Chapter XII: Part EIGHT (4)

Great dinner at the residence of our ambassador, Okoliczany. My neighbors are the Russian chargé d’affaires and M. Pichon, assistant secretary of the French Delegation,—a young lieutenant with a saucy little mustache. But he has understanding, and sympathy for our cause, and is a great admirer of D’Estournelles. He acknowledges that the world is progressing, and that a coming civilization will have no more room for war; only he defends the colonial policy of war. He himself has been in the Sudan.

June 10. It is hard for me to keep up with my correspondence. I have never before in the course of a whole year received so many letters, telegrams, and voluminous writings as now, while I am here at The Hague. They announce schemes, proposals, infallible methods for securing peace. And all of this I am expected to make comprehensible to the delegates! Inventors of airships and flying machines send me their plans and prospectuses. By the conquest of the atmosphere the boundaries with their customhouses and fortifications must needs disappear, opine these aëronautical letter writers.

Or is it true that the ministers of war are hurrying to build air fleets? and to form flying regiments of uhlans? All new inventions are invariably employed by the war authorities. And yet I am firmly persuaded that every technical improvement, especially all means of easier communication, ultimately lead to universal peace.

Yesterday the arbitration committee took up Article XIII of the Russian plan, calling for immediate consideration of the question of a permanent tribunal, and that, too, of a tribunal not merely _in posse_ but _in esse_.

While they are here treating theoretically about arbitration, it is said that the matter is to be put to a practical test once again. President Kruger has proposed to Sir Alfred Milner that certain differences of opinion should be submitted to arbitration. Sir Alfred objected that such an action would put in question England’s sovereignty.

June 11. At the Grovestins’s Sunday reception something amusing happened to me. A Spanish lady, Señora Perez, asked me what I thought of peace. I must have made a dubious face, for she anticipated my answer, saying, “Do not decide, I beg of you, until you have read a book entitled _Die Waffen nieder_. Have you heard of it?”

“Oh, yes, until I am sick of it.”

“Oh, no, no; first read it, and then express your opinion. The author is said to be at The Hague.”

“The author is sitting next you.”

As so often happens, Señora Perez had missed my name when we were introduced.

Bloch gives a small dinner at the Hotel Royal. After dinner we drive to his third lecture. Subject, “Naval Warfare.” The fate of wars is decided not at sea but on land. Between two evenly matched fleets there will be no decisive victory, but mutual destruction of the fleets. The impossibility of protecting marine commerce in times of war. Comparison of the expenses for the fleet with the value of commerce; the pretended protection costs a hundred times more than the worth of what is protected.

Count Nigra sits near me. Bloch’s deductions greatly interest him. We speak of the results to be expected.

“The world finds it hard to understand,” said Nigra, “how momentous are the foundations here being laid for the building of the future; nor does it understand that the calling of the Conference is in itself an event of supreme importance.”

During the intermission an alarming rumor circulates, to the effect that in the debate about the court of arbitration the “dead point” was reached,—a decisive opposition on the part of one of the great powers.

June 12. During the morning our quiet excursion in celebration of our twenty-third wedding anniversary. In the evening a few guests at dinner,—Bihourd, the French ambassador at The Hague, Captain Sheïn, of the Russian navy, Léon Bourgeois, Bloch, and Theodor Herzl.

I hardly ever had a more interesting table companion than Bourgeois. What made our conversation so particularly enjoyable was our complete agreement in matters concerning peace. The former—and perhaps the future, who knows?—French Premier is enthusiastic for the objects of the Conference. The task which he has to fulfill here seems to him far more productive and important than the formation of a cabinet. In Paris a ministerial crisis is at hand and Bourgeois will probably be recalled; but he firmly intends to return so as to bring to an end to the best of his ability the work here, “which promises to be useful to the world and at the same time to his fatherland.”

We talk among other things of the French national press. I regret the hectoring tone, especially in that portion of the press which the people at large read.

“That is not so bad,” he replies. “Nowhere else do the people—especially the workingmen—read the newspapers so much as with us; but they have no faith in them. The French laborer buys a newspaper, reads it, chatters about it, but doesn’t pin his faith to it. His mind is open, awake, and he is thirsty for everything that is free and upright. Race hatred disgusts him. I know what is thought in the workingmen’s circles, for I myself come from them.”

I ask him about the “dead point” in the arbitration question.

“I cannot say anything just now,” is his reply, “but be assured—nothing will be left untried.”

We conclude the evening in the great music hall, where a concert arranged by Manager Goldbeck is given in honor of the delegates. Bourgeois is obliged to depart before the other guests; he must go back to the city, he explains apologetically.

After a while Count Nigra comes up to me: “Do you know the news? The French ministry fell some hours ago. M. Bourgeois has just been summoned to Paris by telegraph.”

June 13. The _Neues Wiener Tagblatt_ prints a dispatch from The Hague: “The negotiations regarding the court of arbitration, as we learn by telegraph from Brussels, have completely gone to pieces.”

I send a line to Chevalier Descamps, requesting him, if the above-mentioned news is false, to write a denial and let me send it immediately to the paper. Descamps himself comes to bring me the answer. The news is false, and he allows me to make the desired correction. At the same time he begs me to write this very day to Émile Arnaud, asking him if he will not cease attacking in the _Indépendance belge_ the projected system of a permanent bureau and pleading for permanent treaties instead; one at a distance cannot judge what at the moment is to be attained, and what an obstacle it is in the way of the workers here if what has been secured with difficulty meets with the opposition of its own friends.

