Kitabı oku: «The Old World and Its Ways», sayfa 36

CHAPTER LIV.
THE NETHERLANDS

Between Waterloo, one of the world's most renowned battlefields, and The Hague, which is to be the home of the Temple of Peace – what a contrast; and yet Belgium and The Netherlands lie side by side! Perhaps the contrast is chronological rather than geographical or racial, for the Dutch have had their share of fighting on their own soil, as they had their part in the victory of 1815. It seems especially appropriate that The Hague should be chosen as the permanent meeting place of the peace tribunal, for it is not only centrally located for European countries, and, being small, is not itself tempted to appeal to arms, but it has long been the home of religious liberty, and its people were pioneers in the defense of the doctrine that rulers exist for the people, not the people for the rulers.

The capital of The Netherlands – The Hague – (the name is taken from the forest that adjoins) is a beautiful little city and will furnish an appropriate setting for the building which Mr. Carnegie's generosity is to provide. Plans are already being prepared for this structure, and one of the officials showed me a picture representing Peace, which may be reproduced upon the ceiling or walls.

In the gallery at Moscow I saw a painting by the great Russian artist, Vereshchagin. It is a pyramid of whitened skulls standing out against a dark background, and is dedicated to "The Warriors of the World." It tells the whole story of war in so solemn, impressive, and terrible a way that Von Moltke is said to have issued an order prohibiting German officers from looking at it when it was exhibited at Berlin.

The emperor of Russia, who has the distinction and the honor of having called together the conference which resulted in The Hague tribunal, might with great propriety contribute to the Temple of Peace this masterpiece of one of his countrymen, portraying so vividly the evils which arbitration is intended to remedy.

One of the members of the arbitration court told me that it was both interesting and instructive to note how the nations appearing before that court emphasized, not so much their pecuniary claims, as the honor of their respective nations and the justice of their acts.

No one can foresee or foretell how great an influence The Hague tribunal will have upon the world's affairs, but it would seem difficult to exaggerate it. It is cultivating a public opinion which will in time coerce the nations into substituting arbitration for violence in the settlement of international disputes; and it ought to be a matter of gratification to every American that our country is taking so active a part in the forwarding of the movement.

But The Hague is not the only place of interest in The Netherlands. The land replevined from the sea by the sturdy Dutch and protected by dykes, the spot immortalized by the temporary sojourn of the Pilgrims, the familiar blue china, the huge wind mills with their deliberate movements, the wooden shoes, and the numerous waterways – all these attract the attention of the tourist.

And the commercial metropolis of Holland, – Amsterdam – what a quaint old city it is! Its more than three hundred canals roaming their way through the city, and its hundreds of bridges, have given to it the name of "The Northern Venice," and it well deserves the appellation. The houses are built on piles, and as many of them are settling, they lean in every direction, some out toward the street, some back, and some toward the side. The houses are so dependent upon each other for support, it is a common saying in that city that if you want to injure your neighbor, you have only to pull down your own house.

Amsterdam is the center of the diamond cutting industry of the world, more than ten thousand hands being employed in that work. As is well known, the Dutch are a rich people, and their commerce, like their mortgages, can be found everywhere.

They have a constitutional monarchy, but they have universal education and parliamentary government, and are jealous of their political rights.

Denmark, Belgium and The Netherlands – three little kingdoms! Small in area, but brimful of people, and these people have their part in the solving of problems with which Europe is now grappling.

CHAPTER LV.
GERMANY AND SOCIALISM

At Berlin I found, as I had at London and Paris, a considerable number of Americans and, as in the other cities, they have organized a society, the object of which is to bring the American residents together for friendly intercourse. At London the group is known as the American Society; at Paris and Berlin the society is known as the American Chamber of Commerce. Through the receptions given by these societies I was able to meet not only the leading American residents, but many foreigners who came as invited guests. Our American residents are evidently conducting themselves well, because I found that they are well liked by the people among whom they are temporarily sojourning. I am indebted to Ambassador Tower and to the American Chamber of Commerce for courtesies extended me at Berlin.

My visit to Germany occurred at Christmas time and while it was for that reason impossible to see the kaiser (much to my regret), I learned something of the German method of observing the great Christian holiday. The German is essentially a domestic man and at Christmas time especially gives himself up to the society of the family, relatives and friends. Christmas coming on Friday, the festivities covered three days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The toys – in which Germany abounds – were of endless variety, and the Christmas trees, bending beneath their load, were centers of interest to the young folks. There were dolls and dogs, horses and woolly sheep, cows that give milk, and soldiers – an abundance of soldiers. I saw one cavalry man with a saber in his hand. When he was wound up, the horse would rush forward and the rider would strike with his saber, as if he were keeping watch on the Rhine and in the very act of resisting an attack from the enemy. A little strange that the birthday of the Prince of Peace should be celebrated by the presentation of toys illustrating mimic warfare! But, as in America we are increasing our army and enlarging our navy, we are not in a very good position to take the military mote out of the eye of our friends in the fatherland.

