRAPH, Cape to Cairo.

For the projected line of telegraph from the southern to the
northern extremity of Africa, Mr. Cecil Rhodes has undertaken
to find most of the needed money. He began construction from
the northern terminus of the Cape telegraphic service. In 1899
it was reported: "He has pushed the line northward through
Rhodesia to Umtali, in Mashonaland, which is 1,800 miles from
the Cape, and is pushing it on through Nyassaland to the
southern end of Lake Tanganyika, another 700 miles farther
north. The total distance to be covered is 6,600 miles. At the
same time the Egyptian government, under British auspices, was
pushing its telegraph system southward from Wady Halfa. Its
advance was intermittent, the erection of the telegraph poles
being necessarily dependent upon the pushing back of the
outposts of the Dervishes. Last autumn, however, the
destruction of the power of the Khalifa at Omdurman enabled
the Anglo-Egyptian authorities to reopen the long-closed
telegraph office at Khartoum. Khartoum being 1,300 miles from
Cairo, this reduces the distance to be spanned by the
telegraph wire to 3,500 miles; or, if we reckon Abercorn, on
Lake Tanganyika, as its northern terminus, only 2,800 miles.
It is being rapidly eaten into at both ends, more rapidly in
the south than in the north. Still nearly one-half of the
continent, and that the most difficult part, remains to be
crossed."

_W. T. Stead
(in McClure's Magazine, August, 1899)._

Soon after this was written, the South African War stopped the
progress of the work.

TELEGRAPHS, Submarine.

"The submarine telegraphs of the world number 1,500. Their
aggregate length is 170,000 miles; their total cost is
estimated at $250,000,000, and the number of messages annually
transmitted over them 6,000,000: All the grand divisions of
the earth are now connected by their wires, and from country
to country and island to island the thoughts and words of
mankind are instantaneously transmitted. … Adding to the
submarine lines the land-telegraph systems by which they are
connected and through which they bring interior points of the
various continents into instantaneous communication, the total
length of telegraph lines of the world is 835,000 miles, the
length of their single wires or conductors 3,500,000 miles,
and the total number of messages annually sent over them
365,000,000, or an average of 1,000,000 messages each day. In
the short half century since the practicability of submarine
telegraphy was demonstrated, the electric wires have invaded
every ocean except the Pacific. Nearly a score of wires have
been laid across the Atlantic, of which no less than thirteen
now successfully operate between the United States and Europe,
while three others span the comparatively short distance
between South America and the African and south European coast
lines. Throughout the Indian Ocean, lines connect the far East
with Europe and America by way of the Red Sea, the
Mediterranean, the western coast of Europe, and the great
trans-Atlantic lines. The Mediterranean is crossed and
recrossed in its entire length and breadth by numerous cable
lines, and the Mediterranean of America,' the Gulf of Mexico
and the Caribbean Sea, is traversed in all directions by lines
which bring its islands and colonies into speaking relations
with each other and with South America, Central America, the
United States, and thence with Europe, Africa, Asia—the whole
world. Along the eastern coast of Asia, cable lines loop from
port to port and island to island, receiving messages overland
from eastern Europe by way of the Russia-Siberian land lines
and forwarding them to Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand,
the Straits Settlements, Hongkong, and the Philippines, and
receiving others in return. South America is skirted with
cable lines along its entire border save the extreme south,
where they are brought into inter-communication by land lines.
Along the entire coast of Africa, cables loop from place to place
and from colony to colony, stretching along the entire
circumference and penetrating the interior by land lines at
various points. Every body of water lying between the
inhabited portions of the earth, with the single exception of
the Pacific Ocean, has been crossed and recrossed by submarine
telegraph lines. Even that vast expanse of water has been
invaded along its margin, submarine wires stretching along its
western border from Siberia to Australia, while its eastern
borders are skirted with lines which stretch along the western
coasts of the two Americas. Several adventurous pioneers in
Pacific telegraphy have ventured to considerable distances and
depths in that great ocean, one cable line running from
Australia to New Zealand, a distance of over 1,000 miles, and
another extending from Australia to the French colony of New
Caledonia, 800 miles seaward."