June 14. Up to the present time the question of armaments has been considered in the Conference only from one side, namely, to the end that agreements may be reached as to renouncing further perfection of weapons. Yet the idea was regarded as impracticable. In spite of a very eloquent plea of General den Beer Poortugael, who proposed that all the armies should retain the present type of arms, the committee came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to carry out such a regulation. Nothing as yet has been said about Emperor Nicholas’s own proposition as to limitation of armaments. The debates steer clear of this question so far. A favorable result would be all the more desirable, since lately Admiral Goschen declared in the House of Commons that the projected increase of the British fleet would be immediately stopped if at the Hague Conference a limitation of armaments should be determined upon.

Stead tells me what Emperor Nicholas said to him four weeks ago:

“Why are they always talking about disarmament? I never used the expression; it does not appear in the rescript. I know only too well that immediate disarmament is excluded. It is, indeed, difficult to speak of the diminution of armaments. Surely the most practical step, and the first that should be taken, would be an attempt to come to an agreement to refrain from increasing armaments for a term of years. After four or five years we should learn to trust one another and to keep our word. By this means we should secure a basis for a proposal to reduce the armaments.”

These words lead to the conclusion that the Russian delegates will offer in the Conference a motion for stopping the increase of armaments.

Meantime the rumor grows more and more prevalent that the question of a court of arbitration has come to a pause, owing to the declarations of the German delegates that the principle of arbitration is directly contrary to the principle of state sovereignty, which Germany in no circumstances will renounce.

I receive from Berlin the telegraphic query, “How about Zorn’s[37] speech?”

I send the telegram to the professor named, who is staying also at the Kurhaus, and receive for answer, “I know nothing about a speech by Zorn.”

Stead, in his to-day’s chronicle, contradicts the alarming rumors and writes:

Whatever may be the attitude which the German government may
ultimately assume, nothing could be more correct than the attitude of
the German delegates. They are working with their colleagues in what
we hope will prove a great establishment for assuring universal peace,
and it is to be greatly regretted that their coöperation has been so
misrepresented during the last few days.

In the evening Bloch’s last lecture. Subject, “The War of the Future from the Economic Standpoint.” Almost all the delegates, also President Staal, present. I learn that some Russian military members of the Conference were very indignant over Bloch’s lectures, and demanded his arrest.

LX
THE FIRST PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE (_concluded_)

Turning point in the arbitration question · Professor Zorn · Madame
Ratazzi · Professor Martens · Mirza Rhiza Khan · Letter from Frau
Büchner · Trip to Amsterdam · At the photographer’s · Limitation of
armaments · Two important sessions · Colonel von Schwarzhoff ·
Limitation rejected · Baron Bildt and Bourgeois · Ball at Staal’s · The
Grotius celebration · Letter from Andrew D. White · Article 27 ·
Departure · International Inquiry Commission · Beldimann in opposition ·
Again the Inquiry Commission · Beldimann’s ultimatum · _Acte final_

June 15. In the afternoon a reception given by Monsieur and Madame d’Estournelles. The whole Congress comes and goes. Dr. White is buried in a conversation with Count Münster. Then he comes to me.

“If you can bring any pressure to bear on influential persons, Baroness, do it now. Every possible measure must be employed to clear away the difficulties that are springing up.... The most important question before our Congress—that of a court of arbitration—has reached a turning point; that is what I was talking with Count Münster about.”

I promised to go to one of my friends staying at The Hague, and in high favor with the German Emperor’s uncle, the Grand Duke of Baden, and urge him to apply to the prince in these critical circumstances.

Our host introduced me to Professor Zorn. First of all I thank him for his denial in regard to “Zorn’s speech,” of which he still knows absolutely nothing.

“In fact, no such speech was ever made,” replied the professor. “I took part in the discussion, but I made no speech and made no such remarks as many newspapers attributed to me.”

The conversation turns on the Bloch lectures.

“Pure fallacies,” said the professor. “Military men think that a war of the future will be less bloody than those of the past.”

“Less bloody! with these weapons, with this tenfold faster firing per minute—”

“All the fewer missiles will hit—”

“Oh, no, the war of the future cannot be palliated; what the future needs is peace.”

“That is found only in heaven!”

In the evening a great party at the Okoliczanys’. A new person makes her appearance,—Madame Ratazzi, Türr’s sister-in-law, born Bonaparte Wyse. I saw this woman thirty years ago at Homburg, the greatest beauty I ever met. And now? Alas! how miserable to look on _des ans l’irréparable outrage_ (the irreparable ravages of the years).

Long conversation with our host. He holds the opinion that, sooner or later, even without any conference, Europe must arrive at the formation of a union; the ceaseless expense for armaments, necessitated by lack of unity, the constant rivalries of commerce, the policy of protection,—all this, unless a change ensues, exposes Europe to the danger of being ruined by America. A peace alliance uniting our part of the world is a necessity. This is the same thesis as our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Goluchowski, advanced in a noteworthy _exposé_ before the Congress was called together.

General den Beer Poortugael joins me. I express my admiration of his latest speech. He assures me that the limitation of armaments must be striven for, not only because the nations expect this result from the Conference, but also because it is the only way to escape the threatened catastrophe. Remarkable words from the lips of a general!

