DIPLOMATIC NOTES
From March 18 to April 18
Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy
PRESIDENT WILSON'S BALTIMORE SPEECH
On April 6, President Wilson delivered an important speech in Baltimore, in which he declared that the true aims and methods of the Central Powers were revealed not by their diplomats, but by their military leaders, and that force alone can bring peace. The speech follows in full:
Fellow citizens: This is the anniversary of our acceptance of Germany's challenge to fight for our right to live and be free, and for the sacred rights of free men everywhere. The nation is awake. There is no need to call to it. We know what the war must cost, our utmost sacrifice, the lives of our fittest men and, if need be, all that we possess. The loan we are met to discuss is one of the least parts of what we are called upon to give and to do, though in itself imperative. The people of the whole country are alive to the necessity of it, and are ready to lend to the utmost, even where it involves a sharp skimping and daily sacrifice to lend out of meager earnings. They will look with reprobation and contempt upon those who can and will not, upon those who demand a higher rate of interest, upon those who think of it as a mere commercial transaction. I have not come, therefore, to urge the loan. I have come only to give you, if I can, a more vivid conception of what it is for.
The reasons for this great war, the reason why it had to come, the need to fight it through, and the issues that hang upon its outcome, are more clearly disclosed now than ever before. It is easy to see just what this particular loan means because the cause we are fighting for stands more sharply revealed than at any previous crisis of the momentous struggle. The man who knows least can now see plainly how the cause of justice stands and what the imperishable thing is he is asked to invest in. Men in America may be more sure than they ever were before, that the cause is their own, and that, if it should be lost, their own great nation's place and mission in the world would be lost with it.
I call you to witness, my fellow countrymen, that at no stage of this terrible business have I judged the purposes of Germany intemperately. I should be ashamed in the presence of affairs so grave, so fraught with the destinies of mankind throughout all the world, to speak with truculence, to use the weak language of hatred or vindictive purpose. We must judge as we would be judged. I have sought to learn the objects Germany has in this war from the mouths of her own spokesmen, and to deal as frankly with them as I wished them to deal with me. I have laid bare our own ideals, our own purposes, without reserve or doubtful phrase, and have asked them to say as plainly what it is that they seek.
We have ourselves proposed no injustice, no aggression. We are ready, whenever the final reckoning is made, to be just to the German people, deal fairly with the German power, as with all others. There can be no difference between peoples in the final judgment, if it is, indeed to be a righteous judgment. To propose anything but justice, even-handed and dispassionate justice, to Germany at any time, whatever the outcome of the war, would be to renounce and dishonor our own cause. For we ask nothing that we are not willing to accord.
It has been with this thought that I have sought to learn from those who spoke for Germany, whether it was justice or dominion and the execution of their own will upon the other nations of the world, that the German leaders were seeking. They have answered, answered in unmistakable terms. They have avowed that it was not justice but dominion and the unhindered execution of their own will.
The avowal has not come from Germany's statesmen. It has come from her military leaders, who are her real rulers. Her statesmen have said that they wished peace and were ready to discuss its terms whenever their opponents were willing to sit down at the conference table with them. Her present chancellor has said—in indefinite and uncertain terms, indeed, and in phrases that often seem to deny their own meaning, but with as much plainness as he thought prudent—that he believed that peace should be based upon the principles which we had declared would be our own in the final settlement.
At Brest-Litovsk her civilian delegates spoke in similar terms; professed their desire to conclude a fair peace and accord to the peoples with whose fortunes they were dealing, the right to choose their own allegiances. But action accompanied and followed the profession. Their military masters—the men who act for Germany and exhibit her purpose in execution—proclaimed a very different conclusion.
We cannot mistake what they have done—in Russia, in Finland, in the Ukraine, in Roumania. The real test of their justice and fair play has come. From this we may judge the rest. They are enjoying in Russia a cheap triumph in which no brave, or gallant nation can long take pride. A great people, helpless by their own act, lies for the time at their mercy. Their fair professions are forgotten. They nowhere set up justice, but everywhere impose their power and exploit everything for their own use and aggrandizement; and the peoples of conquered provinces are invited to be free under their dominion!
Are we not justified in believing that they would do the same things at their western front if they were not there face to face with armies whom even their countless divisions cannot overcome? If, when they have felt their check to be final, they should propose favorable and equitable terms, with regard to Belgium, France and Italy, could they blame us if we concluded that they did so only to assure themselves of a free hand in Russia and the East?
Their purpose is undoubtedly to make all the Slavic peoples, all the free and ambitious nations of the Baltic peninsula, all the lands that Turkey has dominated and misruled, subject to their will and ambition, and build upon that dominion an empire of force upon which they fancy that they can then erect an empire of gain and commercial supremacy—an empire as hostile to the Americas as to the Europe which it will overawe—an empire which will ultimately master Persia, India and the peoples of the Far East.
In such a program our ideals, the ideals of justice and humanity and liberty, the principle of the free self-determination of nations upon which all the modern world insists, can play no part. They are rejected for the ideals of power, for the principle that the strong must rule the weak, that trade must follow the flag, whether those to whom it is taken welcome it or not, that the peoples of the world are to be made subject to the patronage and over-lordship of those who have the power to enforce it.
That program once carried out, America and all who care or dare to stand with her must arm and prepare themselves to contest the mastery of the world, a mastery in which the rights of common men, the rights of women and of all who are weak, must for the time being be trodden under foot and disregarded, and the old, age-long struggle for freedom and right begin at its beginning. Everything that America has lived for and loved and grown great to vindicate and bring to a glorious realization will have fallen in utter ruin, and the gate of mercy once more pitilessly shut upon mankind!
The thing is preposterous and impossible; and yet is not that what the whole course and action of the German armies has meant wherever they have moved? I do not wish, even in this moment of utter disillusionment, to judge harshly or unrighteously. I judge only what the German arms have accomplished with unpitying thoroughness throughout every fair region they have touched.
What, then, are we to do? For myself, I am ready, ready still, ready even now, to discuss a fair and just and honest peace at any time that it is sincerely purposed,—a peace in which the strong and the weak shall fare alike. But the answer, when I proposed such a peace, came from the German commanders in Russia, and I cannot mistake the meaning of the answer.
I accept the challenge. I know that you accept it. All the world shall know that you accept it. It shall appear in the utter sacrifice and self-forgetfulness with which we shall give all that we love and all that we have to redeem the world, and make it fit for free men like ourselves to live in.
This now is the meaning of all that we do. Let everything that we say, my fellow countrymen, everything that we henceforth plan and accomplish, ring true to this response till the majesty and might of our concerted power shall fill the thought and utterly defeat the force of those who flout and misprize what we honor and hold dear. Germany has once more said that force, and force alone, shall decide whether justice and peace shall reign in the affairs of men, whether right as America conceives it or dominion as she conceives it shall determine the destinies of mankind.