_United States Bureau of Statistics,
Monthly Summary, January, 1899._

TELEGRAPHY, Wireless.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.

TELEPHONE SYSTEM, Recent development of.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.

{528}

TELEPHONY, Dr. Pupin's improvement in long-distance.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.

TEMPERANCE.

See (in this volume)
references under LIQUOR SELLING.

TEMPLE LIBRARY, of ancient Nippur, The.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1897.
Centennial Exposition.

The centennial anniversary of the admission of Tennessee to
the American Union was celebrated by the holding of a very
successful exposition at Nashville, opening May 1, 1897.

TERESA URREA.

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

TESLA, Nikola: Electrical inventions and discoveries.

See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.

THREE AMERICAS RAILWAY, The.

See (in this volume)
RAILWAY, INTERCONTINENTAL.

THUTMOSIS I., The tomb of.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: EGYPT: NEW DISCOVERIES.

TIENTSIN.

"Tientsin is the most important city of northern China, being
located at the head of the Gulf of Pechili and but 80 miles
from the capital, Pekin, with which it is connected by water
and by a railway line. Another completed railway line runs
northeastwardly to Shanhai-kwan, and an elaborate railway
system is projected southward from this point through the
populous provinces of Shantung and Kiangsu to connect Tientsin
with Shanghai. In addition to these, the Grand Canal, the most
important of the great artificial waterways of China, has for
centuries connected Tientsin with the Yangtze-Kiang and
Shanghai. Its population is in round numbers 1,000,000."

_United States, Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Summary,
March, 1899, page 2194._

"Tientsin is situated at the junction of the Huei River
(sometimes called the Grand Canal) with the Peiho River, in
latitude 39° 3' 55" north and longitude 117° 3' 55" east. It
is distant from Pekin by road about 80 miles. Formerly, it was
a military station only, but towards the end of the
seventeenth century became a city of great importance. To-day,
it is the home of 1,000,000 people, with an annual import and
export trade aggregating 65,000,000 taels * ($42,250,000).

[* Consul Ragsdale values the haikwan tael at 65 cents;
the estimate of the United States Director of the Mint,
July 1, 1898, is 68.8 cents.]

… The growth of Tientsin within the past few years is most
astonishing. The mud holes and swamps of a few years ago have
been filled in; one, two, three, and even four story brick
buildings erected; streets macadamized, trees planted, gas
works constructed, and now pipes (from New York) for a very
elaborate and perfect water system are being laid—all due to
foreign enterprise. On the other hand, the Chinese authorities
have been seized with the spirit of progress, and to them is
due the building and furnishing of the Imperial Military
College, the Imperial University, arsenals for the manufacture
of guns and ammunition, a mint for the coinage of silver, and,
last but not least, 320 miles of a splendid railway. …

"The Imperial University was established in 1895 by its
president, Mr. C. D. Tenney (former United States vice-consul
at Tientsin), at the request of His Excellency Sheng Hsuan,
with the advice and approval of the Emperor. His Excellency Wu
Ting-fang, present Chinese minister at Washington, and Mr.
Ts-ai Shao-chin, member of Viceroy Wang's staff, were the
first directors. The university is divided into three
departments, viz, collegiate, preparatory, and railway. The
preparatory course covers four years, after which the students
enter the collegiate department, where they remain another
four years. At the end of the first year in the collegiate
department, the students are drafted into special
classes—civil, mining, and mechanical engineering, and law.
Each special branch is in charge of foreign professors,
assisted by Chinese professors. The railway department was
organized for the purpose of providing men for subordinate
positions in the railway service—draftsmen, engineers, station
masters, etc. The students are admitted to the various
departments by competitive examinations. The government of the
university is solely in the hands of the president and
directors, the former being responsible for the educational
work of the institution. Thirty students in each class are
supported by the Government and are bound to Government
service after their graduation. The present number of students
is 250, and the annual expenses are 60,000 taels ($39,000),
entirely borne by the Government. The president and four of
the five professors are citizens of the United States.

