Chapter LVI: Section 4: provides that ‘Any difficulty or disagreement (7)

"In 1905 the grand jury made a thorough investigation of the
municipal administration and became convinced of the existence
of a wide-spread system of bribery and corruption. In its
report to the Superior Court, filed August 19, 1905, it
stated: ‘that wholesale and wide-spread violation of law is
open, notorious and flagrant; that it meets with the
acquiescence of the mayor; that it receives the approval of
the police commission; that it is aided, abetted and protected
by police officials. … We find that vice and crime have been
organized so systematically, and fostered with such vigilant
attention to detail, that nothing which business acumen or
political expediency could suggest has been neglected or
omitted.’ For lack of legal evidence, however, or the funds
with which to carry on an investigation for securing it, no
indictments in these matters were returned.

"The municipal election of 1905 gave to Ruef the control of
the Board of Supervisors as well as the administrative
departments of the city. The great upheaval in business
conditions produced by the earthquake and fire of April, 1906,
brought new and wealthier clients to his office. Evidence made
public in the later prosecutions goes to show that Ruef was
paid to secure from the Board of Supervisors for the United
Railroads permission to use an overhead trolley system for
operating its street cars instead of the cable system in use
before the fire; that the gas company had bribed the
supervisors to raise the price of gas from 75 to 85 cents per
thousand feet; and that the telephone companies had used the
same means to promote their interests.

"The work of securing the evidence upon which criminal
indictments could be based was performed by a few determined
men. Rudolph Spreckels, a young man of large fortune, came
forward with a pledge of $100,000 for the expenses of a
searching investigation. District Attorney William H. Langdon,
who had been elected on the same ticket with Schmitz,
announced that he would conduct the inquiry without regard to
party affiliations, and appointed Francis J. Heney, assistant
district attorney. A man of courage and devotion to public
honesty, Heney had gained distinction by the successful
prosecution of land frauds before the Federal courts in
Oregon. Heney requested and obtained the assistance of William
J. Burns, a detective in the United States Secret Service.

"Ruef and Schmitz were soon indicted by the grand jury,
charged with extorting money from restaurant proprietors.
During the progress of his trial Ruef changed his plea from
‘Not guilty’ to ‘Guilty.’ Judgment against him was delayed,
however, by the prosecution for the purpose of gaining
evidence against others. Schmitz was tried on a similar charge
and with the aid of testimony given by Ruef was convicted and
[July, 1907] sentenced to imprisonment for five years in the
state penitentiary.

"Meanwhile, some of the weaker supervisors having been caught
in a trap set for them by Burns, confessions of bribery were
obtained by the grand jury from fifteen out of eighteen
members of the Board. In return for these confessions the
district attorney entered into immunity contracts with the
supervisors, and became temporarily the directing power in the
municipal government. The office of mayor was declared vacant,
and Honorable. Edward R. Taylor, a learned and conscientious
man, a professor in the Hastings College of Law in San
Francisco, was appointed to the position. Gradually the whole
Board of Supervisors was replaced by honest and experienced
men.

"On the confessions of the discredited supervisors there
followed a large number of indictments against Ruef, Schmitz
and the various officers and employees of the public service
corporations concerned in corrupting the city government. By
May 25, 1907, the number of so-called ‘graft’ indictments was
137, against 19 persons. From collateral issues the number of
indictments later rose to 160. The indictments against a few
of the accused were subsequently dismissed. Five of the
original 19 accused persons had been put on trial one or more
times previous to January, 1910,—the expiration of the term of
office of District Attorney Langdon. These trials were carried
on with the utmost rancor on the part of opposing counsel. The
greatest difficulties were encountered in securing juries and
in several cases juries failed to agree. Throughout the
community and in the public prints there developed factional
division and bitterness. This factional hatred culminated in
acts of violence and terrorism. Two houses in Oakland, Alameda
County, one occupied, the other owned by James L. Gallagher,
former supervisor and lieutenant of Ruef, later a most
important witness for the prosecution, were dynamited and
nearly destroyed. For these crimes a culprit was discovered
and sent to the state prison for life by the courts of Alameda
County. On November 13, 1908, during the trial of Ruef on
bribery charges, Mr. Heney was shot from behind while at his
post in the court-room by a half-demented sympathizer with the
accused. A day later the assassin took his own life while in
jail. By the merest chance Mr. Heney’s wound proved not to be
fatal, and after a few months he returned to his duties.

"Even in the few cases in which convictions were obtained
judgment was arrested by appeals to the higher courts, which
uniformly resolved all technical questions in favor of the
accused. To the end of 1909, the record of these cases is as
follows:

"Number of indictments 160.

"Contracts of immunity 19.

"Tried and acquitted twice:
Tirey L. Ford, attorney for the United Railroads.

"Trials in which the jury disagreed:
Louis Glass, manager for the Pacific States Telephone Co.;
Tirey L. Ford;
Abraham Ruef;
Patrick Calhoun, president of the United Railroads.

"Judgments reversed by higher court,
Eugene E. Schmitz and Louis Glass.

"Plea of guilty nullified by higher court:
Abraham Ruef.

"Convicted, but appeals to higher court in progress:
Abraham Ruef and M. W. Coffey, a supervisor who broke his
immunity contract.