June 16. In the evening a reception at Beaufort’s. I make the acquaintance of Professor Martens. He arrived to-day from Paris, where he is acting as president in the Venezuela arbitration tribunal. He will attend only one session and then return immediately to Paris. Speaking of the condition of things here, he tells me that, even though many of the powers should hesitate or delay to sign the convention, this would do no harm, because the protocols will be left open, even for the powers that are not represented here.

Another exotic acquaintance, Mirza Rhiza Khan, the delegate from Persia.[38] He is forty-five years old, has Oriental features, a thick black mustache, and sparkling eyes; his white uniform is decorated with numberless orders; on his cap is the Persian lion. In 1889 he accompanied the former shah, Nasr-ed-Din, as his adjutant general on his tour through Europe. Now he is ambassador to St. Petersburg. He was educated in Constantinople and Tiflis, and tells us of the Princess Tamara of Georgia, whom he knows very well; she is now at the Caucasian baths of Botjom.

June 17. An artistic festival arranged by the government in honor of the Conference, comprising living pictures, musical productions, and national dances. Make the acquaintance of Baron von Stengel. He is very stiff and repelling. We exchange only a few words—something about “loyal opposition” and “there must needs be different views”; a few indifferent observations about the performances of the evening and we soon separate.

A Dutch army physician introduces himself to me. He had read my novel while in Borneo. The sufferings that he had witnessed there in the practice of his calling exceed all belief. He had been mortally unhappy, and so the book had made a double impression on him, and had awakened in him a longing for the accomplishment of everything which the Conference at The Hague has in view.

June 18. I receive from the daughter-in-law of Professor Lüdwig Buchner, who had died not long ago, the following letter in reply to a letter of condolence:

Darmstadt, June 17, 1899

My dear Baroness,

A year of the loftiest triumph! May all that are to follow be as rich
in success! This is what all your most faithful admirers desire with
glowing enthusiasm.

Your kind sympathy called forth by the departure of our beloved father
has been a great comfort to us. Many mourn for him with us. He, the
faithful champion of the truth, will be survived by his works. Happy
as his life was, his death was no less enviable. Even in the midst of
his fullest creative powers he glided without a sound, without a sigh,
from gentle slumber into the Unknown. Many times, when tormented by
his trying cough, weary from sleepless nights, he spoke of his
approaching end; and so it found him with the calm of a true
philosopher. Everything had been put in readiness with the greatest
care for this event. He was enabled to pass away calmly; a rich life
lay behind him. He had employed his great intellectual gifts wholly
for the good of his fellow-men. The kindness and fidelity of his heart
were rewarded by the purest joys of a sweet family life. He knew that
his loving, self-sacrificing wife was surrounded by a grateful band of
children, in whose happiness the deeply bereaved woman will find her
best consolation. We all console one another, in our deep sorrow for
the irremediable gap in our family circle, by thoughts of the
beautiful, happy life which he was permitted to enjoy so long.

For the ninth of June I wish you with my whole heart happiness and
health, and I hope that you may retain all your joyous powers of
creation, which have allowed you in the past to overcome so many
difficulties. In such a victorious career your inspiration will never
be paralyzed, and you will march forward on the road to that victory
which is to secure the happiness of mankind!

With the deepest respect
Your wholly devoted
Marie Büchner

The debates on the arbitration tribunal have come to a pause; they will not be resumed until fresh instructions have been received. Dr. Holls and Professor Zorn have gone to Hannover, where the German Emperor is at present sojourning. Mr. White intrusted to Dr. Holls a long letter to Bülow.

In the course of the afternoon we receive many callers, including Frau von Okoliczany and her daughter, Mevrouw Smeth, and Mirza Rhiza Khan. The Persian delegate tells me that he has been endeavoring to introduce the Latin alphabet into Persia, but that it has met with great opposition, especially among the priests, who declare that it is a sin to make use of any other letters than those in which the Koran is written.

Baron and Baroness d’Estournelles also call on me to-day. We talk about Professor Zorn. D’Estournelles assures me that this German delegate is striving with all his might to bring the matter of the arbitration tribunal to a favorable conclusion: _Il pense comme vous et moi_.

Now I doubt that. I will go as far as to believe, as Stead states also in the _Dagblad_, that Professor Zorn is determined that the matter of the arbitration tribunal shall not be shipwrecked; but that he is as radical in his views as D’Estournelles or as I—he himself would repudiate the idea!

June 19. Trip to Amsterdam with a large party. We drove three times around the whole city and hurried through the museums, allowing the pictures by Van Dyck and Franz Hals and Rubens to flash before our eyes. Only before Rembrandt’s great painting, “The Night Watch,” which we had recently seen presented as a living picture, we remained for half an hour in contemplation. At your very first entrance into the suite of galleries it shines upon you from the farthest background. You would think that the sun was shining on it; but its brilliancy comes from its colors.

In the museum is a splendid case filled with Indian treasures, consisting of rings and chains and all sorts of jewels taken as loot from conquered rajahs; therefore simply freebooters’ booty. Mankind does not look upon it as such.

We visit also the diamond-polishing works. A whole house filled with workmen. On every floor a different phase of the transformation which this precious form of carbon goes through before it becomes an ornament. On the top floor, reached by a very narrow wooden staircase, sit the most skillful of the laborers, who give the last finish to the stones. They allow the foreign visitors to look; they explain the processes. The trouble seems too great! What effort and what patience to make this dull, hard substance glitter with a hundred facets!