There is, therefore, but one response possible from us: Force, Force to the utmost. Force without stint or limit, the righteous and triumphant Force which shall make right the law of the world, and cast every selfish dominion down in the dust.
A German Commentary.—Amsterdam, April 7.—A semi-official statement was issued in Berlin to-day commenting on the speech made by President Wilson at Baltimore, on Saturday night. It says:
"President Wilson turns the historical events upside down. The world knows that the gigantic struggle now being fought in the west is a consequence of the will of the Entente for war.
"President Wilson now calls for force to the utmost, and, in so doing, at last clearly describes the policy of the Americans and their allies; namely: force against everything that opposes them. Germany will not suffer from this yoke of force.
"Mr. Wilson's speech is a propaganda speech for the new American war loan. It is the best possible propaganda for our own loan, since it shows what it would mean for Germany to lose the war."—N. Y. Times, 8/4.
Germany Wants French Iron Districts.—The Hague, April 10.—There has been a marked change among the German political leaders who passed the famous Reichstag peace resolution, and apparently the Socialist Party as such, has been unable to withstand the pressure of German labor opinion, which for some months has repeatedly given voice to its anger over the unconciliatory spirit of the Entente Powers.
Men who a few months ago would not listen to any annexation plans admit to-day that compensation in some form must be exacted by a "victorious Germany." They justify the change of opinion by reminding the people that Dr. Hertling and Count Czernin have both stated repeatedly that if Germany's peace offers were disregarded by the enemy, the Central Powers would not feel pledged to peace without compensations and annexations.
Much of this change in the public mind has been brought about by the menace of a commercial and industrial war after the world war, and in this respect America's attitude probably has been most effective. The people take it for granted that the Central Powers will end the war victoriously in a military way.
Germany's captains of industry insist that Briey and Longwy, besides a strip of French land wide enough to protect the iron mines from hostile guns in any future war, be incorporated into the German Empire. Borsig, chief of the famous house of August Borsig, writes in the Vossische Zeitung that the menace of economical war after the war, as decided on by the Paris conference, has made it imperative for German industry to seek independent sources of raw products.
"The deposits of iron ore in Longwy and Briey," Borsig says, "would make us quite independent of any importation of raw material. We could spare even the Swedish ore. Even if we were to treat France leniently and generously leave her in possession of those districts we have no security that she will serve us likewise.
"The iron industry is a wonderful, great tree in the midst of the field of the German industry. Its roots are the supply of raw products, its trunk, the iron mills and steel works, upon which spread flourishing branches of many-sided industry. During the war it has been very difficult to keep this splendid tree alive, for half its roots extend to foreign countries. This tree has been growing close to the German border line. If we want to secure it we must take enough territory to make sure that in the future its roots need not wander beyond the German frontier."—N. Y. Times, 10/4.
Russia's Fate in German Hands.—The open boast that the entire future of Russia lies in the hands of Germany, to mold as she pleases, is made in the German press. Georg Bernhard, in the Berlin Vossische Zeitung, thus views the infinite possibilities of Russia:
"We still hold to the view that there can be no question of permanent chaos and dissolution in Russia. The correctness of this view finds support in the fact that the Ukrainians also do not believe in such a development. Despite all the recent rumors spread in Germany, the Ukrainians are still firm in their resolve to form a federal republic with the rest of Russia after the fall of the Bolshevik regime. If this hope is fulfilled, then all the other Russian republics which have been formed during the Bolshevik era will crystallize round this kernel. Thus there will be a large and powerful Russia for all time. Those who accept this view must reach the logical conclusion not to impose any conditions for future peace such as might permanently cloud the relation between the new Russia and Germany. One may submit to the necessity of military guaranties, but one must unhesitatingly reject any forcible accession of territory in excess of this.
"It is, of course, quite another matter if we adopt the view of many people in Germany, who believe in the permanent break-up of Russia. Then arises the danger of independent frontier states, with which Germany must establish close contact, especially if one believes in the possibility of their being influenced by England. In all this, it is true, one must never overlook the fact that the future fate of Russia, and also the relation of Japan to Russia and Germany lie in our hands. This becomes very clear when we consider the general Peace Congress and the role which England will play there. Germany may find very considerable surprises there unless she secures the alliance of the future Russian Government at the green table against England. What enters the Congress Hall we shall know, but who shall prophesy what will finally come out of it?"—Literary Digest, 6/4.
COUNT CZERNIN ON PEACE PROSPECTS
Speaking to a deputation of the Vienna City Council on April 2, Count Czernin took opportunity to review the political situation. He declared he had "much too high an opinion of Mr. Wilson's statesmanship" to suppose that Mr. Wilson would attempt to drive a wedge between Vienna and Berlin. Possibly, however, Mr. Wilson considered Vienna "more favorable soil for sowing the seeds of a general peace." After referring to the "admirable speech" made by the German Chancellor on Mr. Wilson's four peace principles, Count Czernin continued as follows:
"President Wilson's four points are a suitable basis upon which to begin negotiating about a general peace. The question is whether or not Mr. Wilson will succeed in uniting his allies upon this basis.
"God is my witness that we have tried everything possible to avoid a new offensive. The Entente would not have it. A short time before the beginning of the offensive in the west, M. Clemenceau inquired of me whether and upon what basis I was prepared to negotiate. I immediately replied, in agreement with Berlin, that I was ready to negotiate, and that, as regards France, I saw no other obstacle for peace than France's desire for Alsace-Lorraine.
"The reply from Paris was that it was impossible to negotiate on that basis. There was then no choice left.
"The gigantic struggle in the west has already begun. Austro-Hungarian and German troops are fighting shoulder to shoulder as they did in Russia, Serbia, Rumania, and Italy. We are fighting united for the defence of Austria-Hungary and Germany. Our armies will show the Entente that French and Italian aspirations to portions of our territory are Utopias which will be terribly avenged.
"The explanation of this attitude of the Entente Powers, which verges on lunacy, is to a great extent to be sought in certain domestic events here, to which I shall return later. Whatever may happen, we shall not sacrifice German interests any more than Germany will desert us. Loyalty on the Danube is not less than German loyalty. We are not fighting for imperialist or annexationist ends, either for ourselves, or for Germany, but we shall act together to the end for our defence, for our political existence and for our future.
"The first breach in the determination of our enemies to war has been driven by the peace negotiations with Russia. That was a break-through by the idea of peace.
"It is a symptom of childish dilettantism to overlook the close relationship of the various peace signatures with each other. The constellation of enemy powers in the East was like a net. When one mesh was cut through the remaining meshes loosened of their own accord."