{442}

"Thus it is evident that the prosecution has so far failed to
punish extortion and bribery by criminal procedure. The real
results of the prosecution are to be found in the prompt
reform of the municipal government of San Francisco in 1907,
and, in a larger way, in an awakened public conscience and a
strengthened sense of civic duty. These results are not
limited to San Francisco, but are a part of the great work of
political regeneration in which the whole country is
concerned.

"The question of further efforts to secure convictions in
these ‘graft’ cases was made a political issue in San
Francisco by the candidacy of Mr. Heney for the office of
district attorney in 1909. That a large number of voters
considered such continued efforts useless or hopeless was
shown by his defeat by a decisive majority of 10,000 votes
against him."

The new Mayor placed at the head of the City Government by
this election was the nominee of the same Union Labor Party
which had seated Schmitz and his manager, Ruef, and it was
made plain that he represented the opposition to all that had
been done and attempted toward municipal reform.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: Spain: A. D. 1907-1909.
Municipal Reforms.

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

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: The Transvaal: A. D. 1909.
Introduction of Proportional Representation.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: United States:
The "Municipal Program," framed
by the National Municipal League.

"At the joint invitation of the City Club of New York and the
Municipal League of Philadelphia, a Conference for Good City
Government was held in Philadelphia in January, 1894. Out of
this conference grew the National Municipal League, formally
organized in New York City in May, 1894. The League includes
in its affiliated membership, the leading municipal reform
organizations of the country, and, in its associated
membership the leading students of municipal government. At
the annual meeting of the League in 1897 held in Louisville, a
special committee was appointed ‘to report on the feasibility
of a _Municipal Program_ which will embody the essential
principles that must underlie successful municipal government,
and which shall also set forth a working plan or system,
consistent with American industrial and political conditions,
for putting such principles into practical operation; and the
Committee, if it finds such _Municipal Program_ to be
feasible, is instructed to report the same with its reasons
therefor, to the League, for consideration.’

"The Committee appointed under this resolution made a
preliminary report at the annual meeting of the League held in
Indianapolis in 1898, and a final one at the annual meeting of
the League held in Columbus in 1899. The Committee did not
claim that its report constituted the final word upon the
subject referred to it, but its members were convinced, as a
result of their studies and investigations, that ‘_A
Municipal Program_’ which would embody the essential
principles that must underlie successful municipal government
was entirely feasible, and they recommended certain
Constitutional Amendments and a general Municipal Corporations
Act, as setting forth a working plan or system consistent with
American industrial and political conditions, for putting such
principles into practical operation. The Committee’s
recommendations were unanimously adopted by the League at its
Columbus meeting."

_Horace E. Deming,
The Government of American Cities,
page 203 (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York)._

As originally published, the "Municipal Program" has gone out
of print, but Mr. Deming, under an arrangement with the
League, has reproduced it as an appendix to his book, with an
explanatory discussion of it. The main objects sought in it
are "to clothe the city government with such broad powers as
will enable it to perform all the appropriate functions of a
local government without resort to the State Legislature for
the grant of additional power"; and to "prevent the
interference by the State Legislature with the free exercise
by the city of the governmental powers granted it." Beyond
this, the designers of the "Program" have worked out what
seemed to them the most effective plan of organization in
municipal government for the exercise of such full powers.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: WISCONSIN:
Organization of a Municipal Reference Bureau
by the State University.

Within the past year a Municipal Reference Bureau has been
organized in connection with the Extension Department of the
Wisconsin State University, its purpose being to offer the
widest possible use of the material on questions relative to
municipal government which the University has collected, by
answering inquiries. The Bureau is under the charge of Mr.
Ford H. MacGregor, and will work in cooperation with the very
useful Legislative Reference Department of the Wisconsin Free
Library Commission, which was organized a few years ago and is
still conducted by Dr. Charles McCarthy.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

See, also, (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES, AND SOCIAL BETTERMENT.

----------MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: End--------

MURRELL, J. K.:
Confessions.

See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: ST. LOUIS.

MÜRZSTEG PROGRAMME, The.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904, and 1905-1908.

MUSHIR-ED-DOWLEH.

See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1907-1908 (SEPTEMBER-JUNE).

MUSTAFA FAZIL PASHA.

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

MUTINY IN THE RUSSIAN NAVY.

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

MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY:
Legislative Investigation.

See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.

MUZZAFER-ED-DIN:
Late Shah of Persia.

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

MYTILENE, International Occupation of.

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

{443}

N.

NABUCO, DR. JOAQUIN:
President of Third International Conference
of American Republics.

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

NACIONALISTAS.

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

NAGEL, CHARLES:
Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

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

NAKAMURA, GENERAL.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).

NANSHAN, BATTLE OF.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY),
A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).

NAPOLEON I.:
Declining Worship of his Memory in France.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.

NASR-UL-MULK: PRIME MINISTER OF PERSIA.
His exile.

See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1907-1908 (SEPTEMBER-JUNE), AND 1908-1909.

NATAL.

See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA.

NATHAN, ERNESTO: MAYOR OF ROME.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1909.

NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION, The.

See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: UNITED STATES.

NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION, The:
Its notable Conference on Industrial Disputes.
Its great Committee for Intermediation and Conciliation.

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

NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION, The:
Its Intermediation in Coal Strike.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.

NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION, The:
National Conference at Chicago, 1907, on Trusts
and Combinations.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.

NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION, The:
Its work in Promotion of Trades Agreements.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908.

NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION, The:
Its work for Uniformity in State Legislation.

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

NATIONAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION.

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

NATIONAL FARMERS’ UNION.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.

NATURAL RESOURCES, The Conservation of.

See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

NATURALIZATION:
Convention between American Republics.

The following Convention was adopted and signed at the Second
Conference of the American Republics, at Rio de Janeiro, 1906.

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

"Article I.
If a citizen a native of any of the countries signing the
present Convention, and naturalized in another, shall again
take up his residence in his native country without the
intention of returning to the country in which he has been
naturalized, he will be considered as having resumed his
original citizenship, and as having renounced the citizenship
acquired by the said naturalization."

"Article II.
The intention not to return will be presumed to exist when the
naturalized person shall have resided in his native country
for more than two years. But this presumption may be destroyed
by evidence to the contrary."

"Article III.
This Convention will become effective in the countries that
ratify it three months from the dates upon which said
ratifications shall be communicated to the Government of the
United States of Brazil; and if it should be denounced by any
one of them, it shall continue in effect for one year more, to
count from the date of such denouncement."

"Article IV.
The denouncement of this Convention by any one of the
signatory States shall be made to the Government of the United
States of Brazil and shall take effect only with regard to the
country that may make it."

NATURALIZATION: In the British Empire:
Proposed Uniformity of Law.

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

NATURALIZATION: In the United States:
The Question of Treatment of Expatriated Citizens who
visit their Native Country.
The Principle asserted to Germany.
New Law of American Citizenship.-

Consequent on an increasing disposition in Germany to curtail
the revisiting of their native country by Germans who had
become naturalized citizens of the United States, the American
Ambassador to Berlin discussed the subject with the German
Foreign Minister, on the 12th of August, 1902, and reported
the substance of the conversation to Washington: "Statements
were made on the part of the embassy as follows: No sympathy
whatever is felt with the person who deliberately emigrates
and avails himself of the American naturalization laws for the
mere purpose of escaping military service in Germany, and
there is no wish on the part of the American authorities to
enable such persons to make a convenience of their American
naturalization. The embassy has also consistently declined to
intervene in behalf of persons whose wish was to make their
permanent residence in Germany. It is thought, however, that
where German emigrants have fulfilled the conditions necessary
to entitle them to ‘be treated as American citizens’ they
should actually be so treated, and when they have emigrated in
good faith they should be permitted to sojourn in Germany, for
their business or pleasure, to visit at their former homes, or
to enjoy the benefits afforded by German watering places,
etc., in accordance with the terms of the treaty with Prussia
of 1828. The sovereign right of Prussia to expel persons whose
presence is not considered desirable is not contested, but it
is thought that the American Government has the right to know
why the presence of any American citizen is so considered.

"Dr. Von Mühlberg’s attention was called to a number of cases
now pending, where naturalized American citizens have received
orders to leave the country after a stay of a few weeks. He
said that he would take the matter up personally and would
communicate with the Prussian minister of the interior in
regard to it at once."

{444}

In reply from the Department of State at Washington, the
action of Ambassador White was approved, and it was said
further: "You should lose no suitable opportunity to press and
to emphasize the considerations which you advanced in your
interview with Dr. Von Mühlberg. The essence of the right of
expulsion which the German States claim is that it should be
reasonably and justly applied in cases obviously calling for
so extreme a measure. Expulsion should not be invoked
indiscriminately, so as to operate as a deterrent to the
exercise of the rights of expatriation and acquisition of new
allegiance granted under the naturalization treaties, or so as
to neutralize, by indirection, treatment stipulated thereafter
regarding the recognition of the new national character."

_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of
the United States, 1902, page 441._

The doctrine of citizenship stated by Ambassador White on this
occasion was embodied subsequently in a new citizenship law,
which came into force on the 2d of March, 1907. The new law
was based on a report made by an official commission, one of
the members of which has written of it as follows:

"When a future historian shall write an account of the
achievements of this the most remarkable administration of our
government since the Civil War, he will give prominent place
to the naturalization law of a year ago and the citizenship
law which was approved last March and is now becoming
effective; for these two measures are the culmination of a
hundred years of effort for reform, and affect the very
foundation of our political structure. …

"So far as the naturalization law is concerned, the objections
to it come chiefly from petty courts throughout the country
which are now not permitted to naturalize, and which formerly
derived part of their prestige and their fees from
naturalization business. Dissatisfaction with the new
citizenship law flows from those people who have been living
abroad in fancied security of their American citizenship, and
who now find themselves obliged to take positive steps to
preserve a status which they have heretofore supposed attached
to them indefinitely, without the performance of any
obligations on their part. Both of these laws originated in
the House of Representatives, but each resulted from a report
made by executive officers, and the Senate can claim little
agency in them. The citizenship law was based upon a report
made to Secretary Root by a board of officers of his
Department, the members being James Brown Scott, the Solicitor
for the Department of State, David Jayne Hill, our Minister at
The Hague, and the writer of this article, with Samuel B.
Crandall, Ph. D., of the Department as Secretary. … From this
report sprang a bill, introduced in the House by the Honorable
James Breck Perkins of New York, which became a law on March
2nd.