"The Imperial Military College was established by His
Excellency Li Hung-Chang, the viceroy of Chihli, in the year
1884. At the beginning, it was simply intended to give
employment to the German officers under contract with the
Government, but the necessity of training men in the arts of
war led the viceroy to memorialize the Throne in behalf of a
permanent military college. A suitable building was erected,
at a cost of 50,000 taels ($32,500), and the annual expense of
maintenance is about the same amount. The students are drafted
from the different military camps, and they are supported by
the generals under whom they were serving. After a two years'
course, they return to their respective commands as
instructors. The school is under the directorship of Taotai
Yint Chang, a Manchu, who received his military education in
Germany, and held a commission of lieutenancy in the Austrian
army. All the principal instructors are Germans, most of them
being noncommissioned officers."

_United States Consular Reports,
December, 1898, pages 550-552._

TIENTSIN: A. D. 1897.
Extension of British settlement.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).

TIENTSIN: A. D. 1900.
Capture by allied forces.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JULY).

TIGRIS, Valley of the:
Recent archæological exploration.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.

TIN PLATE INDUSTRY, in the United States.

See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.

{529}

TOCHI VALLEY, British-Indian war with the tribes.

See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.

Inclusion in a new British Indian province.

See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).

TOGOLAND: A. D. 1899.
State of German colony.

See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (JUNE).

TOGOLAND: A. D. 1900.
Demarcation of the Hinterland.

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

TOLEDO, OHIO: A. D. 1899-1901.
The election of Mayor Jones.

Importance was given to the municipal election of April, 1899,
in Toledo, Ohio, by the character of the chosen Mayor, Samuel
M. Jones. He had first made himself known as a manufacturer in
the city, by his dealings with his employees. The Golden Rule
was posted in his shops, as the law by which he expected his
own conduct and that of the men who served him to be governed,
and it was found that he consistently obeyed the rule. In
1897, the Republican party, needing a candidate for Mayor, put
him forward and elected him. In office, he served the people
so well and the politicians and the monopoly interests so
little to their satisfaction, that his party, obedient to the
latter, cast him aside and nominated to the Mayor's office a
more "practical" man. Mr. Jones, thereupon, was induced to
present himself as an independent candidate, on a platform
denounced as "socialistic," and was elected by more than
double the total vote cast against him, for the regular
candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties. In the
following November, Mr. Jones was put forward as an
independent candidate for Governor of Ohio, and was not
elected, but received something over 106,000 votes.

On the 1st of April, 1901, Mr. Jones was reelected Mayor of
Toledo for a third term, again as an Independent, and as a
champion of municipal ownership for all public utilities.

TONGA ISLANDS, The:
Renunciation of German rights to Great Britain.

See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.

TORAL, General:
The Spanish defense of Santiago de Cuba.

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

Surrender of Spanish forces in eastern Cuba.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY 4-17).

TOSKI, Battle of.

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

TOWER BRIDGE.

See (in this volume)
LONDON: A. D. 1894.

TRANS-MISSISSIPPI EXPOSITION.

See (in this volume)
OMAHA: A. D. 1898.

TRANS-SIBERIAN RAILWAY.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895;
and RUSSIA IN ASIA: A. D. 1891-1900.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, English royal declaration against.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).

TRANSVAAL, The.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL).

TRANSVAAL NATIONAL UNION, The.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1895-1896.

TRIADS, Rebellion of the.

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

TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION, The Permanent.

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.

The treaty of the Triple Alliance, or Dreibund, of Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Italy, formed in 1882 and renewed in 1887,
for common defense against France and Russia, expires in 1903.