Count Czernin then outlined the Rumanian peace terms, explaining that while from Russia he "did not demand a single meter, Rumania neglected the favorable moment." Protection of merchant shipping in the Danube, and guarding of the iron gate was to be secured by an extension of the frontier and leases for certain wharves and islands, while the frontier was advanced from 15 to 18 kilometers elsewhere as military reasons required.
"Rumania's future," the Foreign Minister continued, "lies in the east. Large portions of Bessarabia are inhabited by Rumanians, and there are many indications that the Rumanian population there desires close union with Rumania. If Rumania will adopt a frank, cordial, friendly attitude toward us we will have no objections to meeting those tendencies in Bessarabia. Rumania can gain much more in Bessarabia than she lost in the war."
Count Czernin said that he was anxious that the rectifications of the frontier should not leave any embitterment behind, and expressed the opinion that Rumania in her own interest must turn to the Central Powers.
"In concluding peace with Rumania and Ukraine," he continued, "it has been my first thought to furnish the monarchy with foodstuffs and raw materials. Russia did not come into consideration in this connection owing to the disorganization there.
"We agreed with Ukraine that the quantity of grain to be delivered to the Central Powers should be at least 1,000,000 tons. Thirty cars of grain and peas are now en route, 600 cars are ready to be transported, and these transports will be continued until the imports are organized and can begin regularly. Larger transports are rendered possible by the peace with Rumania, which enables goods to be sent from Odessa to Danube ports.
"We hope during May, to undertake the first large transport from Ukraine. While I admit that the imports from Ukraine are still small and must be increased, nevertheless our food situation would have been considerably worse had this agreement not been concluded.
"From Rumania we will obtain a considerable surplus of last year's harvest. Moreover, about 400,000 tons of grain, peas, beans, and fodder must be transported via the Danube. Rumania must also immediately provide us with 800,000 sheep and pigs, which will improve our meat supply slightly.
"It is clear from this that everything will be done to obtain from the exploitation of the regions, which peace has opened for us in the east, whatever is obtainable. The difficulties of obtaining these supplies from Ukraine are still considerable, as no state of order exists there. But with the good will of the Ukrainian Government and our organization we will succeed in overcoming the difficulties.
"An immediate general peace would not give us further advantages as all Europe to-day is suffering from lack of foodstuffs. While the lack of cargo space prevents other nations from supplying themselves, the granaries of Ukraine and Rumania remain open to the Central Powers." Replying to the annexationists, Count Czernin said:
"The forcible annexation of foreign peoples would place difficulties in the way of a general peace, and such an extension of territories would not strengthen the empire. On the contrary, considering the grouping of the monarchy, they would weaken us. What we require is not territorial annexations, but economic safeguards for the future.
"We wish to do everything to create in the Balkans a situation of lasting calm. Not until the collapse of Russia did there cease to exist the factor which hitherto made it impossible for us to bring about a definite state of internal peace in the Balkans.
"We know that the desire for peace is very great in Serbia, but Serbia has been prevented by the Entente Powers from concluding it. Bulgaria must receive from Serbia certain districts inhabited by Bulgarians. We, however, have no desire to destroy Serbia. We will enable Serbia to develop, and we would welcome closer economic relations with her.
"We do not desire to influence the future relations between the monarchy and Serbia and Montenegro by motives conflicting with friendly, neighborly relations. The best state of egoism is to come to terms with a beaten neighbor, which leads to this: My egoism regarding Austria-Hungary is that after being conquered militarily our enemies must be conquered morally. Only then is victory complete, and in this respect diplomacy must finish the work of the armies.
"Since I came into office, I have striven only after one aim, namely to secure an honorable peace for the monarchy and to create a situation which will secure to Austria-Hungary future free development, and, moreover, to do everything possible to ensure that this terrible war shall be the last one for time out of mind. I have never spoken differently. I do not intend to go begging for peace, or to obtain it by entreaties or lamentations, but to enforce it by our moral right and physical strength. Any other tactics, I consider, would contribute to the prolongation of the war.
"I must say, to my regret, that during the last few weeks and months much has been spoken and done in Austria that prolongs the war. Those who are prolonging the war are divided into various groups, according to their motives and tactics. There are, firstly, those who continuously beg for peace. They are despicable and foolish. To endeavor to conclude peace at any price is despicable, for it is unmanly, and it is foolish because it continuously feeds the already dying aggressive spirit of the enemy. The desire for peace of the great masses is natural as well as comprehensible, but the leaders of the people must consider that certain utterances produce abroad just the opposite effect from what they desire.
"Firmly relying on our strength and the justice of our cause, I have already concluded three moderate, but honorable, peace treaties. The rest of our enemies also begin to understand that we have no other desire than to secure the future of the monarchy and of our allies, and that we intend to enforce this, and can and will enforce it. I shall unswervingly prosecute this course and join issue with any one who opposes me.
"The second group of war prolongers are the annexationists. It is a distortion of fact to assert that Germany has made conquests in the East. Lenine's anarchy drove the border people into the arms of Germany. Is Germany to refuse this involuntary choice of foreign border states?
"The German Government has as little desire for oppressions as we, and I am perfectly convinced that neither annexationists nor weaklings can prevent forever a moderate, an honorable peace. They delay it, but they cannot prevent it.
"The hopes of our enemies of final victory are not merely based on military expectations and the blockade. They are based to a great extent on our interior political conditions and on certain political leaders, not forgetting the Czechs. Recently we were almost on the point of entering into negotiations with the Western Powers, when the wind suddenly veered round and, as we know with certainty, the Entente decided it had better wait, as parliamentary and political events in our country justified the hope that the monarchy would soon be defenseless."
Count Czernin attacked the Czech leaders and Czech troops, who, he declared, "criminally fight against their own country," and appealed to the people to be united against this "high treason."
The government, he said, was quite ready to proceed to the revision of the Constitution, but this would not be helped by those who hoped through the victory of the Entente to gain their ends.
"If we expel this poison," he declared, "a general honorable peace is nearer than the public imagines, but no one has the right to remain aside in this last decisive struggle."
PEACE TALK OF LAST SUMMER
Count Czernin's reference, in his speech of April 2, to earlier secret peace negotiations, aroused keen interest both in Berlin and in allied capitals. Asked to explain alleged offers from France, Premier Clemenceau replied briefly that "Czernin lied."
On April 5, an official announcement was made in Vienna to the effect that Count Revertata, counselor of the Austrian legation in Switzerland, had held conversations in February, 1918, with Count Armand, an agent of M. Clemenceau. Count Revertata was instructed to suggest that a general peace was possible provided France renounced Alsace-Lorraine. The reply from M. Clemenceau was unfavorable.