The manager shows us on a velvet ground the models in crystal of all the largest and most famous diamonds that are in the possession of the various crowned heads,—the Kohinoor and others. I did not heed the names attached to these little globules of glass representing millions in value.

“Since so many diamonds have been mined in the Transvaal,” said one of the polishers, “we can scarcely keep up with our work; and yet there are thousands of us diamond cutters in Amsterdam.”

“Just see!” remarked Herr von Bloch to us, “just see how the world hangs together! Suppose war should break out in the Transvaal, the consequences would be that here in Amsterdam thousands of workingmen’s families would suffer from want!”

We had dinner—all excursions culminate in eating—at a restaurant from which there was a view of a canal full of life and movement. It was a beautiful, lively picture from the open window near which I sat. On the other side of the canal are old houses, truly Dutch in appearance, and a church with a very lofty belfry. Boats and scows were moving up and down heavily laden with flowers,—mainly tulips, roses, and lilies. Suddenly the bells in the tower began to ring; the tones kept interweaving, and for ten minutes a melodious, silver-clear chime of bells continued to play.

Not until late at night did we return to The Hague. At the waiting room of the railway station we meet Dr. Holls. He has just come back from Germany, whither he had gone accompanied by Professor Zorn, with a mission to smooth out at the main source the difficulties that had arisen in the matter of the arbitration tribunal.

“Any news? Any news?” we ask in the greatest excitement.

“I cannot tell you anything yet,” replied Dr. Holls. “Only I will mention the title of one of Shakespeare’s plays, ‘All’s well that ends well.’”[39]

June 21. Léon Bourgeois, who had only just come from Paris, is recalled again by Loubet and commissioned to form a cabinet. Will he be able, will he be willing, to renounce the task of being prime minister? I have it from his own lips that this is his purpose; he is going to do his very utmost to return to The Hague in order to see the business of the arbitration tribunal through to the end.

To-day I went with the painter Ten Kate to the photographer. A sculptor, a friend of his, wants to chisel my bust, and for this purpose I must be taken _en face_ and _en profil_, in three-quarters profile and from behind, wrapped statuesquely in some soft, flowing white material, with my hair arranged in Grecian style and with a palm branch as an ornament for the breast. The process lasted several hours.

I was posed and pulled into shape. Then the photographer, whose name is Wollrabe, goes to his camera, looks in, shakes his head, and hobbles back to me—he has a wooden leg—to pull my left shoulder a little toward the right, to lift my chin, and to twitch my draperies down; and in this he has the critical and practical aid of Master Ten Kate. “There, now it’s all right” (_So, jetzt ist es jutt_). Hop, hop, hop to the camera. Again a shaking of the head and hop, hop, hop back to me again. After a little tugging,—“There, now it’s all right.” And so half a dozen times for each exposure. And all the while I must preserve the earnest physiognomy of a statue, in spite of the great temptation to laugh at the forest-goblinlike, to-and-fro stumping of the so-hard-to-be-satisfied Wollrabe, who, by the way, has wonderfully beautiful pictures in his studio, among them the best extant portrait of the young queen.

One ought to be, indeed, especially young and beautiful to be painted and chiseled. And not only the hop, hop, hop of my photographer with his funny bird name—“Wool-raven”—strikes me as comical, but also his white-draped model, adorned with the vegetable of peace—but I must not laugh!

June 23. The article proposed in the programme for “an agreement concerning the use of certain weapons and forbidding new purchases and inventions” has been decided in the negative. Stead, speaking with me regarding this matter, says:

“Do not for a moment imagine that this is a bad thing. Rudyard Kipling wrote me at the beginning of the peace crusade, ‘War will last until some inventive genius furnishes a machine which will annihilate fifty per cent of the combatants as soon as they face one another.’ Therefore I think that the Conference, while it has decisively rejected a whole series of proposals—even those that came from the Tsar—in the line of prohibiting the improvement of cannon and other weapons, has been acting in behalf of peace and not of war.”

“I think so too,” I reply; “only that is not their reason for doing as they have. The military men who have voted the measure down have done so for the special purpose of promoting militarism.”

To-day the Congress is considering a weighty point, Section 1 of Muravieff’s second circular:

An understanding not to increase for a fixed period the present
effective of the armed military and naval forces, and, at the same
time, not to increase the budgets pertaining thereto.

This is the question that is of greatest importance for the champions of peace, for it touches the evil of armed peace.

This condition—according to Türr, _la peur armée_—has this basis: the presupposition on which the relations of nations are established is that the neighbor has the morals of a bandit and the conscience of a pirate!

Bad news from London,—the House of Commons has granted four million pounds for purposes of war.

Under date of June 27 I confided to my diary the text of the whole “armament” debate, which took place on the twenty-third and twenty-sixth of the month. Here I will introduce only the most notable passages. This is sufficient to bring out the attitude of the various governments toward this question.

FIRST SESSION, JUNE 23. HERR BEERNAERT, CHAIRMAN

We have now reached the serious problem which the Russian government
placed first of all, so worded that it instantly aroused the attention
of the world.

This time it is not the nations, but a mighty monarch, who believes
that the enormous burdens that are the result of the armed peace in
which Europe has been existing since 1871 are calculated “to paralyze
public welfare at its sources, and that their constant increase
involves an oppressive load which the nations will have ever greater
and greater difficulty in enduring.”

Count Muravieff’s circular has stated the problem in a little more
condensed form as follows: “What are the means by which a limit might
be set to the increase of armaments? Could the nations pledge
themselves against an increase or even in favor of a reduction?”

