Chapter LVIII: Section 4: provides that ‘Any difficulty or disagreement (9)

The land system of New Zealand, as it was in 1895, is
described in Volume VI. of this work (see NEW ZEALAND). It has
since been carried farther on social-paternalistic lines, by
extensive expropriations or compulsory sales of large estates
to the Government, and by the institution of public loans of
capital to farmers at a moderate rate of interest. The
operation and result are thus described in a recent work:

"So far the government has lent to the farmers about
$20,000,000, but it has saved them $20,000,000 in interest,
because as soon as it came into the field with its cheap
loans, interest rates dropped everywhere. You see Shylock has
fled from these shores and will not return. The government has
never lost a cent in these loans. Reform proceeded next, with
a land tax graduated to an ascending scale, to discourage
land-grabbing, and land speculation; so that the more land a
man owns the higher is the tax-rate upon it. Thus for farms of
ordinary size the rate is two cents in every $5 of assessed
valuation; but on estates of more than $25,000 the rate
increases in regular ratio to the maximum of six cents for
every $5, except for absentee owners. They must pay fifty per
cent. more than residents. You can see that in New Zealand the
chance for fine old families and landed gentry is slim. No
doubt the theory of these things is extremely reprehensible,
but the practice is excellent. What with seizing the big
estates, and what with the graduated land tax, the size of
holdings has been so reduced that of 115,713 landowners in
1905 only 22,778 came under the operations of the augmented
land tax. The others, having small properties, paid the
smallest rate. Under the land purchase act the government has
seized 691,594 acres, mostly hunting fields and uncultivated
family inheritances. These have been partitioned into small
farms and are occupied by actual settlers. Under the operation
of all the new land laws together, the produce of New Zealand
has trebled, and the New Zealand farmer has become the most
prosperous in the world."

_Charles E. Russell,
The Uprising of the Many,
chapter 29
(copyright, 1907, by Doubleday, Page & Co., New York, 1907)._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1906.
The Democratizing of Competition.
Labor Group Coöperation.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1906-1909.
The Liberal Party and the Liberal Ministry.
Their years of Great Power.
Their Strength shaken in the latest Election.
Its Method and Result.
The new Ministry of Sir Joseph Ward.

In June, 1906, the Liberal Party in New Zealand experienced a
great loss, in the death of Mr. Richard J. Seddon, its strong
leader, and the Prime Minister of Government for some time
past. His place was taken temporarily by Mr. Hall-Jones, until
Sir Joseph Ward, then absent from the country, returned and
received the chief ministerial seat. Since 1893 the Liberal
Party had derived large majorities in Parliament from each
triennial election. The Liberal Administration had advanced
accordingly, says a recent letter to the London _Times_,
"under the banner of labour legislation, new land laws, and
State Socialism, and was strengthened in its position by the
general prosperity of the country and the expenditure of large
sums of borrowed money upon public works. At the end of last
Session, it was still at the head of affairs with a majority
(including the four Maori members) of no fewer than 46.