"The law does not change or even modify the American doctrine
of citizenship. That was already settled by the Constitution
and the decisions of the Supreme Court. Anybody born in the
United States, no matter what his race, unless he is an Indian
living with a tribe, or however ineligible to our citizenship
he may be for any other reason, is a citizen of the United
States. …

"Broadly speaking, an individual becomes a citizen of the
United States by birth or naturalization, and these facts have
been well settled; but how does he lose American citizenship?
This was the question to which the citizenship board chiefly
addressed itself, and which Congress settled a few months ago
by declaring that an American shall be held to have
expatriated himself when he becomes naturalized as a citizen
of another country, or when he takes an oath of allegiance to
another state, or when he lives permanently outside of the
United States without intent to return. …

"We have had a constantly increasing number of so-called
American citizens living abroad—men who have lived in the
United States for only five years and in many cases have
fraudulently secured naturalization papers after less than
five years of residence; who never were really domiciled
there; who never have performed any of the duties of American
citizenship and who never intended to do so. … Until the new
naturalization law went into effect, it was not actually
against the letter of the law for a man to commit this fraud;
for, when he applied for citizenship, he was required merely
to show that he had resided in the United States for five
years, and no inquiry was made concerning his future
intentions."

_Gaillard Hunt,
The New Citizenship Law
(North American Review, July, 1907)._

NAVAL CONFERENCE, INTERNATIONAL, AT LONDON, 1908-1909.

_See (in this Volume)
War, The Revolt against: A. D. 1907
(appended to account of Second Peace Conference
at The Hague)._

NAVIES.

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

NAVIGATION LAWS:
Proposed British Imperial Policy.

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

NEERGAARD, M.: PREMIER OF DENMARK.

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

NEGRO PROBLEMS, IN THE UNITED STATES.

See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES.

NELIDOW, M.:
President of the Second Peace Conference.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.

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

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

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1902.
Offer of mediation between Great Britain and the Boers.

See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.
Laws against Railway Strikes.
Failure of General Labor Strike to prevent their Enactment.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1903.
Agreement for Settlement of Claims against Venezuela.

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

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1904.
Military operations against the Atchinese.

A Dutch military expedition against the long-insurgent natives
of the old Sultanate of Atchin, in Sumatra, which was said to
have carried death to a thousand women and children, gave rise
to stormy scenes in the Netherlands when its session was
opened in September. The excuse of the Government was that the
warriors used the women and children as shields.

{445}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.
Defeat and Fall of the Calvinistic Party of the
Reverend Dr. Kuyper.
The Suffrage and Education Questions.
The six principal Parties.
Success of the groups of "the Right" in the latest Elections.

Elections to the lower chamber of the States-General, held in
June, overthrew the Conservative majority in that body and
gave the Liberals a small majority of 4. An important issue
between parties had been on the question of universal
suffrage, but the support given to its advocates was not
strong enough to justify immediate attempts on their part to
carry any measure of law. A royal Commission was appointed,
however, to investigate and report generally on the need or
expediency of a revision of the Constitution. The defeated
Ministry of Dr. Abraham Kuyper represented an
ultra-Calvinistic Church element in politics, and its defeat
appears to have been due in the main to educational laws which
it had carried through. According to the Dutch review, _De
Gids_, from which the following has been translated, the
aim of the new laws and the objection to them were much the
same as in the English controversy over the Education Act of
1902, when church and clerical influences carried the day
against the supporters of secular schools. "These educational
laws," said _De Gids_, "were unanimously supported by, if
they did not wholly originate with, the clericals, or the
Anti-Revolutionary party, as they call themselves, of which
Dr. Kuyper is the astute and able leader and head. They had
the undivided support also of the Catholics, but were
strenuously opposed by the Liberals and all the
anti-clericals, including the Social Democrats. The
Anti-Revolutionists and Catholics on the one hand, and the
Liberals and their allies on the other, form, respectively,
the Right and Left in the Chambers."

Since 1905 there seems to have been little if any change in
the Dutch parties. On the approach of the quadrennial general
elections of June, 1909, a correspondent of the London
_Times_ wrote of "the complex grouping" of the political
parties contending in them: "There are six which may fairly
claim to be important. The largest is probably the Catholic.
It is estimated that a third of the population is Catholic by
religion, and of the Catholics a very large proportion belong
to the Catholic political party, and vote consistently in
accordance with the commands of its leaders. Next to the
Catholics come the strict Calvinists, who have been organized
by Dr. Kuyper into a compact and most formidable party,
generally called the Anti-Révolutionnaire party. It finds its
chief supporters among the rural population and the petite
bourgeoisie, and owes its name to the doctrine, sedulously
preached by Dr. Kuyper, that the Radical and Liberal parties
are fomenting an anti-religious revolution, and that it is
therefore necessary to choose between Christianity and
Heathenism. This doctrine is generally known as ‘the
antithesis,’ and, though its influence has waned somewhat in
the towns, it still has considerable influence in the country.
Closely allied to the Anti-Révolutionnaire party is the
Christlijk Historisch party, which is more aristocratic, but
less energetic, with many principles but no very definite
programme. It not infrequently speaks against the Calvinist
party, but as a rule joins it when it comes to voting.