I hope that our honored president, his Excellency von Staal, who has
asked for the floor, will give us an explicit explanation of these
points.

Herr von Staal said:

... “The question before us—limitation of the military budget and of
the military establishment—deserves a thorough investigation, all the
more from the fact (let me repeat it) that this constitutes the chief
purpose of our assemblage, namely, to lighten as far as possible the
terrible burden which oppresses the nations and checks their material
as well as their moral development.

“Do I need to say that there is no question here of Utopian and
chimerical measures? It does not mean that we shall proceed to
disarmament. What we desire is a limitation, a period of quiescence,
in the constantly accelerating race of armaments and expenditures.

“We make this proposition in the conviction that if an agreement is
reached, a gradual reduction will take place. Immovability does not
belong to the domain of history, and if we succeed in preserving a
certain stability for a few years, it may be taken for granted that
the advantageous tendency toward diminution of military expenditures
will be confirmed and developed. The movement would perfectly
correspond to the ideas which inspire the Russian rescript.

“But we have not yet got that far. At the present moment the question
before us is only for a cessation, for a fixed period of years, in the
increase of the military budgets and of the contingents.”

General den Beer Poortugael:

“Gentlemen: Here we find ourselves facing the chief object of
Muravieff’s circular. It is truly worth while for us to concentrate
our powers to the highest endeavor. We must regard the great interests
of the nations, so intimately bound up with his recommendation, and I
believe that I am not going too far when I say that the question must
be treated with a certain reverence.

“The armies and military budgets that have been steadily growing
larger and larger for the last quarter of a century have now attained
gigantic, terrifying, dangerous dimensions. Four millions of men under
arms and army budgets of five billions of francs a year! Is that not
terrible?

“Truly, this increase of armies, of fleets, of budgets, of debts,
seems to have been brought out of a Pandora’s box, the gift of a
wicked fairy who desires the misfortune of Europe. War is sure to
arise from this method of foresight, which is meant to safeguard
peace. The increase of contingents and of expenses will be the real
cause of war.

... “To the states which, through our military organizations, are
bound together like mountain climbers in the Alps by a rope, the Tsar
has said, ‘Let us make a common endeavor, let us pause on this path
which leads to the abyss, else we are lost.’

“A halt, then! Fellow-delegates, it is our duty to use our utmost
endeavors. It will be worth while. Let us call a halt!”

This speech, spoken in an impassioned voice, aroused amazement. Many
could not refrain from applause; others could hardly help shaking
their heads. Some one is said to have remarked, “Bebel, out and out!”

Now the Russian motion was submitted.

THE PROGRAMME

Colonel von Schilinsky’s remarks:

... “It may be asked, gentlemen, whether the nations represented at
the Conference will be perfectly satisfied if we bring them the
arbitration tribunal and laws for seasons of war, but nothing for
seasons of peace,—this armed peace, which bears so heavily upon them
that often the statement is heard that an open war would be better
than this concealed war of armaments, this perpetual rivalry where
every nation exhibits greater armies in time of peace than it ever did
before during the greatest wars.

... “Moreover, this continued increase of military power fails to
attain its object, for the relative strength of the various countries
remains the same. If any government increases its troops, forms new
battalions, its neighbor follows its example without delay, so as to
preserve the proportions; the neighbor’s neighbor does the same, and
so it goes on without end. The effective increases, but the
proportions remain about the same.

... “Moreover, we are proposing nothing new. The limitation of
contingents and of the budget has long been customary in many
countries. For example, there is the _Septennat_ in Germany. This
means that the total number of the troops in time of peace is fixed
for seven—now five—years. In Russia also the war budget is established
on a five years’ basis. So it is a question of well-known measures
which have been used for a long time, which alarm no one, and which
bring about good results; it is a question of applying these
regulations for even a shorter time, if you please. The only novelty
about it is the resolution, the courage to state that it is time to
call a halt.

And Russia moves that we call a halt.”

After Colonel von Schilinsky had spoken, Captain Sheïn made a similar proposal for the navy. All this perfectly corresponds with what Emperor Nicholas said to Stead, and also with the utterances that Muravieff had made in my presence.

The truth is, the Russian government, in the presence of the whole world, in behalf of the welfare of all nations, has officially proposed to the other governments that they should come to an agreement henceforth not to increase armaments. At the same time, it has clearly opened up the prospect of a subsequent reduction. The accompanying proposals for a permanent tribunal, the arbitration code, and the propositions regarding mediation as well,—all this shows that, whatever the decisions of the Conference may be, the promoters have done their part honorably.

Session of June 26. The Commission assembles again. Léon Bourgeois has arrived. Colonel von Schwarzhoff is opposing the Russian motion. He takes sides also against General den Beer Poortugael; he cannot, he says, accept these ideas, and is unwilling that his silence should be construed as assent. The German people is not oppressed by the weight of taxes; it is not on the sheer edge of the abyss; it is not hastening to ruin,—quite the contrary. As regards the universal duty to bear arms, the German does not regard it as a heavy burden but as a sacred and patriotic duty, to the fulfillment of which he owes his existence, his prosperity, and his future. Then he speaks of the difficulties which beset the plan of limiting armaments, and explains that it would meet with insuperable technical obstacles.

The German delegate’s speech is regarded by the others as a clear proof that Germany is going to vote against the limitation motion.