"In the meantime, however, the guiding hand of Mr. Seddon, the
great apostle of New Zealand democracy, had been removed from
the scene, the harsh working of the Compulsory Arbitration Act
had begun to alienate the sympathies of both employers and
workers; the anti-freehold tendencies of the present
Administration were effecting a change of feeling in the
country constituencies, and the drop in the prices of some of
our staple products, combined with the stringency in the local
money market, began to act as a check on our commercial
prosperity. Finally, the Government made some tactical
blunders." Hence the Opposition, at the Parliamentary election
of November, 1908, was greatly strengthened, though the
ascendancy of the Liberals was still maintained. The conduct
of the election and its result are described by the
correspondent already quoted, as follows: "An election in New
Zealand is conducted in a most orderly manner. The
distribution of literature, the wearing of badges, and any
touting for votes from electors on their way to the polls or
in front of the polling booths are strictly prohibited by law.
A half-holiday has to be observed in shops and offices, and
factory owners must allow their _employés_ time off to
vote. The publichouses remain closed from noon until the polls
are closed, the closing hour being in the country 6 P. M., and
in the cities 7 P. M. Time was, in the very early days, when
the polling booths were in some cases located between two
drinking saloons that did a roaring trade, and the result was
much loud disputation, bad language, and fighting. Nowadays
all that is changed, and women can walk into the polling
booths with complete unconcern. For the 76 seats 213
candidates had been nominated. Of these 114 claimed to be
Ministerialists and 52 Oppositionists, while 46 were
Independents, among whom were a few Socialists and Independent
Labourites. The result of the first ballot was that 34
Government supporters, 16 Opposition candidates, and three
Independents were elected by absolute majorities. In 23
constituencies the candidates at the head of the poll failed
to secure absolute majorities of the total votes polled, and
it became necessary to hold second ballots, the number of
these being practically double what was estimated by the Prime
Minister. … Twenty-two of these were held a week later, and
resulted in a further strengthening of the Opposition party.
One—in a widely scattered country constituency—has yet to be
held. The Government secured 12 of the seats, the Opposition
nine, and Independent Labour one. …

"The result of the elections, as a whole, is greatly to
strengthen the Opposition, and correspondingly to weaken the
Government. The next most noticeable feature about it is the
unusual change it has made in the _personnel_ of the
House of Representatives. While not a single Opposition member
of the last Parliament who stood has lost his seat, no fewer
than 17 followers of the Ministry have been relegated to
private life; while the new Parliament will contain 27 new
members out of 76.
{459}
The position of parties, with one second ballot yet to be
decided, is—Government, 45; Opposition, 25; Independent, 4;
Independent Labour, 1. At the end of last Session (excluding
Maori members) the Government were 59 strong, while the
Opposition, including one Independent, numbered only 17. Thus,
whereas in the last Parliament the Government could reckon on
a majority of 42, they cannot now be absolutely sure of a
majority of more than 15 of the European members on certain
issues. There are four Maori members still to be elected, and
as these generally vote with the party in power the assured
Ministerial majority will be 19. This should be amply
sufficient to enable Sir Joseph Ward to continue in power for
the full term of the Parliament—three years."

Early in January, 1909, the Ministry was reconstructed, the
Premier, Sir Joseph Ward, burdening himself with the
portfolios of Finance, Defence, Lands, Agriculture, and the
Post Office. This was said to be made necessary by the
inexperience in office of the new Ministers whom he called to
his side.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1907 (April-May).
Imperial Conference at London.

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

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
Working of the Compulsory Arbitration Law.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: NEW ZEALAND.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1908.
Population.

The population of the Dominion of New Zealand on December 31,
1908, was estimated as follows:
Europeans 960,000;
Maoris, 49,000;
Cook Islanders, 12,000.
There was an increase of Europeans during the year of 31,000,
being at the rate of 3.36 percent. The excess of immigration
over departures was 14,000—a record; while the natural
increase was 17,000. The death-rate was 9.57 per thousand, as
compared with 10.95 in 1907; and the birth-rate was 27.45 per
thousand, as compared with 27.30.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Labor Strike caused by Legislation making "Miners’ Disease"
a ground of Compensation from Employers.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909.
Announcement of Railway-Building Policy.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: NEW ZEALAND.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909.
Act establishing compulsory Military Training.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY: NEW ZEALAND.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909.
The Prime Minister’s testimony to the good working
of Woman Suffrage.

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

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1909 (July-August).
Imperial Defence Conference.
Offer of a "Dreadnought" to the Imperial Navy.

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

NIAGARA FALLS:
Preservation of their "Scenic Grandeur."