"These three parties, Catholic, Anti-Révolutionnaire, and
Christlijk Historisch, form the Right. The Left is composed of
the Old and United Liberals, the Radicals or Vrijzinnige
Democraten, and the Socialists, representing all shades of
opinion from what in England might be called Whiggism to
extreme Socialism. The questions which really divide these
parties, as distinguished from the party cries on which the
election is being fought, are Clericalism and Socialism, and a
very large proportion of the electors are not quite sure which
enemy they most fear. There is no doubt that the
Anti-Révolutionnaire party and the Catholics represent two
forms of Clericalism, while the Socialists are openly
Collectivists. The other parties, with the exception of the
Vrijzinnige Democraten, can be better described as opposed to
the two extremes than as presenting any clearly marked
characteristics of their own."

The first balloting of this election took place on the 11th of
June and the second on the 23d. The Anti-Révolutionnaires came
out of it with 23, the Catholics with 25, the Christlijk
Historischs with 12, making 60 for the groups of "the Right";
against a total of 40 in the groups of "the Left." Of this
minority only 7 were in the ranks of the Social Democrats. Dr.
Kuyper was among the defeated candidates.

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

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

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1906.
The Second Peace Conference at The Hague convoked by the Queen.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, England, France, Germany, and Sweden,
for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1908-1909.
Trouble with Castro of Venezuela.

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

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1901-1902.
Census.
Reduced representation in Parliament.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1901-1902.

NEWCOMB, PROFESSOR SIMON.

See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION:
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION, AND AERONAUTICS.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902.
British Colonial Conference at London.

See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902-1905.
Negotiation and Senatorial Destruction of the Hay-Bond
Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

In November, 1902, a Treaty of Reciprocity which would have
settled the long-standing disputes over American rights of
fishing on the Newfoundland coast, on terms of most equitable
advantage to both countries, and especially favorable to the
interests of the general public in the United States, was
concluded and signed at Washington by Secretary Hay and the
British Ambassador, Sir Michael Herbert. The Premier of
Newfoundland, Sir Robert Bond, had taken a principal part in
the negotiation, and the resulting document was known
consequently as the Hay-Bond Treaty. It secured to the New
England fishermen the coveted privilege of buying bait and
other supplies and hiring crews in Newfoundland ports; and it
admitted the greater part of American manufactures into the
island duty free.
{446}
On the other hand, it opened the markets of the United States
to the fish and fish products, the coal, oil, and ores of
Newfoundland, for the benefit of the consumers of the country.
The treaty was hailed with satisfaction by the general public
of the United States, but opposed by a few interests whose
gains might be lessened if any breach in their monopoly of the
sale of salted fish and coal and oil should be permitted. The
majority which has seldom failed of late to be retainable in
the United States Senate for the service of such private
interests, against the public good, was promptly organized by
Senator Lodge, first for pocketing the Treaty throughout more
than two years, and finally for amending it to death, in
February, 1905. The provisions that made it advantageous to
Newfoundland were cut out, and it was reduced to a state which
made it insulting as an offer of reciprocity. It suffered the
fate which, in late years, is quite certain to befall any
project of real statesmanship that has to go through the hands
of the United States Senate.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1904.
Convention between England and France touching Fishery Rights.

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

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
Renewed Disputes over American Fishing Rights
on the Treaty Coast.
Arrangement of a Modus Vivendi.
Agreement on Questions to be submitted to a Tribunal
of Arbitration at The Hague.
Constitution of the Tribunal.

The endless friction that has attended the exercise of
treaty-rights by American fishermen in the Newfoundland
fisheries was freshly roughened in the fall of 1905, by a new
enactment of the provincial legislature, to prevent the sale
of bait or outfits and supplies of any nature to foreign
fishermen, and by orders from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries forbidding vessels of American registry to fish on
the Treaty Coast. This reopened debate between the State
Department at Washington and the Foreign Office at London,
over the intentions and meanings of that first article in the
Treaty of 1818 which has been a source of incessant dispute
for ninety-one years. The following is the language of the
article:

"Article I.
Whereas differences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed
by the United States, for the inhabitants thereof, to take,
dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays, harbours, and
creeks of His Britannick Majesty’s Dominions in America, it is
agreed between the High Contracting Parties that the
inhabitants of the said United States shall have, for ever, in
common with the subjects of His Britannick Majesty, the
liberty to take fish of every kind, on that part of the
southern coast of Newfoundland, which extends from Cape Ray
to the Rameau Islands, on the western and northern coast of
Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands,
on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts,
bays, harbours, and creeks, from Mount Joly, on the southern
coast of Labrador, to and through the Streights of Belleisle,
and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast, without
prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the
Hudson’s Bay Company. And that the American fishermen shall
also have liberty, for ever, to dry and cure fish in any of
the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of the southern part
of the coast of Newfoundland, here above described, and of the
coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion
thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said
fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion so settled,
without previous agreement for such purpose, with the
inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. And the
United States hereby renounced, for ever, any liberty
heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to
take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any
of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannick
Majesty’s Dominions in America, not included within the
above-mentioned limits: provided, however, that the American
fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbours,
for the purpose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein,
of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and for no other
purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as
may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing
fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the
privileges hereby reserved to them."

With reference to the present obstruction to American fishing
in Newfoundland waters, the contention of Secretary Root was
set forth in the following propositions:

"1. Any American vessel is entitled to go into the waters of
the Treaty Coast and take fish of any kind.