Then Schilinsky, Den Beer Poortugael, and Dr. Stancioff of Bulgaria speak once more in defense of the motion.

The chairman proposes the nomination of a committee to study into the subject. For this committee the opponent, Colonel von Schwarzhoff, and the maker of the motion are chosen; also army and navy experts.

June 30. So, then, to-day, in the “House in the Wood,” the fate of the proposal for limitation of armaments was decided.

Rejected. Referred for further consideration to the cabinets of the great powers. A resolution made by Léon Bourgeois and adopted by the Conference saved the principle.

Last soirée at Minister Beaufort’s.

Sir Julian Pauncefote comes and sits by me. Of course I lead the conversation to the Conference again and ask him how long it will probably continue.

“At least a fortnight,” Sir Julian opines. “I can assure you,” he adds, “the Conference is doing a great work, and other conferences will follow. To be sure, the limitation clause was voted down, yet with the general declaration that it must be taken up later. But, on the other hand, the permanent tribunal has become a fact, and for this result Professor Zorn is to be specially praised for his endeavors.”

Turkhan Pasha escorts me to the refreshment table. There Herr Beernaert hands me an ice. He has recently arrived from Brussels, where the disturbances have fortunately come to an end. The obstruction of the socialists in the Chamber consisted in their always starting the Marseillaise whenever any one began to speak.

“Things are now all right again,” says the minister, “_ils ont mis bas les armes_. But here I understand some things are not all right. ‘Limitation’ is buried; the military experts declared it was out of the question.”

“Buried? At all events, the flowers are saved. Bildt[40] spoke wonderfully, beautifully; and a motion by Bourgeois was voted and assures a resurrection. The coffin is not nailed up; the boards are loose....”

“Such questions,” I added, “should not be treated from the technical but from a quite different standpoint. If the military men alone are to be allowed to decide about disarmament—”

“Surely,” says Herr Beernaert, finishing my sentence. “It is as if cobblers should deliberate on how men could give up wearing footgear!”

July 1. Now I know the report concerning yesterday’s limitation session. Servia first declared its adhesion; then Greece its dissent. Hereupon the report of the commission on studies was read—a very laconic report:

1. That it would be very difficult, even for a space of only five
years, to fix the number of the troops without simultaneously
regulating other elements of defense.

2. That it would be no less difficult to regulate the elements of this
defense by means of an international convention, since the defense is
organized in each country from very different points of view.

Consequently the committee regrets its inability to accept the
proposal made in the name of the Russian government.

The committee recommends that the subject of the subsequent decision
be intrusted to the respective governments.

Such is the text of the military commission’s report; and so the matter was simply set aside. The execution of the proposal offers difficulties, “consequently” it cannot be accepted! This “consequently,” however, is not satisfactory. The motive adduced for setting aside a project of such wide scope is not sufficient. There is more to be said about it than that it is difficult to carry out. It must also be clear whether it is not desirable, beneficent, nay, more, essential. And if this conclusion is reached, then if it is to be rejected, there must be a better reason than its difficulty; its impossibility must be shown.

But the matter before us cannot be impossible in principle; certainly not in the form just presented. And it must not be rejected, but rather postponed for future realization. This was the feeling of a large part of the Conference; and two other delegates—the Swede Baron Bildt and the Frenchman Léon Bourgeois—give expression to this feeling in fiery extempore speeches.

From Baron Bildt’s speech (“It is not enough”):

... Now, at the conclusion of our labors, we shall realize that we
have faced one of the most important problems of the century, and that
we have accomplished very little. We have no right to cherish
illusions. If the transactions of the Conference come to public
knowledge, then, in spite of all that has been done for arbitration,
the Red Cross, and the rest, a loud cry will be raised, “It is not
enough!”

And the majority of us, in our own consciences, will justify that
outcry, “It is not enough!” To be sure, our consciences will tell us,
for our consolation, that we have done our duty, because we have been
faithful to the instructions that have been given us. But I venture to
say that our duty is not yet completed, and that we still have
something left to do. That is, to investigate with the greatest
frankness and truth and to report to our governments what defects are
to be found in the preparation or execution of the great work, and
with steadfastness, with obstinacy, to seek the means to do better and
to do more. Now let these means be found in new conferences, in direct
negotiations, or simply in the policy of a good example. This is the
duty which is left for us to fulfill.

This speech made a sensation. The applause had not died down when the head of the French delegation took the floor.

From Léon Bourgeois’s speech (“Our task is higher”):

I have listened with great delight to Baron Bildt’s eloquent words.
They correspond not only to my personal feelings and those of my
colleagues of the French delegation,[41] but also, I am sure, to the
unanimous feelings of the Conference. I join in the appeal which Baron
Bildt has made. I believe that (to express his ideas still more
explicitly) our commission has something further to do.

I have carefully read the text of the conclusion reached by the
technical committee. This text shows the difficulties which at the
present moment attend the limitation of armament. This investigation
was also the mandate of the committee. But our commission is under
obligation to regard the problem before us from a universal and higher
standpoint.

... Colonel von Schwarzhoff tells us that Germany easily bears the
burdens of its military organization, and that in spite of these
burdens it can point to a great economical development.

I come from a country which also bears cheerfully the obligations of
national defense, and we hope next year, when the Exposition will be
held, to show the world that our products and our economical
development stand on a high level. But the colonel will grant me that
in his country as well as in mine, if a share of the considerable
resources now spent for military purposes were devoted to the service
of productive activity, the total of prosperity would be developed at
a much more rapid rate.