An Act of Congress, designed "to preserve the scenic grandeur"
of Niagara Falls, approved in June, 1906, authorized the
Secretary of War to grant permits for the diversion of water
for the creation of power to an aggregate amount not exceeding
15,600 cubic feet a second, and to grant permits for the
transmission of power from Canada to an aggregate quantity not
exceeding 160,000 horsepower. The then Secretary of War, Mr.
Taft, since elected President of the United States, after
careful investigations and hearings, granted permits for the
diversion of the maximum amount of water under the act and for
the admission of the maximum quantity of power. In reporting
his decision Mr. Taft explained why he believed that the
diversion authorized could be made without harm to the Falls:
"I have reached," he said, "the conclusion that with the
diversion of 15,600 cubic feet on the American side and the
transmission of 160,000 horse power from the Canadian side,
the scenic grandeur of the Falls will not be affected
substantially or perceptibly to the eye. With respect to the
American falls this is an increase of only 2,500 cubic feet a
second over what is now being diverted and has been diverted
for many years, and has not affected the Falls as a scenic
wonder. With respect to the Canadian side, the water is drawn
from the river in such a way as not to affect the American
falls at all, because the point from which it is drawn is
considerably below the level of the water, at the point where
the waters separate above Goat Island, and the Waterways
Commission and Dr. Clark agree that the taking of 13,000 cubic
feet from the Canadian side will not in any way affect or
reduce the water going over the American falls. The water
going over the Falls on the Canadian side of Goat Island is
about five times the Volume of that which goes over the
American falls. … If the amount withdrawn on the Canada side
for Canadian use were 5,000 cubic feet a second, which it is
not likely to be during the three years’ life of these
permits, the total to be withdrawn would not exceed ten per
cent, of the Volume of the stream, and, considering the
immense quantity which goes over the Horseshoe Falls, the
diminution would not be perceptible to the eye."

See, also, provisions of "WATERWAYS TREATY,"
in this Volume, under CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).

NIAGARA MOVEMENT, The.

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

NICARAGUA.

See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA.

NICHOLAS II., TSAR OF RUSSIA.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA.

NICHOLS, ERNEST FOX:
President of Dartmouth University.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.

NICOLSON, SIR ARTHUR:
British Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
Convention with Russia.

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

NIEL, M.:
The head of the Confédération Générale du Travail in France.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1884-1909.

NIGERIA.

See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: FRENCH CENTRAL.

NIGHT RIDERS, of the Tobacco Farmers’ Union.

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

NILE BARRAGE.

See (in this Volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1902 (DECEMBER).

{460}

NOBEL PRIZES.

By the will of Alfred Bernard Nobel, the distinguished Swedish
engineer and chemist, pupil of John Ericsson and inventor of
dynamite and other explosives, five great prizes, averaging
nearly $40,000 each in value, were instituted, for annual
reward to persons who shall severally have made the most
important discovery or invention in the domain of physics,
chemistry and physiology or medicine; to the writer who has
produced in literature the most distinguished work of an
idealistic tendency, and to the person who has most or best
promoted the fraternity of nations, the abolition or reduction
of standing armies and the formation and increase of peace
congresses. The award of the two prizes first named to be made
by the Royal Academy of Science in Stockholm; the third by the
Caroline Medical-Chirurgical Institute in Stockholm; the
fourth by the Swedish Academy in the same city; the fifth by
the Storthing or Parliament of Norway.

The presentation of prizes on the first award was made with
impressive ceremonies on the 10th of December, 1901, that
being the fifth anniversary of Mr. Nobel’s death. Each year
since, the awards have been made on that anniversary day. The
recipients have been as follows:

PHYSICS.

1901
William Conrad Roentgen,
professor of physics at the University of Munich.

1902
Divided equally between Henrik Anton Lorentz, professor
of physics at the University of Leyden, and Peter Zeeman,
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam.

1903
Half to Antoine Henri Becquerel, professor of physics
at the École Polytechnique and at the Museum d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, France, member Institut Française, and half
to Pierre Curie, professor of physics at the University of
Paris (Sorbonne) and teacher in physics at the Paris Municipal
School of Industrial Physics and Chemistry, and his wife, Marie
Sklodovska Curie, preceptress at the Higher Normal School
for Young Girls at Sevres.