Berlin is a splendid city with beautiful streets, parks and public buildings. It is more modern in appearance than either London or Paris, and there is a solidity and substantialness about the population that explain the character of the emigration from Germany to America. No one can look upon a gathering of average Germans without recognizing that he is in the presence of a strong, intelligent and masterful people. Bismarck has left his impress upon Germany as Napoleon did upon France. An heroic statue of the man of "blood and iron" stands between the reichstag and the column of Victory, which was erected at the close of the Franco-Prussian war. The reichstag is a massive but graceful structure, built some twenty years ago. In one of the corridors I noticed a silk flag which was presented in the seventies by the German women of America. The reichstag proper is a popular body, much like the English parliament, and, as in England, the members do not necessarily reside in the districts they represent. The upper house or bundesrath, is somewhat like our senate in one respect, namely, that it represents the various states that comprise the German empire, but it differs from our senate, first, in that the subdivisions are represented somewhat in proportion to population, and, second, in that the members of the bundesrath are really ambassadors of the several state governments whose credentials can be withdrawn at any time. As all legislation must be concurred in by the bundesrath, as well as by the reichstag, it will be seen that the German government is not nearly so responsive to the will of the people as the governments of England, Denmark and the Netherlands.

In the reichstag they have resorted to a device for saving time in roll call. Each member is supplied with a quantity of tickets, some pink and some white. Each ticket bears on both sides the name of the member. On the white tickets the word "Ja" (yes) appears under the name, on the pink ones "Nein" (no). These ballots are gathered up in vases containing two receptacles, one white and the other pink. The vases are carried through the hall and the votes deposited according to color. As they are deposited in the different receptacles and are distinguished by color, the ballot is quickly taken and counted – in about one-fourth the time, I think, formerly required for roll call. This is a method which our congress might find it convenient to adopt.

It was my good fortune, while in Berlin, to meet Dr. Otto Arendt, the leading bimetallist of Germany. He became a student of the money question while in college, being converted to the double standard by the writings of Cernucshi, the great French economist. Dr. Arendt is a member of the reichstag, from one of the agricultural constituencies. He has represented his government in international conferences and has urged his government to join in an agreement to restore bimetallism, but, like other advocates of the double standard, has found the English financiers an immovable obstruction in the way.

I have for two reasons reserved for this article some comments on the growth of socialism in Europe. First, because Germany was to be the last of the larger countries visited, and, second, because socialism seems to be growing more rapidly in Germany than anywhere else. I find that nearly all the European nations have carried collective ownership farther than we have in the United States. In a former article, reference has already been made to the growth of municipal ownership in England and Scotland, and I may add that where the private ownership of public utilities is still permitted the regulation of the corporations holding these franchises is generally more strict than in the United States. Let two illustrations suffice: Where parliament charters gas and water companies in cities, it has for some years been the practice to limit the dividends that can be earned – any surplus earnings over and above the dividends allowed must be used in reducing the price paid by the consumer. I fear that our money magnates would be at a loss to find words to express their indignation if any such restriction were suggested in America, and yet is it not a just and reasonable restriction?

In the case of railroads, I noticed that there are in England but few grade (or, as they call them, "level") crossings. I am informed that railroad accidents and injuries are not so frequent in England as in the United States.

In Switzerland the government has recently acquired the principal railroad systems. In Holland, Belgium and Denmark also the railroads are largely government roads. In Russia the government owns and operates the roads and I found there a new form of collectivism, namely, the employment of a community physician, who treats the people without charge. These physicians are employed by societies called Zemstro, which have control of the roads and the care of the sick.

In Germany, however, socialism as an economic theory is being urged by a strong and growing party. In the last general election the socialists polled a little more than three million votes out of a total of about nine and a half millions. Measured by the popular vote it is now the strongest party in Germany. The fact that with thirty-one per cent of the vote it only has eighty-one members of the reichstag out of a total of 397 is due, in part, to the fact that the socialist vote is massed in the cities and, in part, to the fact that the population has increased more rapidly in the cities, and, as there has been no recent redistricting, the socialist city districts are larger than the districts returning members of other parties.