"She derives this right from the Treaty (or from the
conditions existing prior to the Treaty and recognized by it)
and not from any permission or authority proceeding from the
Government of Newfoundland.

"2. An American vessel seeking to exercise the Treaty right is
not bound to obtain a licence from the Government of
Newfoundland, and, if she does not purpose to trade as well as
fish, she is not bound to enter at any Newfoundland
custom-house.

"3. The only concern of the Government of Newfoundland with
such a vessel is to call for proper evidence that she is an
American vessel, and, therefore, entitled to exercise the
Treaty right, and to have her refrain from violating any laws
of Newfoundland not inconsistent with the Treaty.

"4. The proper evidence that a vessel is an American vessel
and entitled to exercise the Treaty right is the production of
the ship’s papers of the kind generally recognized in the
maritime world as evidence of a vessel’s national character.

"5. When a vessel has produced papers showing that she is an
American vessel, the officials of Newfoundland have no concern
with the character or extent of the privileges accorded to
such a vessel by the Government of the United States. No
question as between a registry and licence is a proper subject
for their consideration. They are not charged with enforcing
any laws or regulations of the United States. As to them, if
the vessel is American she has the Treaty right, and they are
not at liberty to deny it.

"6. If any such matter were a proper subject for the
consideration of the officials of Newfoundland, the statement
of this Department that vessels bearing an American registry
are entitled to exercise the Treaty right should be taken by
such officials as conclusive."

{447}

On the British side, Sir Edward Grey raised two principal
objections to these propositions of Mr. Root: First—that "the
privilege of fishing conceded by Article I of the Convention
of 1818 is conceded, not to American vessels, but to
inhabitants of the United States and to American fishermen;"
second, that "inhabitants of the United States would not now
be entitled to fish in British North American waters but for
the fact that they were entitled to do so when they were
British subjects. American fishermen cannot therefore rightly
claim to exercise their right of fishery under the Convention
of 1818 on a footing of greater freedom than if they had never
ceased to be British subjects. Nor consistently with the terms
of the Convention can they claim to exercise it on a footing
of greater freedom than the British subjects ‘in common with’
whom they exercise it under the Convention. In other words,
the American fishery under the Convention is not a free but a
regulated fishery, and, in the opinion of His Majesty’s
Government, American fishermen are bound to comply with all
Colonial Laws and Regulations, including any touching the
conduct of the fishery, so long as these are not in their
nature unreasonable, and are applicable to all fishermen
alike."

To the first of these objections Mr. Root replied;

"We may agree that ships, strictly speaking, can have no
rights or duties, and that whenever the Memorandum, or the
letter upon which it comments, speaks of a ship’s rights and
duties, it but uses a convenient and customary form of
describing the owner’s or master’s right and duties in respect
of the ship. … The liberty assured to us by the Treaty plainly
includes the right to use all the means customary or
appropriate for fishing upon the sea, not only ships and nets
and boats, but crews to handle the ships and the nets and the
boats. … I am not able to discover that any suggestion has
ever been made of a right to scrutinize the nationality of the
crews." As for the second objection, the American Secretary
appealed to history against it. "The qualification," he said,
"that the liberty assured to American fishermen by the Treaty
of 1818 they were to have ‘in common with the subjects of
Great Britain ’ merely negatives an exclusive right. Under the
Treaties of Utrecht, of 1763 and 1783, between Great Britain
and France, the French had constantly maintained that they
enjoyed an exclusive right of fishery on that portion of the
coast of Newfoundland between Cape St. John and Cape Raye,
passing around by the north of the island. The British, on the
other hand, had maintained that British subjects had a right
to fish along with the French, so long as they did not
interrupt them. The dissension arising from these conflicting
views had been serious and annoying, and the provision that
the liberty of the inhabitants of the United States to take
fish should be in common with the liberty of the subjects of
His Britannic Majesty to take fish was precisely appropriate
to exclude the French construction and leave no doubt that the
British construction of such a general grant should apply
under the new Treaty. The words used have no greater or other
effect. The provision is that the _liberty_ to take fish
shall be held in common, not that the _exercise_ of that
liberty by one people shall be the limit of the exercise of
that liberty by the other."

As between these chief disputants in the matter, the first
result of their exchange of arguments was a ready disposition
to arrange some _modus vivendi_, under which peace might
be kept on the fishing grounds until fresh undertakings could
be planned for a lasting interpretation of the old enigmas in
Article 1 of 1818. But the provincial Government of
Newfoundland resented bitterly the imperial interference with
its measures, charging that it was in violation of a pledge
"given by the late Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords in
1891, to the effect that the colony had been given unlimited
power with respect to its internal affairs." They were
promptly told, however, that what concerned action under a
British treaty went considerably beyond the internal affairs
of their colony.

Considerable correspondence on the terms of the proposed
_modus vivendi_ brought an agreement on the 6th of
October, 1906, set forth in the following communication from
Ambassador Whitelaw Reid to Sir Edward Grey.

"I am authorized by my government to ratify a _modus
vivendi_ in regard to the Newfoundland fishery question on
the basis of the Foreign Office Memorandum, dated the 25th
ultimo, in which you accept the arrangement set out in my
Memorandum of the 12th ultimo, and consent accordingly to the
use of purse seines by American fishermen during the ensuing
season, subject, of course, to due regard being paid in the
use of such implements to other modes of fishery, which, as
you state, is only intended to secure that there shall be the
same spirit of give and take and of respect for common rights
between the users of purse seines and the users of stationary
nets as would be expected to exist if both sets of fishermen
employed the same gear.