Later statements from Paris on April 6, and Vienna on April 8, brought out that the interviews between the two agents had taken place during June, July, and August, 1917, in Switzerland, and later at Revertata's residence in Freiburg. Neither the fact of the interviews nor the negative result was disputed, but merely the question as to which side had taken the initiative.
As a result of the disclosures, the Emperor Charles of Austria on April 11 sent a message of reassurance to Emperor William, as follows:
"The French Premier, driven into a corner, is endeavoring to escape from the net in which he has entangled himself by piling up more and more untruth, and he does not hesitate to make the completely false statement that I recognized that France had a just claim to the reacquisition of Alsace-Lorraine. I disavow this assertion with indignation.
"At the moment when Austro-Hungarian cannon are thundering jointly with German cannon on the western front, it hardly needs proof that I am fighting for these provinces, and I am ready to continue fighting exactly as if it were a question of defending my own land.
"Although, in face of this eloquent proof and the full community of aims, for which almost four years we have been waging war, I consider it superfluous to waste even a word on Premier Clemenceau's false assertion, I desire, nevertheless, to take this opportunity of again assuring you of the complete solidarity which exists between you and me and your empire and mine.
"No intrigues, no attempts, from whomsoever they may proceed, will imperil our loyal comradeship of arms, and we shall jointly enforce an honorable peace."
Emperor Charles on "Just Claims of France."—Following close upon the Emperor's letter to the Kaiser, the French Government on April 11, published the following letter from Charles to Prince Sixtus de Bourbon, the only explanation of which afterward made by Austria was that the letter bearing the Emperor's signature must have been garbled in transmission:
Once caught in the cogwheels of lying, there is no means of stopping. Emperor Charles, under Berlin's eye, is taking on himself the lying denials of Count Czernin, and thus compels the French Government to supply the proof. Herewith is the text of an autograph letter communicated on March 31, 1917, by Prince Sixtus de Bourbon, the Emperor of Austria's brother-in-law, to President Poincare, and communicated immediately, with the Prince's consent, to the French Premier:
"My Dear Sixtus: The end of the third year of this war, which has brought so much mourning and grief into the world, approaches. All the peoples of my empire are more closely united than ever in the common determination to safeguard the integrity of the monarchy at the cost even of the heaviest sacrifices.
"Thanks to their union, with the generous co-operation of all nationalities, my empire and monarchy have succeeded in resisting the gravest assaults for nearly three years. Nobody can question the military advantages secured by my troops, particularly in the Balkans.
"France, on her side, has shown force, resistance, and dashing courage, which are magnificent. We all unreservedly admire the admirable bravery, which is traditional to her army, and the spirit of sacrifice of the entire French people.
"Therefore it is a special pleasure to me to note that, although for the moment adversaries, no real divergence of views or aspirations separates many of my empire from France, and that I am justified in hoping that my keen sympathy for France, joined to that which prevails in the whole monarchy, will forever avoid a return of the state of war, for which no responsibility can fall on me.
"With this in mind, and to show in a definite manner the reality of these feelings, I beg you to convey privately and unofficially to President Poincare that I will support by every means, and by exerting all my personal influence with my allies, France's just claims regarding Alsace-Lorraine.
"Belgium should be entirely re-established in her sovereignty, retaining entirely her African possessions without prejudice to the compensations she should receive for the losses she has undergone.
"Serbia should be re-established in her sovereignty and, as a pledge of our good-will, we are ready to assure her equitable natural access to the Adriatic, and also wide economic concessions in Austria-Hungary. On her side, we will demand, as principal and essential conditions, that Serbia cease in the future all relation with, and suppress every association or group whose political object aims at the disintegration of the monarchy, particularly the Serbian Political Society, Narodni Ochrana; that Serbia loyally and by every means in her power prevent any kind of political agitation, either in Serbia or beyond her frontiers, in the foregoing direction, and give assurances thereof under the guarantee of the Entente Powers.
"The events in Russia compel me to reserve my ideas with regard to that country until a legal definite government is established there.
"Having thus laid my ideas clearly before you, I would ask you in turn, after consulting with these two powers, to lay before me the opinion of France and England, with a view thus to preparing the ground for an understanding on the basis of which official preliminary negotiations could be taken up and reach a result satisfactory to all.
"Hoping that thus we will soon be able, together, to put a limit to the sufferings of so many millions of men and families now plunged in sadness and anxiety, I beg to assure you of my warmest and most brotherly affection.
CHARLES."
The French note adds:
"Count Czernin, having recognized by his note of April 8, the existence of this negotiation due to the initiative of a personage of 'a rank far above his,' the Austrian Government is now summoned to give an explanation of the 'attempt' avowed by it and of the details of the conversation of its delegates."
Resignation of Count Czernin.—Count Czernin, Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, resigned on April 15. His resignation was undoubtedly connected with the awkward position in which Austria was placed by the controversy with France, and the publication of the Emperor's letter to Prince Sixtus; evidence indicated that his downfall was forced by Berlin.
Baron Burian Made Foreign Minister.—Confirmation of the appointment of Baron Burian to succeed Count Czernin, as Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, was received by the State Department on April 17.
Baron Stephan Burian von Rajecz was Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs from September 15, 1914, to December 23, 1916, when he was succeeded by Count Czernin, whose place he now takes. Baron Burian has been Finance Minister since Count Czernin has been in the Foreign Office. He took the place of Count Berchtold as Foreign Minister in 1914, and was the author of the notes to the United States on the case of the Italian steamship Ancona, sunk in the Mediterranean with the loss of American lives in the fall of 1915.
Burian has been regarded by officials here as more friendly to America in the past than any of the other statesmen of the Dual Monarchy.—N. Y. Times, 8/4.
Italy and Jugo-Slavs in Agreement.—A quiet modification of Italy's war aims has apparently been made, particularly with reference to the Jugo-Slavs. The New Europe announces that an agreement has been reached by representatives of the two nations, though it has not yet been ratified in Rome. In February, it was strongly intimated in Prime Minister Orlando's name that Italy was ready to revise her "finality," as embodied in the secret treaty of 1915, and to adjust herself to "the new and real situation." Powerful Italian newspapers, the Sccolo, the Messaggero, and the Corriere Delia Sera, advocated this change of front, though the organ of Sonnino, the Foreign Minister, continued to oppose it. The actual result of the controversy and the negotiations must be awaited, but it is interesting to note that the mere report of an accord between Italy and the Jugo-Slavs, led to open advocacy in the Austrian Reichsrat of independence for all Slavs within the Dual Monarchy. And this heightened the demands and kindled the hopes of the Czechs in Bohemia. Here we have a hint of those "domestic matters" on which Count Czernin dwelt with so much concern in his recent Orphic speech in Vienna.—N. Y. Nation, 11/4.