George von Vollmar, a member of the reichstag, in a recent issue of the National Review thus states the general purpose of the social democratic party in Germany:

"It is well known that social democracy in all countries, as its name indicates, aims in the first place at social and economic reform. It starts from the point of view that economic development, the substitution of machinery for hand implements, and the supplanting of small factories by gigantic industrial combinations, deprive the worker in an ever increasing degree of the essential means of production, thereby converting him into a possessionless proletarian, and that the means of production are becoming the exclusive possession of a comparatively small number of capitalists, who constantly monopolize all the advantages which the gigantic increase in the productive capacity of human effort has brought about. Thus, according to the social democrats, capital is master of all the springs of life, and lays a yoke on the working classes in particular, and the whole population in general, which ever becomes more and more unbearable. The masses, as their insight into the general trend of affairs develops, become daily more and more conscious of the contrast between the exploiter and the exploited, and in all countries with an industrial development society is divided into two hostile camps, which wage war on each other with ever increasing bitterness.

"To this class-war is due the origin and continuous development of social democracy, the chief task of which is to unite these factions in an harmonious whole which they will direct to its true goal. Industrial combination on a large scale can be converted from a source of misery and oppression into a source of the greatest prosperity and of harmonious perfection, when the means of production cease to be the exclusive appanage of capital and are transferred to the hands of society at large. The social revolution here indicated implies the liberation not only of the proletariat, but of mankind as a whole, which suffers from the decomposing influence of existing class antagonism whereby all social progress is crippled."

One of the most influential of the German socialists, in answer to a series of questions submitted by me, said in substance:

First, the general aim of socialists in Germany is the same as the aim of other socialists throughout the world – namely, the establishment of a collective commonwealth based on democratic equality.

Second, the socialists of Germany have organized a liberal party of unrivaled strength; they have educated the working classes to a very high standard of political intelligence and to a strong sense of their independence and of their social mission, as the living and progressive force in every social respect; they have promoted the organization of trade unions; and have by their incessant agitation compelled the other parties and the government to take up social and labor legislation.

Third, German socialists at present are contending for a legal eight-hour day and for the creation of a labor department in the government, with labor officers and labor chambers throughout the country. In addition to these special reforms, socialists are urging various constitutional and democratic reforms in the states and municipalities – in the latter housing reforms, direct employment of labor, etc.

Fourth, there may be some difference of opinion among socialists in regard to the competitive system, but, being scientific evolutionists, they all agree that competition was at one time a great step in advance and acted for generations as a social lever of industrial progress, but they believe that it has many evil consequences and that it is now being outgrown by capitalistic concerns, whose power to oppress has become a real danger to the community. They contend that there is not much competition left with these monopolies and that as, on the other hand, education and the sense of civic responsibility are visibly growing, and will grow more rapidly when socialism gets hold of the public mind, socialists think that the time is approaching when all monopolies must and can safely be taken over by the state or municipality as the case may be. This would not destroy all competition at once – in industries not centralized some competition might continue to exist. In this respect, also, all socialists are evolutionists, however they may differ as to ways and means and political methods.

Fifth, as to the line between what are called natural monopolies and ordinary industries, the question is partly answered by the preceding paragraph. There is a general consensus of opinion that natural monopolies should, in any case, be owned by the community.

I find that even in Germany there are degrees among socialists – some like Babel and Singer emphasizing the ultimate ends of socialism, while others led by Bernstein are what might be called progressionists or opportunists – that is, they are willing to take the best they can get to-day and from that vantage ground press on to something better. It is certain that the socialists of Germany are securing reforms, but so far they are reforms which have either already been secured in other countries or are advocated elsewhere by other parties as well as by the socialist party.

The whole question of socialism hangs upon the question: Is competition an evil or a good? If it is an evil, then monopolies are right and we have only to decide whether the monopolies should be owned by the state or by private individuals. If, on the other hand, competition is good, then it should be restored where it can be restored. In the case of natural monopolies, where it is impossible for competition to exist, the government would administer the monopolies, not on the ground that competition is undesirable, but on the ground that in such cases it is impossible.

Those who believe that the right is sure of ultimate triumph will watch the struggle in Germany and profit by the lessons taught. I am inclined to believe that political considerations are so mingled with economic theories that it is difficult as yet to know just what proportion of the three million socialist voters believe in "the government ownership and operation of all the means of production and distribution." The old age pension act was given as a sop to the socialists, but it strengthened rather than weakened their contentions and their party. It remains to be seen whether the new concessions which they seem likely to secure will still further augment their strength. The Germans are a studious and a thoughtful people and just now they are absorbed in the consideration of the aims and methods of the socialist movement (mingled with a greater or less amount of governmental reform), and the world awaits their verdict with deep interest.