Moreover, we have here not only to take into account how our country
endures the burdens of the armed peace. Our task is higher,—we are
called upon to consider the joint situation of all the nations.

After further considerations, Bourgeois proposes that the question be referred to the governments for further discussion at the next Conference. But, that the position of the present Conference may be brought to a definite expression, he offers the following amendment to the report:

The commission takes the view that the limitation of the military
burdens resting on the world would be in the highest degree desirable
for the improvement of the moral and material condition of mankind.

This resolution was adopted.

I immediately translated the text of both speeches and dispatched it to the _Neue Freie Presse_.

July 2. Yesterday a ball at the Staals’. When we arrive, at ten o’clock, the drawing-rooms are already almost full. All the lower rooms of the Vieux Doelen—the peristyle, salons, dining-room, and other apartments—have been engaged for this function and are richly decorated. The walls of the ballroom are adorned with greenery from which gleam white lilies. Nothing but white flowers everywhere, the symbols of peace. There is a flood of electric light from the chandeliers. The orchestra is hidden behind a hedge of palms. Softly lighted corridors lead to smaller adjoining rooms, in which the guests find nooks for confidential conversation. The doors leading from the ballroom to the terrace stand open, and a broad flight of steps leads down into the lighted garden.

All the delegates are present except Admiral Fisher,[42] whose absence is all the more to be regretted because he is one of the jolliest of the dancers.

Baron Bildt presents his son to me, a young man of twenty-two, just arrived from Upsala, where he is studying at the University.

“I was on the point of devoting myself to a military career,” the young Swede told me in the course of our conversation. “And do you know, gracious lady, what kept me from it? The reading of your book. And to-day, in this company, I am doubly glad that I chose another profession. Perhaps later it will be permitted me to labor for the great cause that brought my father to The Hague.”

“I see; a new ambition is awaking, in a new field! Remain faithful to this impulse, and may you sometime by means of it become a judge in the International Arbitration Court or Swedish Minister of Peace!”

“Oh, how glad I should be!”

Andrew D. White urges me, in case I have the opportunity, to oppose those pessimistic prejudices which have gone abroad regarding the Conference, and which render more difficult the possibility of further work and the assembling of new conferences. He expresses the opinion that the Emperor of Russia has one good means at his command,—simply to introduce into his country the shipwrecked “limitation” or even the reduction of the military effective. He is the autocrat—his will decides. And the policy of such an example would be most effective.

Well, indeed, the manifesto, the summoning of the Conference, the motions laid before it, which implied the pledge that he would do what he proposed,—all these things were indeed examples. But those who are eagerly bent on the preservation of the entire military system have not been constrained to follow in the same track. How can any one venture, after all, in a matter requiring common agreement, to take the lead alone?

A Russian tells me that in his own country there is also a strong military party which holds the Tsar’s plans in deep disfavor, so that, even in his immediate proximity, opposition and differences of opinion are strongly felt. It would require iron energy to hold out against them. Alas, the cruel are apt to be iron....

We give an afternoon reception. Among those present are Herr and Frau Berends and their daughter; Dr. White and his wife, who has just arrived; Monsieur and Madame Descamps; our countrymen, Count Welsersheimb, Lieutenant Colonel von Khuepach, and Professor Lammasch; my young Russian officer whom I met at yesterday’s ball, and young Bildt; Dr. Holls; Bourgeois; the Persian ambassador; Bonnefon; Vasily and his son; Pompili; Schmidt auf Altenstadt, editor of the _Dagblad_; Herr von Raffaelovitch and his daughter; and Minister Beernaert.

Beernaert goes to-morrow to Brussels. They have had a ministerial crisis there too.

“I am going to play the rôle of Bourgeois at Brussels,” he said with a laugh.

“Then,” rejoined the other, “play it to the end and come back.”

To-day I noted a deep remark uttered by Léon Bourgeois. The talk turned on the great progressive ideas which permeate the world so slowly, altogether too slowly, because the daily happenings, the problems and sensations of the moment, claim everybody’s entire attention. _L’actualité, c’est l’ennemi_, said he.

The Swedish envoy’s son again took his oath to me that he would remain true to the ideal of peace and work for it according to his ability.

The conversation reverted to that session in which Colonel Schwarzhoff delivered his speech against the proposition of limitation. The gentlemen remarked that he had spoken with great _mordant_. Now the German equivalent for that word is not _beissend_ (“biting”) but _schneidig_ (“keen”). In either case it is an adjective expressing admiration. Now, it seems to me, sharp teeth and polished sonority are very valuable things in their place, but are they specially suited for the Peace Conference?

At dinner we are in Oriental company,—with Noury Bey and Mirza Rhiza Khan. Were it not for the fez, one might take Noury Bey for a Frenchman. He takes the point of view of the Turkish patriotic party, faithful to the Sultan, not that of the Young Turks. The persecution of the Armenians has been necessary, he says; they are revolutionists, rebels, conspirators. In short, they are wicked lambs; the wolf is in the right!

We were regretting the failure of the project for restricting armaments or talking of something similar, I do not remember exactly what.

“But that is a thing,” remarked Noury Bey to my husband, “which you, as an Austrian patriot, ought to approve of.”

“We friends of peace do not recognize this contradiction,” replied my husband; “what one must regret as a man, one cannot be glad of as a patriot. And indeed it is a mistake to believe that what will not benefit mankind will be useful to one’s own country. In any case, the interest of humanity, absolute right, always stands higher than the special advantages of any one country.”