GREAT BRITAIN
Lloyd George's Speech of April 9.—On April 9, Premier Lloyd George addressed the House of Commons on the crisis in the military situation, announcing the purpose of the government to introduce bills for conscription in Ireland and for putting at the disposal of the government every able-bodied man up to 50, and in some cases 54 years old. The speech dealt fully and frankly with the military situation. Among other points, it was stated that at the outbreak of the March offensive the Germans were slightly inferior to the Allies in all branches of the service, though approximately equal in infantry; that the location, strength and degree of the Amiens attack had been accurately predicted by General Sir Henry Wilson in January; that through the retirement of the 5th army, the situation was at one time very critical; that the consent of America to brigade her battalions with those of the Allies and the decision of the Versailles conference to place General Foch in supreme direction of the strategy of all the Allied armies on the western front, were essential to Allied success.
The part of the Premier's speech dealing with Irish conscription was as follows:
"I now come to the question of Ireland. When an emergency has arisen which makes it necessary to put men of 50 and boys of 18 into the army in the fight for liberty and independence—"
Joseph Devlin here interrupted—"and small nationalities."
The Premier resumed: "Especially, as I am reminded, to fight for liberty and independence and small nationalities, I am perfectly certain it is not possible to justify any longer the exclusion of Ireland."
John Dillon—"You will not get any men from Ireland by compulsion, not a man."
"What is the position?" continued Mr. Lloyd George. "No Home Rule proposal ever submitted in this House proposed to deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power of dealing with all questions in relation to the army and navy. These invariably are in every Home Rule bill I have ever seen and are purely questions for the Imperial Parliament, so that I am no more claiming any national right than was ever claimed in the House. The Defense of the Realm Act also was extended to Ireland.
"The character of the quarrel in which we are engaged is just as much Irish as English. May I say it is more so? It is more Irish, Scotch, and Welsh than it is even English. Ireland, through its representatives at the beginning of the war, assented to it."
Mr. Devlin here interjected—"Because it was a war for small nationalities."
The Prime Minister resuming: "Ireland, through its representatives, assented to the war, voted for the war, supported the war. Irish representatives and Ireland, through its representatives, without a dissenting voice committed the empire to this war. They are as responsible for it as any part of the United Kingdom. May I just read the declaration issued by the Irish party on December 17, 1914, shortly after the war began? "
Mr. Byrne interrupted with: "We have had a revolution since then."
The Prime Minister, resuming: "This is the Declaration of the Irish Party: 'A test to search men's souls has arisen. The empire is engaged in the most serious war in history. It is a just war, provoked by the intolerable military despotism of Germany. It is a war for the defence of the sacred rights and liberties of small nations and the respect and enlargement of the great principles of nationality. Involved in it is the fate of France, our kindred country and the chief nation of that powerful Celtic race to which we belong; the fate of Belgium, to whom we are attached by the same great ties of race and by the common desire of small nations to assert their freedom, and the fate of Poland, whose sufferings and struggles bear so marked a resemblance to our own.
"'It is a war for the high ideals of human government and international relations, and Ireland would be false to her history and to every consideration of honor, good faith, and self-interest did she not willingly bear her share in its burdens and its sacrifices.'
"May I also refer to a speech delivered by the late John Redmond at Mansion House, Dublin, when he was addressing a recruiting meeting there. He said:
"'The heart of Ireland has been profoundly moved by the spectacle of the heroism and sufferings of Belgium. The other day in London, I met Cardinal Archbishop Mercier, and I took the liberty of promising him then that Ireland would bring her arms and her strength to avenge Louvain and to uphold and defend the integrity and independence of Belgium.'
"'Belgium, Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, and France. Those are words for the Irish people to think over. There never was a war in which higher and nobler issues were at stake. I have heard some people speak of this war as an English and not an Irish War. That is absolutely and definitely untrue. Ireland's highest imperial interests are at stake.'
"The fact that America is in this war is the best proof. There are more Irishmen in the United States than there are in Ireland. They are all subject to conscription."
Captain W. A. Redmond, son of the late Irish leader, interrupted: "Not by England!"
Mr. Lloyd George resumed: "Irishmen in Great Britain are subject to conscription and so are Irishmen in Canada. Mr. Redmond in addressing this House on the military service bill in 1916, said:
"'Let me state what is my personal view of this matter of compulsion. I am content to take the phrase used by the Prime Minister in his last speech, and I am prepared to say that I will stick at nothing which is calculated in order to win this war, and this is the view, I am certain, of the people of Ireland.'
"Then he was opposed to that particular bill. But he said that with him conscription was not a question of principle; it was purely a question of necessity for the raising of men. I think the member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) took substantially the same view in a speech which he delivered at the same time. The member said:
"'We are now engaged in discussing an important political proposal for the country. Like the member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond), I view the thing from the point of necessity and expediency, and in particular circumstances. I would not hesitate to support conscription to-morrow if I thought it was necessary to maintain liberty, and if there was no conscription we ran the risk of losing the war.'"
Mr. Dillon interrupted: "That was conditional on Ireland having the liberty to decide her own fate, and if Irish liberty were at stake, I certainly would not hesitate to support conscription."
"I do not want to enter into a controversy as to what my friend meant," continued the Premier, "but that is what he conveyed to the House, and if he will take the trouble to read the speech, he will see that is the case. Mr. Redmond himself, on the third reading, in delivering his speech, put it on the ground that we were fighting for small nationalities."
"He found that was not true," was the interjection of Mr. Devlin.
Mr. Lloyd George went on:
"The honorable member never challenged the justice of the war; on the contrary, he supported it, voted for it and. supplies, and voted for the declaration of war."
"The Premier is going too far," interrupted Mr. Dillon. "I never challenged the justice of the war; I believed in the justice of the war and said so. I never voted for supplies, nor did any one else in this House, for the vote was never taken. I never challenged the justice of the war and I do not challenge it now. The Premier is going too far when he says that, and most certainly I did vote for the war. I hold very strong opinions about the origin of the war."
"I am satisfied with the statements made by my honorable friend," continued Premier Lloyd George. "He supported the justice of the war. If he believed it was an unjust war he never would have voted for it. May I say so quite respectfully and after a good deal of reflection and hesitation, because, after all, one does not want to propose anything to raise controversy and trouble when, Heaven knows, we have as much trouble as we can possibly deal with. I would not do it unless I thought it was just after great reflection.