1904
Lord Rayleigh, professor of natural philosophy,
Royal Institution of Great Britain, London.

1905
Philippe Lenard, professor of physics at the
physical Institute of Kiel.

1906
J. J. Thomson, professor of experimental physics
at the University of Cambridge.

1907
Albert A. Michelsen, professor of physics at the
University of Chicago.

1908
Professor Gabriel Lippman of the University of Paris.

1909
G. Marconi, Italy, and
Professor Ferdinand Braun of Strassburg.

MEDICINE.

1901
Emil Adolf von Behring, professor of hygiene and
medical history at the University of Marburg, Prussia.

1902
Ronald Ross, professor of tropical medicine at the
University college of Liverpool.

1903
Niels Ryberg Finsen, professor of medicine,
Copenhagen, Denmark.

1904
Ivan Petrovic Pawlow, professor of physiology in the
Military Academy of Medicine, St. Petersburg.

1905
Robert Koch, member of the
Royal Academy of Science, Berlin.

1906
Professors Ramon y Cajal and Camillo Golgi of the
Pavia university, Italy.

1907
Charles L. A. Laveran of the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

1908
Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Berlin and Professor Elie Metchnikoff
of the Pasteur Institute, Paris.

1909
Professor E. T. Kocher, Switzerland.

CHEMISTRY.

1901
Jakob Hendrik van’t Hoff, professor of chemistry
in the University of Berlin.

1902
Emil Fischer, professor of chemistry
in the University of Berlin.

1903
Svante August Arrhenius, professor at
the University of Stockholm.

1904
Sir William Ramsay, professor of chemistry
in the University college, London.

1905
Adolf von Baeyer, professor of chemistry at Munich.

1906
H. Moissan, professor of chemistry at the Sorbonne, Paris.

1907
Eduard Buchner, professor of chemistry in the
agricultural high school of Berlin.

1908
Professor Ernest Rutherford of the
University of Manchester, England.

1909
Professor W. Ostwald of Leipsic.

LITERATURE.

1901
Rene Francois Armand Sully-Prudhomme,
member of the French Academy.

1902
Theodor Mommsen, professor of history at
the University of Berlin.

1903
Bjornstjerne Bjornson, author, Norway.

1904
Half to Frederic Mistral of France and
half to José Echegaray of Spain.

1905
Henryk Sienkiewicz, the author of "Quo Vadis?"

1906
Professor Giosue Carducci of Bologna, Italy.

1907
Rudyard Kipling of England.

1908
Professor Rudolf Eucken of the University of Java.

1909
Selma Lagerlof, Sweden.

PEACE.

1901
Divided equally between Henri Dunant, founder of the
International Red Cross Society of Geneva, and Frederic Passay,
founder of the first French peace association, the
"Société Française pour l’Arbitrage Entre Nations."

1902
Divided equally between Elie Ducommum, secretary of
the international peace bureau at Bern, and Albert Gobat,
chief of the interparliamentary peace bureau at Bern.

1903
William Randal Cremer, M. P., secretary of the
International Arbitration league, London.

1904
The Institute of International Right, a scientific
association founded in 1873 in Ghent, Belgium.

1905
Baroness Bertha von Suttner for her literary work
written in the interest of the world’s peace movement.

1906
Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States,
for the part he took in bringing the Russo-Japanese war to
an end. Money set apart by the president for the establishment
of a permanent industrial peace commission.

1907
Divided equally between Ernesto T. Moneta, president of
the Lombardy Peace union, and Louis Renault, professor of
international law at the University of Paris.

1908
K. P. Arnoldsen of Sweden and M. F. Bajer of Denmark.

1909
Baron d’Estournelles de Constant, Paris,
and M. Beernaert, Holland, ex-Premier.

[For a contemporary list see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates]

NODZU, General.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.

NOGI, GENERAL.

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

NOMINATIONS, Political:
By Direct Primary Vote.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.