"My Government understand by this that the use of purse seines
by American fishermen is not to be interfered with, and the
shipment of Newfoundlanders by American fishermen outside the
3-mile limit is not to be made the basis of interference or to
be penalized; at the same time they are glad to assure His
Majesty’s Government, should such shipments be found
necessary, that they will be made far enough from the exact
3-mile limit to avoid any reasonable doubt.

"On the other hand, it is also understood that our fishermen
are to be advised by my Government, and to agree, not to fish
on Sunday.

"It is further understood that His Majesty’s Government will
not bring into force the Newfoundland Foreign Fishing-Vessels
Act of 1906, which imposes on American fishing-vessels certain
restrictions in addition to those imposed by the Act of 1905,
and also that the provisions of the first part of section 1 of
the Act of 1905, as to boarding and bringing into port, and
also the whole of section 3 of the same Act, will not be
regarded as applying to American fishing-vessels.

"It also being understood that our fishermen will gladly pay
light dues if they are not deprived of their rights to fish,
and that our fishermen are not unwilling to comply with the
provisions of the Colonial Customs Law as to reporting at a
custom-house when physically possible to do so."

To explain the stipulation relative to "purse seines" it
should be said that the New England fishermen claimed to be
driven to the use of them, by the local regulations which
hampered their fishing otherwise.

{448}

As formulated in the note of Ambassador Reid the _modus
vivendi_ was accepted by the British Government and went
into effect. In due time thereafter the two Governments
entered upon a discussion of ways and means for accomplishing
a definite and final settlement of the whole question of
American rights in the Newfoundland fisheries. The outcome was
an agreement signed at Washington on the 27th of January,
1909, to the effect that the following questions shall be
submitted for decision to a Tribunal of Arbitration,
constituted as subsequent articles provide:—

"Question 1.
To what extent are the following contentions or either of them
justified?

"It is contended on the part of Great Britain that the
exercise of the liberty to take fish referred to in the said
Article, which the inhabitants of the United States have for
ever in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, is
subject, without the consent of the United States, to
reasonable regulation by Great Britain, Canada, or
Newfoundland in the form of municipal laws, ordinances, or
rules, as, for example, to regulations in respect of

(1) the hours, days, or seasons when fish may be taken on
the Treaty coasts;

(2) the method, means, and implements to be used in the
taking of fish or in the carrying on of fishing operations
on such coasts;

(3) any other matters of a similar character relating to
fishing; such regulations being reasonable, as being, for
instance—

"(a) Appropriate or necessary for the protection and
preservation of such fisheries and the exercise of the
rights of British subjects therein and of the liberty which
by the said Article 1 the inhabitants of the United States
have therein in common with British subjects;

"(b) Desirable on grounds of public order and morals;

"(c) Equitable and fair as between local fishermen and the
inhabitants of the United States exercising the said Treaty
liberty and not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage
to the former over the latter class.

"It is contended on the part of the United States that the
exercise of such liberty is not subject to limitations or
restraints by Great Britain, Canada, or Newfoundland in the
form of municipal laws, ordinances, or regulations in respect
of

(1) the hours, days, or seasons when the inhabitants of the
United States may take fish on the Treaty coasts, or

(2) the method, means, and implements used by them in
taking fish or in carrying on fishing operations on such
coasts, or

(3) any other limitations or restraints of similar character—

"(a) Unless they are appropriate and necessary for the
protection and preservation of the common rights in such
fisheries and the exercise thereof; and

"(b) Unless they are reasonable in themselves and fair
as between local fishermen and fishermen coming from the
United States, and not so framed as to give an advantage
to the former over the latter class; and

"(c) Unless their appropriateness, necessity,
reasonableness, and fairness be determined by the United
States and Great Britain by common accord and the United
States concurs in their enforcement.

"Question 2.
Have the inhabitants of the United States, while exercising
the liberties referred to in said Article, a right to employ
as members of the fishing crews of their vessels persons not
inhabitants of the United States?

"Question 3.
Can the exercise by the inhabitants of the United States of
the liberties referred to in the said Article be subjected,
without the consent of the United States, to the requirements
of entry or report at custom-houses or the payment of light or
harbour or other dues, or to any other similar requirement or
condition or exaction?

"Question 4.
Under the provision of the said Article that the American
fishermen shall be admitted to enter certain bays or harbours
for shelter, repairs, wood, or water, and for no other purpose
whatever, but that they shall be under such restrictions as
may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing
fish therein or in any other manner whatever abusing the
privileges thereby reserved to them, is it permissible to
impose restrictions making the exercise of such privileges
conditional upon the payment of light or harbour or other
dues, or entering or reporting at custom-houses or any similar
conditions?

"Question 5.
From where must be measured the ‘3 marine miles of any of the
coasts, bays, creeks or harbours’ referred to in the said
Article?

"Question 6.
Have the inhabitants of the United States the liberty under
the said Article or otherwise to take fish in the bays,
harbours, and creeks on that part of the southern coast of
Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to Rameau Islands, or
on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from Cape
Ray to Quirpon Islands, or on the Magdalen Islands?