"It is indefensible that you should ask young men of 18 years and married men of 35 and 40 with families, and even up to 50, in England, Scotland, and Wales, and that you should compel them to fight for the freedom and independence of a small Catholic nationality in Europe, while the young men of 20 to 25 in Ireland are under no obligation to take up arms for a cause which is just as much theirs as ours. It is not merely illogical, it is unjust.
"There is such a thing as justice for Scotland. England, and Wales, and the emergency which Mr. Redmond contemplated and which I still respectfully suggest the member for Mayo also contemplated, that we should not win this war without taking this measure, has arisen. President Wilson's dramatic decision in the last few days is the best proof, and there is a special emergency with regard to Ireland.
"Irish battalions and divisions, according to all testimony, have maintained the high honor and repute of their native land, and those battalions are sadly depleted and they are now filled, or half filled, with Englishmen. If it were merely England's battle, the young men of Ireland might regard the fact with indifference, but it is not. They are just as much concerned as the young men of England.
"Therefore, we propose to extend the Military Service Act to Ireland, under the same conditions as in Great Britain. As there is no machinery in existence and no register has yet been completed in Ireland, it may take some weeks before actual enrollment begins. As soon as arrangements are complete the government shall by an order in council put the act into immediate operation."
"That is a declaration of war against Ireland," interrupted William O'Brien, Nationalist member for Cork. Michael Flavin, member for Kerry, added: "And Irishmen all over the world."
"Without delay!" replied the Premier, who continued: "Meanwhile, we intend to invite Parliament to pass a measure of self-government for Ireland."
"You can keep it," said Alfred Byrne, Nationalist, for Dublin.
"Let there be no misapprehension. Both questions will not hang together. Each must be taken on its merits," said the Premier.
"You can keep both," replied Mr. Byrne.
"Well," said the Premier, "if that is the view of Home Rule, it is a new view for Ireland.
"While Great Britain is fighting for national rights in Europe with all her reserves and strength she is prepared to concede the same rights in her own sphere of government. The report of the remarkable convention which has been held in Ireland and which has just brought its proceedings to a termination, affords the British Parliament another opportunity of approaching this vexed question with more hope of success."—New York Times, 11/4.
Commons Passes Man Power Bill.—London, April 16.—The House of Commons to-night rejected John Dillon's motion for the omission of the Irish conscription clause from the Man Power bill by a majority of 176, and finally passed the third reading of the whole bill by 301 to 103, a majority of 198.
London, April 16.—George N. Barnes, Labor member of the War Cabinet without portfolio, announced in the House of Commons to-day that the government intended to introduce a Home Rule bill immediately, and would use every pressure to pass it.
Mr. Barnes also announced that the Lloyd George government would resign if the House of Lords refused to pass the new bill.
Premier Lloyd George, in a speech in the Commons, said:
"It is desirable in the interest of the war that we should settle the Irish question and produce something like contentment in Ireland, and good-will in America."
Mr. Lloyd George said he believed that American opinion supported the Man Power bill, provided that self-government were given to Ireland, and it was of the greatest importance, at the moment America was rendering to the Allies great aid on the battlefield, that Great Britain should satisfy American opinion. Nothing would tend more, he said, to secure the greatest measure of American assistance.—N.Y. Times, 17/4.
Results of Irish Convention.—On April 9, the report of Sir Horace Plunkett, chairman of the convention on Irish Government that has been in session for the last eight months, was read in the British House of Commons. While not in the proper sense a majority report, the document presented a scheme of government for Ireland which, according to the chairman, was agreed upon by all the Southern Unionists, a majority of the Nationalists, and five out of the seven Labor representatives. The difficulties of the convention were summed up in the two words "Ulster" and "customs," the latter referring to the demand of the Nationalists for full control of customs and excise revenue, to which neither the Ulster Unionists nor the Southern Unionists would agree.
The scheme proposed provides for an Irish Parliament, subordinate to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the question of fiscal control to be left until after the war.
Allied Labor's War Aims.—An inter-Allied Labor and Socialist Conference has just concluded its sittings in London, says the London Clarion, a Socialist organ, and it drew up a comprehensive memorandum on war aims. It is a modification of the British Labor party's statement of last August, but is significant as it has received the endorsement of the Labor and Socialist organizations in Britain, France, Italy, South Africa, Belgium, and Roumania. It is thus reported:
"The resolution to fight until victory is achieved by which Belgium and the other forcibly annexed peoples are liberated is reaffirmed.
"A League of Nations to prevent wars, democratically founded, is made the basis of peace. The section defining the constitution of the League has been rewritten more clearly and fully. Large powers are claimed for it.
"On Alsace-Lorraine the French Socialist demand is explicitly followed. This involves, first, the disannexation of the territory by Germany; the people then are freely to choose their destiny.
"Similarly, it is now claimed that Servia, Montenegro, Roumania, and all the Balkan territories overrun must be evacuated, and each people given full liberty to settle its own destiny. Slavs in Italian territory and Italians in Slavonian territory must have full liberty of local self-government.
"Absolute independence and unity of Poland are more emphatically demanded.
"No annexation of Livonia, Courland, or Lithuania by Germany is admissible.
"With regard to Austria-Hungary, the Czecho-Slovaks' and the Southern Slavs' right to independence is laid down, and also national independence for peoples which demand it, with freedom to substitute a federation of Danubian States for the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
"The paragraph on tropical Africa has been rewritten. Instead of all tropical Africa being handed to the control of the League of Nations, the conquered colonies are to be specially decided on at the Peace Conference, and those in tropical Africa to be controlled according to international agreement under the League of Nations, with economic equality of treatment for all nations, so that none shall be shut out from raw materials or trade.
"No economic boycott of any country after the war.
"It was decided to send the program of the conference to the enemy countries, and to ask for a reply in the hope of securing the adhesion of the socialists of the Central Empires. A committee was appointed to communicate Labor war aims to the Allied Governments, and to secure a promise that one representative of labor should form part of each government's representation at the Peace Conference."—Literary Digest, 6/4.
SEIZURE OF DUTCH SHIPS
On March 20, President Wilson issued a proclamation authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to take over all such vessels of Netherlands registry within the territorial waters of the United States as might be necessary for the prosecution of war on Germany. It was estimated that there were at that time approximately 500,000 tons of these ships in American waters, with an equal amount of tonnage within the jurisdiction of Great Britain and France.
In a statement supplementing the proclamation, President Wilson reviewed the preceding negotiations, and made it clear that he sympathized with Holland's precarious position as a result of Germany's defiant attitude, which made impossible "the meeting of free wills."