See, in volume 5,
TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

Rumors of an intention on the part of Italy to withdraw from
the Alliance arose in the spring of 1901, and received some
color from a marked exchange of friendly courtesies between
Italy and France in April, when an Italian squadron was
entertained at Toulon, on the occasion of a visit from the
President of the French Republic to that city. But there seems
to be little reason to believe that any such action has been
determined by the Italian government.

TROCHAS.

A Spanish term applied to military entrenchments or fortified
lines.

See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897; and 1897-1898 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

TROY: Later researches on the site.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: TROY.

TRUST, The Sugar, and the Dingley Tariff.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1897 (MARCH-JULY); and SUGAR BOUNTIES.

----------TRUSTS: Start--------

TRUSTS:
Industrial combinations in the United States.

An "Industrial Commission," was created by Act of Congress in
June, 1898.

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

It submitted a preliminary report on the 1st of March, 1900,
on the subject of "Trusts and Industrial Combinations," from
which the following historical information is taken:

"The form of organization that has given them [industrial
combinations] their name 'trusts' was the one started by the
Standard Oil Trust in 1882, afterwords followed by the Whisky
combination—the Distillers and Cattle Feeders' Trust—and by
the Sugar Trust—the American Sugar Refineries Company. The
plan of that organization was as follows: The stockholders of
the different corporations entering the combination assigned
their stock in trust to a board of trustees without the power
of revocation. That board of trustees then held the voting
power of the stocks of the different companies, and was thus
enabled, through the election of directors, to control them
absolutely. In place of the stock thus received the trustees
issued trust certificates upon which the former holders of the
stock drew their dividends, these being paid upon the
certificates regardless of what disposition was made of the
plants of the different corporations. Owing largely to hostile
legislation and to the bitter feeling against the trusts above
named, these trusts, after some adverse decisions of the
courts, went out of existence, reorganizing as single
corporations in most cases, and none at the present time
remain.
{530}
A somewhat similar form of organization, however—the voting
trust—is found at times. In this form of trust the holders of
at least a majority of stock of a single corporation put their
stock into the hands of trustees for the purpose of voting it,
retaining for themselves all the privileges of drawing
dividends and making transfers. Such a voting trust has been
formed, it is claimed, in the case of the Pure Oil Company—an
organization of the independent oil interests—for the sake of
protecting a majority of the stock against purchase by the
Standard Oil Company. … As a form of corporate combination for
the sake of securing monopolistic control, the voting trust
does not seem to be now in vogue.

"The form of organization that seems most common at the
present time is that of the single large corporation, which
owns outright the different plants. A combination of this kind
is formed by the purchase of all of the plants of the
different corporations or individuals who enter into it, the
corporations then dissolving as separate corporations. Often
payments for the plants are made largely in stock of the new
corporation, so that many of the former owners maintain their
interest in the business. The affairs are then managed
entirely by the stockholders of the one corporation through
their board of directors, elected in the ordinary way. It is
usual for these larger corporations to choose a very liberal
form of charter.

"A third form of organization, which is in many particulars
quite like the original trust form, is that which has been
taken by the Federal Steel Company, by the Distilling Company
of America, and others. In this form the central company,
instead of purchasing the plants of the different corporations
which it is proposed to unite, simply buys a majority of the
stock, or possibly the entire stock of each one of the
corporations. The separate corporations keep in separate
corporate existence, but a majority of the stock being held by
the one larger corporation, its officers, of course, elect the
boards of directors of all of the separate corporations, and
in this way hold ultimately complete control. It is usually
true that the separate corporations manage their own affairs
practically independently, although they are furnished
information regarding the workings of the other establishments
in the combination through the central officers, and are
doubtless largely directed in their policy in this way.