CHAPTER LVI.
RUSSIA AND HER CZAR

The map of Russia makes the other nations of Europe look insignificant by comparison. Moscow is called "The Heart of Russia," and yet the trans-Siberian railway from Moscow to Vladivostok is about 6,000 miles long, nearly one-fourth the circumference of the globe. From St. Petersburg to Sebastopol is more than 2,000 miles, and yet Russia's territory extends much further north than St. Petersburg and much further south than Sebastopol. In a book recently issued by authority of the Russian government, some comparisons are made that give an idea of the immensity of Russia's domain. For instance, Siberia is about one and one-half times as large as Europe, 25 times as large as Germany, and covers one-thirteenth of the continental surface of the globe. Besides having great timber belts and vast prairies, Siberia has a hill and lake region ten times as large as Switzerland, and it is claimed that some of the lakes are as beautiful as those of "The Mountain Republic." Lately the government has been encouraging immigration into the country opened up by the trans-Siberian railway and the success of the movement is shown by the fact that the number of passengers carried on the western section of the road increased from 160,000 in 1896 to 379,000 in 1898, and on the middle section from 177,000 in 1897 to 476,000 in 1898, with a similar increase in freight traffic. The government gives a certain area of land to each settler and, when necessary, advances sufficient money to build homes and barns for the storage of crops and for the purchase of agricultural implements. The territorial greatness of Russia is the first thing that impresses the tourist, and the second is that it is as yet so sparsely settled that it can without fear of crowding accommodate a vast increase in population.

Russia embraces all varieties of climate and resources.

My journey was confined to the northwest portion. I entered the country below Warsaw, went east to Moscow, then north to St. Petersburg and thence southwest to Berlin. This, with the exception of my visit to Tula, gave me my only opportunity to see the people of Russia. They impressed me as being a hardy race and the necessities of climate are such as to compel industry and activity. I never saw elsewhere such universal preparation for cold weather. As yet Russia is almost entirely agricultural, but manufacturing enterprises are continually increasing. The peasants live in villages and for the most part hold their lands in common – that is, the lands belong to the commune or village as a whole and not to the individual. When Alexander freed the serfs the land was sold to them jointly on long-time payments. These payments have in only a few instances been completed, wherefore not many of the peasants own land individually. There is just now much discussion in Russia about the method of holding land. Some contend that communal holding tends to discourage thrift and enterprise, and there is some agitation in favor of individual ownership.

Moscow, the largest city of Russia, has a trifle larger population than St. Petersburg, the capital, which has more than a million. Moscow, which is the commercial center of the empire, gives the casual visitor a much better idea of the characteristic life and architecture of Russia than does St. Petersburg. St. Petersburg, however, is laid out upon a broader, more generous plan, has wider streets, more impressive public buildings and private residences, and there is more evidence of wealth in the capital than in the commercial center. Both cities possess admirable museums and art galleries. The chief gallery of Moscow devotes nearly all its wall space to pictures by Russian artists, and they are sufficient in number to prove Russia's claim to an honorable place in the world of art.

The Hermitage at St. Petersburg, which is an annex of the emperor's palace, contains an extraordinary number of masterpieces of modern and ancient art. The museum of the academy of sciences possesses a remarkable collection of fine specimens, of prehistoric animals, among them mammoths, the largest and best preserved of which was found only a few years ago at the foot of a Siberian glacier.

The visitor to Russia comes away with conflicting emotions. He is impressed by the wonderful possibilities of the country, but is oppressed by the limitations and restrictions which the government places upon individual action and activity. As soon as the traveler reaches the border of Russia his passport is demanded. It is again demanded the moment he arrives at his hotel, and it is demanded and inspected at every place he stops. When he is about to leave the country he must send his passport to the police office and have it indorsed with official permission to depart. Not only is a passport demanded at every place from the foreigner, but native Russians, high and low, must also bear passports and be prepared to submit them for inspection upon demand. Not even officers of the army are exempt from this rigid rule.

The censorship over the press and over private mail is very strict. I brought away with me a copy of Stead's Review of Reviews which had been posted to a subscriber in Russia and which had passed through the hands of the censor. Its pages bore abundant evidence of the care with which he scrutinized foreign publications, for objectionable cartoons, articles and even paragraphs had been made illegible by an obliterating stamp.