Dutch Government's Protest.—On March 30, the Dutch Government issued a strong protest against the action of the American Government, apparently admitting the legality of the action, but declaring it unjustified on higher grounds. The first part of the statement reads as follows:
"With painful surprise, the government and the whole Dutch nation have taken notice of the Presidential proclamation and the statement of March 20, relative to the seizure of part of the Dutch merchant fleet. The seizure en bloc of a neutral mercantile fleet, if only for the duration of the war, is an act indefensible from the viewpoint of international law and unjustifiable toward a friendly nation, apart from considerations of legality. But the manner, also, in which the Presidential statement defends this act of violence does not contribute toward lessening the sting thereof, for this defence has plainly been drawn up under the influence of a completely incorrect representation of affairs.
"The manner in which the Dutch merchant fleet has been treated in past months in the United States, the incessant difficulties placed in the way of our sailings from American ports, repeated refusals of bunkering facilities, and forced unloading of cargoes already bought—all this may be within the rights of the United States (save one case, that of the Zeelandia, which with her own bunker coal entered an American port and has been unlawfully detained there since), but it surely was against the traditional friendship between the two countries, although on this point the Presidential statement keeps silence."
Here follows a detailed defence of the conduct of the Dutch Government in the protracted negotiations. When on March 7, the Allies insisted that the Dutch ships should be used in transport to France, Holland objected on the ground that ''as a neutral country she could not consent to the use of her ships in the danger zone, unless the associated governments could guarantee that the ships would not be armed and would not transport troops or war materials."
Secretary Lansing's Reply.—On April 12, Secretary of State Lansing replied to the Dutch Protest, pointing out: (1) That the seizure of Dutch ships was entirely legal; (2) that Holland had clearly been prevented by Germany from carrying out her previous agreement; and (3) that the ships were requisitioned only for the period of the war and would be put in a highly lucrative service, all risks being assumed by the United States. The reply follows:
April 13.—"The Netherlands Government have issued a statement relative to the recent action of the government of the United States in putting into its service for the period of the present war emergency certain privately owned vessels of Netherlands registry lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. While this action is referred to as being indefensible from the standpoint of international law, the statement of the Netherlands Government does not argue the question of legality. Nor is this government disposed to do so. The practice of nations and the opinions of jurists on the right of a belligerent to utilize all vessels which come voluntarily and unconditionally within its jurisdiction are sufficiently well known to render citation of precedent and of authority unnecessary. But, as the Netherlands Government themselves suggest, our action must be subjected to a finer test than that of mere legality. It matters very little that our act be legal if, as alleged, it violates traditional friendship and is inconsistent with ideals of right and justice.
"The Netherlands Government first declare that the very presence of Dutch ships in our ports resulted from our detention of them with an unfriendly hand. While our right to refuse bunkers and cargo license is conceded, friendship, it is said, should have led to the granting of special privileges in favor of the subjects of a friendly state. Our own supply of bunker coal at seaboard has been inadequate for our pressing national needs. The cargoes which were demanded were largely of grain, of which our own reserves are all too low. The bunkers, if granted, would have served to carry this grain to the Netherlands where, as events have demonstrated, it was not then needed, and where it would only have served to release equivalent foodstuffs for the enemy. Such action on our part, whatever its intention, would in fact have been an act beneficial to the enemy, and having no relation to our friendship to the Netherlands. The owners of Dutch ships were, however, unwilling that their ships should perform any other services than those which it was clearly impossible for us to facilitate, and the ships of this maritime nation accordingly lay idle for many months and until the conclusion on January 25, 1918, of the temporary shipping agreement which was proposed by the Netherlands Commissioners at London and accepted by the United States as a measure to restore to immediate activity that portion of the Netherlands mercantile fleet lying within our waters.
"The statement of the Netherlands Government seems to imply that this agreement was in fact lived up to by the Netherlands Government, yet evidence to the contrary is found in the statement itself which refers to German objections as having prevented performance by that government of what is erroneously referred to as America's demand, but what was in reality a Netherlands undertaking, that when a Dutch ship left the United States for the Netherlands a corresponding Dutch vessel should simultaneously leave the Netherlands for the United States. Had not the Netherlands Government, under German threats of violence, which were a matter of common knowledge, felt unable to carry out the temporary shipping agreement, it is inexplicable that the S. S. Samarinda and Adonis would not have sailed for a Dutch port with their cargoes of foodstuffs, which under the agreement the Netherlands was to receive, and of which it was asserted her people were in direst need. Indeed, the statement of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs made to Parliament on March 12, 1918, if it is correctly reported to us, sets out in considerable detail Germany's objections, which prevented performance of this shipping agreement. As recently as March 14, 1918, after the Netherlands Government had been informed that the situation had reached a point where the associated governments could see no alternative but requisitioning, a note was presented on behalf of the Netherlands Government expressing the hope that Germany's objections might still be overcome, so as to permit at some future date complete performance of this agreement, which was to have been put into operation immediately and completely upon its conclusion, nearly two months before.
"One year ago, the United States abandoned its neutrality and pledged its entire resources of life and treasure to insure the triumph of democracy over autocracy and to assist to save the world from the blight of militarism. As a result of a species of naval warfare directed against belligerents and neutrals alike, which the Netherlands Government have themselves declared to be illegal, there has during this period existed a shortage of shipping which threatened to postpone at frightful cost the ultimate victory. This has created an emergency which in magnitude and significance has seldom if ever before been equaled. During this period there have been lying in ports of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction and control approximately 500,000 tons of ships of Netherlands registry.
At any time within a year the United States might have exercised its right to put these ships into a service useful to it. Yet it forebore and for many months patiently negotiated, first in Washington and then in London, until finally the temporary agreement of January 25 was entered into. No sooner was this agreement concluded than it broke down under German threats of violence which overruled the will of the Netherlands Government expressed therein. Then and then only did the United States take steps to accomplish through the exercise of its own right that which it was hoped could have been accomplished by agreement, and which the Netherlands Government had been willing in part so to accomplish.
"The action taken leaves available to the Netherlands Government by far the greater part of their merchant marine and tonnage which, according to estimates of their own officials, is ample for the domestic and Colonial needs of the Netherlands. Shipping required for these needs will be free from detention on our part and will be facilitated by the supplying of bunkers. The balance is being put into a highly lucrative service, the owners receiving the remuneration, and the associated governments assuming the risks involved. In order to insure to the Netherlands the future enjoyment of her merchant marine intact, not only will ships be returned at the termination of the existing war emergency, but the associated governments have offered to replace in kind rather than in money any vessels which may be lost whether by war or marine risk; 100,000 tons of bread cereal which the German Government when appealed to refused to supply, have been offered to the Netherlands by the associated governments out of their own inadequate supplies, and arrangements are being perfected to tender to the Netherlands Government other commodities which they desire to promote their national welfare, and for which they may freely send their ships.