"In the case of the Standard Oil Company, when the original
trust was dissolved, there were issued to the holders of trust
certificates proportional amounts of stocks of each of the
constituent companies, and since the trustees themselves had
held a majority of the certificates, they retained as
individuals a majority of the stock in each one of the
companies that had formerly been in the trust. The separate
corporations were named as separate corporations, but the
majority of the stock of all being held in the same hands, the
directors of the different companies were largely the same men,
and their affairs were managed in unison in substantially the
same way as had been the case before. The new Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey has recently been formed with the
intention of transferring the stocks of the different
corporations into the stock of the new company, so that when
the transfer has been finally made, one single corporation,
the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, will own outright the
property now owned by the separate companies which are
commonly known and mentioned together under the name of the
Standard Oil Company. This combination at present has no
formal unity. It has a practical unity as great as it will
have probably after the complete change into the New Jersey
company is effected.

"As most of the larger corporations have, within the last few
years, been organized in New Jersey, it will be worth while to
note the special advantages given by the corporation laws of
that State. The advantages that seem to be brought out most
clearly are:

First, taxation. The organization tax is considerably lower
than that of most of the States, while the annual tax is fixed
upon the amount of capital paid in, so that it is an
absolutely certain quantity and can be determined by anyone,
thus leaving no opportunity for corruption on the part of
either the corporation itself or of State officials. The rate
of the tax is moderate, and decreases as the amount of capital
increases.

Second. Perhaps a greater advantage is to be found in the
liberal form of the New Jersey charter. The amount of capital
is unlimited, the period of organization is unlimited, the
amount of indebtedness is not limited, the powers that are
granted to corporations are also practically unlimited, with
the exception that an ordinary business corporation is
forbidden to engage in banking. The Federal Steel Company
would have found it impossible to organize for the purpose of
engaging in the various enterprises which it has undertaken
had it incorporated in the State of Illinois or of
Pennsylvania. The same thing holds also with reference to the
American Steel and Wire Company.

Third. There is less liability on the part of the stockholders
than in several other States.

Fourth. The directors have also less liability. In case of
issuance of stock for property the judgment of the directors
is conclusive as to the value of the property taken, unless
there is evidence of fraud. Stock issued thus for property is
considered fully paid up, and the stockholders can not be held
further liable in case the property proves to have been taken at
less than its cash value. The directors are not personally
liable for the debts of the corporation if they fail to file
reports or to conform with certain other requirements. …
"During the past few years the total capitalization of the new
industrial combinations has reached an enormous sum, well into
the billions, and in many cases at least the nominal
capitalization of the corporations far exceeds the cash value
of their property. … Regarding most of the combinations
concerning which testimony has been taken the facts appear
quite clear. None of the witnesses believe that the Standard
Oil Company is on the whole over-capitalized, as compared with
the present value of the plants. Its opponents believe that
its profits are enormous on the capitalization. The witnesses
representing the Standard Oil Company itself, while admitting
very large profits and presenting no very definite facts
regarding the capitalization, still give the same impression
from their testimony. The American Sugar Refining Company
seems to be, beyond question, capitalized at a sum twice as
large at least as the cost of reconstruction of the plants
themselves. The capitalization was shown to be several times
the original capitalization of its constituent members. …

{531}

"Perhaps the clearest testimony on this subject of
capitalization came from the witnesses connected with some of
the iron and steel companies. The witnesses regarding the
tin-plate combination were in substantial agreement in stating
that the owners of most of the plants gave an option on their
plants at what they considered was the fair cash value,
although, owing to the good times and to the fact that, in
many cases, the industries were quite prosperous, the prices
were high. They were then given, by the promoter, the option
of taking this valuation of their property in cash, or of
taking instead the same amount in preferred stock with a like
amount of common stock added as bonus. … One of the witnesses,
at least, conceded that the total amount of stock thus paid
for the plants, since the cash option was taken in prosperous
times and included not merely the value of the plant but also
the good will of the running business, probably amounted in
some instances to three or four or even five times the cash
cost of the plants at that time. … Exactly the same system
seems to have been followed in the capitalization of the
National Biscuit Company, the National Steel Company, and the
American Steel Hoop Company. In all these cases there was a
clear understanding that the common stock represented simply
bonus or anticipated profits. …