The government of Russia, as the world knows, is an autocracy. All power is vested in the emperor, and all authority emanates from him. Being an autocracy, Russia has, of course, no legislative body, such as is now a part of the government of nearly every civilized country on the globe. It has not trial by jury and it knows not the writ of habeas corpus. The custom of exiling or banishing, without trial, persons objectionable to the government is still practiced. A large number of Finns, many of them persons of prominence, have been deported from Finland since the decree of 1899, which limited the self government which the Finns had enjoyed since Russia annexed their country.

While in St. Petersburg I was, by the courtesy of the American ambassador, Mr. McCormick, given an opportunity of meeting and chatting with the czar of all the Russias, Emperor Nicholas II. I found him at his winter residence, the palace of Tsarskoe Selo, which is about an hour's ride from St. Petersburg.

Of all the emperor's palaces, Tsarskoe Selo is his favorite. It stands in a magnificent park which, at this time of year, is covered with snow. The emperor is a young man, having been born in 1868. He is not more than five feet seven or eight inches in height, and apparently weighs about 160 pounds. His figure is slender and erect, his face boyish and his eyes a light blue. His hair, which is blonde, is cut rather short and combed upward over the forehead. The czar wears a mustache and short beard. The general expression of his face is gentle, rather than severe, and he speaks English perfectly. He informed me that about 65 per cent of the adult men of Russia can read and write and that the number is increasing at the rate of about 3 per cent a year. This increase, the czar said, was shown by the recruits to the army, and as these come from all provinces of the empire and all classes of society, he believes it to be a fair test of the people as a whole. The czar declares himself deeply interested in the spread of education among the people and seemed to realize that opportunities for education should be extended to men and women equally. I referred to a decree issued by him about a year ago promising a measure of self-government to the local communities. The czar said: "Yes, that was issued last February, and the plan is now being worked out." He manifested great gratification at the outcome of the proposals submitted by him, which resulted in the establishment of The Hague court of arbitration, and it is a movement of which he may justly feel proud, for while it is not probable that The Hague tribunal will at once end all wars, it is certain to contribute largely to the growth of a sentiment that will substitute the reign of reason for the rule of brute force. The czar spoke warmly of the friendly relations that have existed for years between Russia and the United States. He said that the people of his country had rejoiced in the growth and greatness of the United States. Then, speaking with considerable feeling, the czar said: "The attitude of Russia in the Kischineff affair has been very much misrepresented by some of the newspapers and I wish you would tell your people so when you return to the United States."

The Russian officials deny that the government was in any way responsible for the massacre and I was informed that the government had caused the prosecution and secured the imprisonment of many of those implicated. The emperor showed in his conversation that he respected public opinion in the United States and was anxious that his administration should not rest under condemnation. It seems to be the general opinion of those with whom I had a chance to speak in Russia that the emperor himself is much more progressive and liberal than his official environment. If he were free to act upon his own judgment, it is believed that he would go further and faster than the officeholding class surrounding him in broadening the foundations of government, and from his words and manner during my conversation with him I am inclined to share this opinion.

What Russia most needs today are free speech and a free press – free speech that those who have the welfare of the country at heart may give expression to their views and contribute their wisdom to that public opinion which, in all free countries, controls to a greater or less extent those who hold office. To deny freedom of speech is to question the ability of truth to combat error; it is to doubt the power of right to vindicate itself. A free press would not only enable those in office to see their actions as others see them, but would exercise a wholesome restraint. Publicity will often deter an official from wrong-doing when other restraints would be insufficient, and those who are anxious to do well ought to welcome anything that would throw light upon their path. With free speech and a free press it would not be long before the participation of the Russian people in government would be enlarged, and, with that enlarged share in the control of their own affairs, would come not only contentment, but the education which responsibility and self-government bring. It is impossible to prepare people for self-government by depriving them of the exercise of political rights. As children learn to walk by being allowed to fall and rise and fall and rise again, so people profit by experience and learn from the consequences of their mistakes.

That the Russian people are devoted to their church is evident everywhere. Every village and town has its churches, and the cities have cathedrals, chapels and shrines seemingly innumerable. St. Isaac's cathedral in St. Petersburg is an immense basilica and is ornamented in nave and transept with precious and semi-precious stones. The superb portico is supported by a maze of granite monoliths seven feet in diameter. There is now in process of construction at Moscow a still more elaborate cathedral. Russia is not a good missionary field for two reasons: First, because the people seem wedded to their church, and, second, because no one is permitted to sever his connection with the church.