"The statement of the Netherlands Government explicitly recognizes the traditional friendship of the United States toward their country. It recognizes that we have heretofore sought to act in accordance with the dictates of right and justice and to champion the interests of smaller nations. It should not therefore hastily be presumed that we have now abruptly repudiated that friendship and been false to those ideals. It is, in fact, difficult to believe that such a conclusion could be drawn from this exercise of our rights in a manner which scrupulously safeguards and indeed promotes the national interests of the Netherlands."
Japanese-American Shipping Agreement.—Washington, April 2.—More than 250,000 tons of shipping constructed in Japan, of which 30 vessels averaging 5000 tons each will fly the Japanese flag, soon will be in the transatlantic service carrying troops, food and munitions to France.
In addition to this tonnage, the United States Government has arranged for a new construction in Japan, which will aggregate another 200,000 tons.
All of the vessels, as rapidly as they can be made available, will be armed with guns, provided with gun crews, and all the latest devices to fight the German submarines will be installed on them.
Official announcement already has been made by the War Trade Board of the sale to the United States of 100,000 tons of these vessels, the delivery of which will begin in May and will be completed by September. The government has also made formal announcement concerning negotiations to obtain the 200,000 tons of new construction.
The additional 150,000 tons making up the total of 450,000 tons are to be chartered by the United States, but will remain in the possession of Japan. The 30 vessels are now afloat and it is understood that they can be placed in the Atlantic soon enough to be of great value in supplying the fighting forces of Europe this summer.
In connection with the negotiations for the use of all of the tonnage involved in the transatlantic trade, the United States has agreed to furnish Japan with steel plates so that Japan's building program will not be interrupted. The first shipment of steel plates will total 100,000 tons, sufficient for the construction of 300,000 tons of shipping.
ALLIED FORCES IN VLADIVOSTOK
According to a despatch dated April 5 from the U. S. Consul at Vladivostok, a small armed force was on that date landed from Japanese cruisers in the harbor. "This action," according to the announcement, "was taken following an invasion of a Japanese office by five armed Russians, who, upon being refused money, opened fire, killing one Japanese and wounding two others."
Advices from Moscow on April 6, stated that British as well as Japanese forces had been landed. The Moscow Government announced that political steps would be taken and that the Soviets of Siberia had been ordered to offer armed resistance to enemy incursions.
London, April 8.—Official telegrams from Tokio, say that the landing of Japanese and British forces at Vladivostok was a purely local affair, and has no relation to any Japanese intervention in Siberia. The landing followed the pillaging on Thursday of Japanese business houses, during which three Japanese were killed. The police do not maintain order in the city, but on the contrary the local militia invites trouble.
A Reuter dispatch from Moscow says the Japanese diplomatic mission has issued a statement, guaranteeing that the landing of Japanese forces at Vladivostok is purely a local incident, and declaring that its object will soon be fulfilled.
Vladivostok, Monday, April 1 (Associated Press).—Radical Bolsheviki are steadily arriving from Irkutsk and Blagovieshtchensk, sometimes accompanied by armed Austrian prisoners, with the avowed purpose of forcing the local Bolsheviki to adopt harsher measures. This has resulted in the seizure of the Russian volunteer fleet, and the occupation of post offices and telegraph offices.
SOUTH AMERICA
Uruguay Puzzled.—Montevido, April 12.—The government of Uruguay has asked Berlin, through Switzerland, if Germany considers that a state of war exists with Uruguay, as stated by the commander of a submarine who captured a Uruguayan military commission bound for France.
If the reply is in the affirmative Uruguay will declare a state of war. If a negative reply is received, Uruguay will demand that the commissioners be liberated on parole.
The above dispatch indicates that a German submarine captured a Uruguayan mission to France. This is the first intimation that such an incident had occurred—N. Y. Times, 4/13.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS
U. S. War Expenditures and Taxation.—Interesting figures were recently published by the Treasury Department, covering expenditures for the month of March, and for the first nine months of this fiscal year. On this basis, the N. Y. Evening Post estimates that the total expenditures for the full year ending July 1, 1918, will be about $12,200,000,000, which is six and one-half billion smaller than the government estimate of last December.
Of this sum, the amount actually expended for war purposes, exclusive of loans, has been something over $4,600,000,000 for the nine months ending March 31, which is only one-third of the amount estimated for the full year. This difference is at least partly accounted for by the fact that the country's capacity for production has not equaled the assumptions when the appropriations were made.
On the other hand, the yield of the new war taxes has been considerably underestimated. Even on the estimates made last October, the United States, on the basis of the expenditures estimated above, will be meeting 45 per cent of her war-time expenditures by taxation, as compared with 20 per cent in England, 16 per cent in France and Italy, and 10 to 11 per cent in Germany. And if the revenue should be even $500,000,000 greater than the estimates, the taxpayers would be providing over 50 per cent of war expenditures. This is a proportion unprecedented in past wars.
Debts of Warring Powers.—Three and one-half years of war have placed the eight chief belligerents just $137,404,000,000 in debt. More than two-thirds of this total public debt is charged to Great Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the United States.
Official figures made public yesterday by the federal reserve board show the allied countries with an aggregate public debt of $92,978,000,000, as against $44,426,000,000 charged against the governments of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Great Britain, without her colonies, is most heavily indebted, with Germany and Russia close behind.
Figures in Detail.—The detailed figures follow:
Allied Powers
Great Britain $27,636,000,000
Australia $942,000,000
Canada $1,011,000,000
New Zealand $611,000,000
South Africa $734,000,000
France $22,227,000,000
Russia $25,383,000,000
United States $7,758,000,000
Italy $6,676,000,000
Total $92,978,000,000
Central Powers
Germany $25,408,000,000
Austria $13,314,000,000
Hungary $5,704,000,000
Total $44,426,000,000
The financial position of the Allies as a group is far stronger than that of the Central Powers, however. All the Allies except Russia and Italy, show a higher percentage of gold and silver deposits against their notes than any of the Central Powers. Federal reserve board figures show the United States as the strongest power, with gold and silver amounting to 61.7 per cent of her note and deposit liabilities. Japan ranks second, with 46.6 per cent.
English Percentage 27.5
Great Britain is strongest of the countries in the war from the start. She has gold and silver amounting to 27.5 per cent of her liabilities in notes, and France has 13.7 per cent, with Italy third, at 11.5 per cent. Russian figures show 6.8 per cent.
Germany has gold and silver amounting to 13.3 per cent of her paper liabilities, while Austria is virtually bankrupt, with 1.1 per cent. In other words, the Austrian Government is doing $100 worth of business on every gold or silver dollar she can muster.—Washington Post, 16/4.