“Splendid!” cried Noury Bey in amazement, but not without irony. “People with such views ought to be appointed judges in the coming international tribunal.”

July 4. To-day, in connection with the American holiday, an excursion to Delft in commemoration of Grotius. In the early morning a severe storm is raging and rain is beating on the window panes. We countermand our order for a carriage and stay at home.

It is a melancholy, gloomy day. The windows rattle and tremble; an ice-cold wind forces itself in. Gray are the rolling clouds and the foaming angry sea. Lamentation, brawling, and menace commingle in the roar of wind and waves.

The beach is deserted. As far as the eye can see there is not a living creature. The bath houses and covered chairs and booths are all moved off—or have the billows carried them away? The high, foam-capped breakers tumble over one another and come nearer and nearer, and are already dashing over the terrace wall. Perhaps the whole terrace may be destroyed, as it was a few years ago. And all the time this tumultuous lamentation! How can one feel cheerful?

Truly, there is reason enough for melancholy. This Conference, which should show sorrow-laden, danger-threatened mankind a way to get finally rid of the sorrow and the dangers which arise not from the elements but from their own selves,—how its work has met with misunderstanding and resistance both in the world outside and in its own midst! Nowhere enthusiastic aid—nay, not even eager curiosity, and not once a warm word from those who hold the power in their hands. Cold, cold are all the hearts—cold as the draft that penetrates through the rattling windows. I am chilled to the bone!

In the evening a festival in the concert room in honor of the American delegates. The decorations are star-spangled banners; there is a rendering of American songs. Dr. Holls tells me that the Grotius festival was a brilliant success, and useful words were spoken, especially by Ambassador White. He also informs me that the permanent Court of Arbitration is accepted. Only the paragraph about obligatory cases is omitted.

July 5. In reply to my note of regret, addressed to Andrew D. White, and explaining that our absence from the festival was caused by the weather, I receive the following reply:

House in the Wood, July 5, 1899

Dear Baroness von Suttner:

We were very sorry not to see you and the Baron at Delft, but we fully
understood and appreciated the reason. We really did not expect more
than a dozen or twenty people, and were greatly surprised to see so
large a number present.

It was to me very inspiring and gave me new hopes as to the results of
the Conference.

I beg you not to forget what I urged upon you at our last meeting. We
are to accomplish here more than we dared hope when we came
together,—far more; and the great thing is to prevent thoughtless,
feather-brained enthusiasts from discrediting the work, since to do so
is to discourage all future efforts of this sort.

We have paved the way for future conferences which will develop our
work—unless the people at large are taught that nothing has been done
in this way.

Please call me kindly to the remembrance of Baron von Suttner, and I
remain, dear madam, most respectfully and truly yours,

Andrew D. White

July 6. At the last session an important article was added to the project of the arbitration tribunal. It was proposed by D’Estournelles, and is to the effect that the signatory powers, in case of a conflict threatening between two or more countries, shall consider it their duty to remind these powers that the Court of Arbitration stands open to them.

Servia and Roumania make a lively protest against the word “duty.” Roumania, represented by Beldimann, moreover protests regularly, consistently, and forever.

After a persuasive speech by Léon Bourgeois, D’Estournelles’s motion is adopted.

July 7. We take our departure. Ever so many friends accompany us to the railway station. The coach is filled with farewell bouquets. Good-by, thou lovely city of gardens! Will coming generations make pilgrimages to thee because the first International Court of Arbitration came into existence here? Enriched by the memories of lovely days and interesting people, and by uplifting impressions, I take my departure from thee, historic place....

We were obliged, on account of private affairs, to leave before the close of the Conference, but I received from there every day papers, letters, and dispatches, which kept me informed of the progress and the _acte final_ of the Conference.

I jot down here the most important of these records.

On the seventh of July the session of the third committee (on peaceful adjustment of international controversies) adjourned until the seventeenth, that in the meantime further instructions might be received from the governments. Sir Julian Pauncefote makes a trip to London. The articles which principally give occasion for seeking further instructions are those that treat of the International Commission of Inquiry. The text up for debate runs:

In cases of an international nature, involving neither honor nor vital
interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact,
the signatory powers recommend that the parties, having been unable to
come to an agreement by the usual means of diplomacy, should, as far
as circumstances allow, institute an international commission of
inquiry, which shall clear away these differences by getting at the
facts through an impartial and conscientious investigation.

What a bundle of limitations! “As far as circumstances allow,” “neither honor nor vital interests.” It can be seen with what timidity and circumspection these grewsome instruments called “jurisdiction,” “process of inquiry”—that is, right and truth,—are taken hold of. Torpedoes, dumdum bullets, ekrasit, and lyddite—we are already used to such things, we are no longer afraid of them; but legal processes in international affairs,—those would be too dangerous for vital interests: at all events, for the interests of militarism....

The origin of this formula “honor and vital interests of a nation” is well known. It has always been produced in the following form by the opponents of international arbitration: “Hitherto courts of arbitration have exercised their functions in small matters but not in important ones.” What has hitherto been used as an argument is now to be incorporated in a treaty!

To some the limitations seem superfluous, to others the whole proposition seems too far-reaching and—being without precedent—too uncanny; hence the adjournment to wait for further instructions. Stead, in his chronicle in the _Dagblad_, calls attention to this and implores the committee to modify the article at the next reading.