"Question 7.
Are the inhabitants of the United States whose vessels resort
to the Treaty coasts for the purpose of exercising the
liberties referred to in Article 1 of the Treaty of 1818
entitled to have for those vessels, when duly authorized by
the United States in that behalf, the commercial privileges on
the Treaty coasts accorded by agreement or otherwise to United
States trading vessels generally?"

Of the remaining articles of the Agreement, IV. and V. provide
for the determination of future questions that may arise, and
for the composition of the Tribunal of Arbitration, which is
to be chosen from the members of the Permanent Court at The
Hague.

The agreement above was formulated at a conference in
Washington between Secretary Root, Ambassador Bryce,
Honourable A. B. Aylesworth, Canadian Minister of Justice, and
Attorney-General Kent of Newfoundland. In March the following
were chosen from the general membership of the Permanent Court
at The Hague to constitute the Tribunal for this arbitration,
namely:
Dr. Luis Maria Drago, Argentina;
Jonkheer de Savornin Lohmnan, Netherlands;
Judge George Gray, United States; and
Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Chief Justice of Canada, with
Dr. H. Lammasch, of Vienna, to be umpire on points of
disagreement.

The case for the United States was delivered to the British
Embassy at Washington, and that for Great Britain to the
American Embassy at London, on the 4th of October. A little
later it was announced that the _modus vivendi_ of 1908
had been renewed until the termination of the arbitration
proceedings.

{449}

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1907.
Imperial Conference at London.

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

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1908-1909 (November-May).
Six Months of Political Deadlock.

From November, 1908, until the following May an extraordinary
deadlock resulted from a tie between rival parties in the
House of Assembly. The situation, as described by a
correspondent of the London _Times_, was as follows:

"Each side has 18 seats. Neither, therefore, can elect a
Speaker, much less undertake the control of public business,
when Parliament meets. Sir Robert Bond, who carried 32 seats
against 4 in 1900 and 30 seats against 6 in 1904, returns with
only half the House—18 men. In the former contests Sir Edward
Morris, who now leads the Opposition against him, had been a
member of his Cabinet and his ‘right-hand man,’ and the
November results prove that Morris’s withdrawal was a serious
injury to Bond. Morris went out a year or so previously owing
to a disagreement as to raising the rate of wages on public
works, and, being the leading Roman Catholic politician of the
Island, had 14 seats, of that creed, as a solid block in
Bond’s party during all this period. It was therefore felt,
when he resigned, that this ‘solid 14’ would be broken, and
this conclusion proved correct, because Morris carried half of
them in spite of the open and avowed hostility of many of the
priests in the diocese of St. Johns."

Sir Robert Bond retained the Prime Ministry until the end of
February, 1909, when, having failed to obtain a dissolution of
Parliament and a new election from the Governor, Sir William
Macgregor, he resigned. Sir Edward Morris then took office,
and the continued deadlock made it necessary, in a few weeks,
to command a dissolution and call a new election, which was
held on the 8th of May. It broke the tie of parties
effectually, Sir Edward Morris carrying 26 seats, against 10
filled by the partisans of Sir Robert Bond.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1909.
A Year of Misfortune and Depression.
Scant earnings from the Fisheries and from Whaling.
Attitude of the people toward Confederation with Canada.

"The Fisheries represent fully eighty per cent. of the
exports, and in order to understand the financial stringency
which has now fairly settled down upon ‘Our Cousin to the
East’ it must be borne in mind that while the catch of fish
remains about the same from year to year, the price has been
steadily increasing for the past ten years, until last year it
was double what it was a decade ago. But this year the price
has suddenly fallen to what it was at the beginning of the
decade. In other words, the value of last season’s catch will
be just about half what it was the season before; and, instead
of the merchants receiving $7,800,000 for their fish, they
will receive considerably less than $4,000,000; and the
individual fisherman who at the former price was barely able
to earn $350 will receive this year probably less than $175,
on which to support himself and family for the year, and to
provide himself with an outfit for the next season’s work.
Many of course will not receive that much. … Although other
industries are springing up in Newfoundland, the codfishery
remains the great staple and dependence of the population—the
vast majority of which are fishermen, born and bred, who do
not readily adapt themselves to other methods of earning a
living. The present depression is widespread and far-reaching,
and every form of industry and trade, business and commerce in
the Colony is suffering seriously thereby. The latest ill
report comes from Bay of Islands, to the effect that the
winter herring fishery on the west coast—the scene of the
present controversy with the United States—is a failure. Last
spring’s seal fishery was not up to the average, and owing to
many accidents to the fleet, necessitating heavy outlay for
repairs, the promoters have realized much less than they
otherwise would have secured. The whale fishery, also, which a
few years ago had assumed enormous proportions, and was
yielding handsome returns, has now almost reached the
vanishing point. To complete the sum of the Colony’s
misfortunes comes the partial suspension of [iron] mining
operations at Bell Island, during the winter months, at the
very time when the men need employment most, and when, as a
result of the lack of it, they will probably emigrate to other
countries.

"This combination of misfortune is not only causing distress
among all classes of citizens, but the government will also
keenly feel the loss of revenue; for a conservative estimate
of the reduction in the customs revenue for the current fiscal
year puts the figures at $450,000; in other words, that the
revenue will not exceed $2,000,000.