NOMINAVIT NOVIS CONTROVERSY.

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

NORD ALEXIS, GENERAL.

See (in this Volume)
HAITI: A. D. 1902 and 1908.

{461}

NORDENSKJÖLD, DR. OTTO:
Commanding Swedish Antarctic Expedition.

See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.

NORDEZ, BISHOP LE.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1900.

NORTHCOTE, LORD:
On the Australian Land and Immigration Questions.

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

NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY CASE, THE.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.

NORTH SEA AND BALTIC AGREEMENTS.

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

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADIAN: A. D. 1896-1909.
Their Rapid Settlement.
The "American Invasion."

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

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADIAN: A. D. 1901-1902.
Census.
Increased Representation in Parliament.

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

NORWAY: A. D. 1902-1905.
Result of the Consular Question.
Secession from the Union of Crowns with Sweden.
Acceptance by King Oscar of his virtual Deposition.
Election of Prince Charles of Denmark to the Throne.

The discontent of Norway in its union with Sweden, especially
because it could have no distinct national representation,
consular or diplomatic, in foreign countries, is described in
Volume VI. of this work.

See (in this Volume)
SWEDEN AND NORWAY.

In 1902 a Swedish-Norwegian Consular Commission was appointed
to investigate the practicability of separate consuls for each
of the united kingdoms, with joint diplomatic representation.
The Commission produced a report very favorable to the
proposition. Prolonged negotiations followed, between
representatives of the two governments, and the outlines of a
system under which Norway should acquire a separate consular
service were definitely settled and accepted formally by the
King, on the 21st of December, 1903. When it came, however, to
the definite framing of laws for carrying the plan into
effect, irreconcilable disagreements arose. Several details of
the arrangement which Sweden insisted on implied a precedence
and superiority of standing for that kingdom in the union of
crowns which offended Norwegian pride. The Norwegian
Government objected to having its selection of consuls made
subject to the approval of the Foreign Minister of the dual
monarchy. It objected to having the King, in his commission to
them, entitled "King of Sweden and Norway"; and it rejected
the Swedish proposals on other points. When the Government of
Sweden replied that, while it might be willing to consider
some modifications of its proposals, it must maintain the
important parts of them, the Norwegian Government announced
that it had no further statements to make, indicating that
negotiation in the matter was at an end. Thereupon, on the 7th
of February, 1905, the King made public the following
statement:

"Under the present circumstances I do not see that I can
resolve otherwise than to approve of what the Foreign Minister
has proposed; but I cannot refrain from expressing to both my
peoples my hearty desire that the two kingdoms, which have now
been united for nearly a century, will never let any
difference of opinion be hurtful to the Union itself. This
Union is in truth the safest guarantee for the independence,
the security and the happiness of both my peoples."

Feeble health now compelled King Oscar to yield the functions
of royalty to his son, and the Crown Prince visited
Christiania, as Regent, to confer personally with the leaders
in Norwegian affairs. The outcome of his visit was the
resignation of the Ministry of M. Hagcrup on the 1st of March,
the formation of a new Cabinet, under M. Michelsen, and the
announcement by the latter that the Government would
steadfastly maintain the sovereignty of Norway, as an
independent kingdom, according to the words of its
constitution, the realization of which must depend on the
strength and will of the Norwegian people. All attempts in the
next three months to overcome or much modify the attitude of
Norway were unsuccessful. In May, the Storthing passed an
independent Consular Bill and laid it before King Oscar, who
had resumed his duties, and the King refused to sanction it,
saying: "The Crown Prince, as Regent, in Joint Council of
State of April 5, has already shown the only way in which this
important question can be advanced and all difficulties most
likely removed, viz., through negotiation. I entirely agree
with this view, and do not for the time being find it
expedient to sanction this law, which means an alteration of
the existing joint consular service which cannot be severed
except by mutual arrangement. … When I now refuse to sanction
this law I do so in accordance with the right conferred upon
the King."

See in Volume I. of this work