From November 20 to December 20
PRESIDENT WILSON IN PARIS
American Peace Delegates Chosen.—On November 27 it was announced that the American delegation to the peace conference would be as follows:
Woodrow Wilson, who would act as an actual delegate, his place being taken later by Secretary of War Baker.
Robert Lansing, Secretary of State.
Colonel Edward House.
Henry White, formerly Ambassador to France and American delegate at the Algeciras conference in 1906.
David F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture.
President Justifies His Attendance at Conference.—In his annual message, which he read to Congress on Dec. 2, President Wilson declared that it was his "paramount duty" to attend the peace conference, and requested the encouragement of united support. The part of the message dealing with his departure follows: Gentlemen of the Congress:
The year that has elapsed since I last stood before you to fulfill my constitutional duty to give to the Congress from time to time information on the state of the Union has been so crowded with great events, great processes and great results that I cannot hope to give you an adequate picture of its transactions or of the far-reaching changes which have been wrought in the life of our nation and of the world. You have yourselves witnessed these things as I have. It is too soon to assess them; and we who stand in the midst of them and are part of them are less qualified than men of another generation will be to say what they mean or even what they have been.
But some great outstanding facts are unmistakable and constitute, in a sense, part of the public business with which it is our duty to deal. To state them is to set the stage for legislative and executive action which must grow out of them and which we have yet to shape and determine.
Troop Shipment Unequaled.—A year ago we had sent 145,918 men overseas. Since then we have sent 1,950,513, an average of 162,542 each month, the number, in fact, rising in May last to 245,951, in June to 278,760, in July to 307,182 and continuing to reach similar figures in August and September—in August 289,570 and in September 257,438.
No such movement of troops ever took place before across 3000 miles of sea, followed by adequate equipment and supplies and carried safely through extraordinary dangers of attack—dangers which were alike strange and infinitely difficult to guard against. In all this movement only 758 men were lost by enemy attack, 630 of whom were upon a single English transport, which was sunk near the Orkney Islands.
I need not tell you what lay back of this great movement of men and material. It is not invidious to say that back of it lay a supporting organization of the industries of the country and of all its productive activities, more complete, more thorough in method and effective in result, more spirited and unanimous in purpose and effort than any other great belligerent has been able to effect. We profited greatly by the experience of the nations which had already been engaged for nearly three years in the exigent and exacting business, their every resource and every executive proficiency taxed to the utmost. We were their pupils. But we learned quickly and acted with a promptness and a readiness that justify our great pride that we were able to serve the world with unparalleled energy and quick accomplishment.
Praises Work of Troops.—But it is not the physical scale and executive efficiency of preparation, supply, equipment and dispatch that I would dwell upon, but the mettle and quality of the officers and men we sent over and of the sailors who kept the seas, and the spirit of the nation that stood behind them. No soldiers or sailors ever proved themselves more quickly ready for the test of battle or acquitted themselves with more splendid courage and achievement when put to the test.
Those of us who played some part in directing the great processes by which the war was pushed irresistibly forward to the final triumph may now forget all that and delight our thoughts with the story of what our men did. Their officers understood the grim and exacting task they had undertaken and performed it with an audacity, efficiency and unhesitating courage that touch the story of convoy and battle with imperishable distinction at every turn, whether the enterprise were great or small— from their great chiefs, Pershing and Sims, down to the youngest lieutenant; and their men were worthy of them—such men as hardly need to be commanded, and go to their terrible adventure blithely and with the quick intelligence of those who know just what it is they would accomplish. I am proud to be the fellow countryman of men of such stuff and valor.
Duty Also Well Done by Those at Home.—Those of us who stayed at home did our duty; the war could not have been won or the gallant men who fought it given their opportunity to win it otherwise; but for many a long day we shall think ourselves "accurs'd we were not there and hold our manhoods cheap while any speaks that fought," with those at St. Mihiel or Thierry. The memory of those days of triumphant battle will go with these fortunate men to their graves, and each will have his favorite memory.
Old men forget, yet all shall be forgot, but he'll remember with advantages what feats he did that day!
What we all thank God for with deepest gratitude is that our men went in force into the line of battle just at the critical moment when the whole fate of the world seemed to hang in the balance and threw their fresh strength into the ranks of freedom in time to turn the whole tide and sweep of the fateful struggle—turn it once for all, so that thenceforth it was back, back, back, for their enemies; always back, never again forward! After that it was only a scant four months before the commanders of the Central Powers knew themselves beaten, and now their very empires are in liquidation! [Part of message omitted.]
His "Paramount Duty" to Go.—I welcome this occasion to announce to the Congress my purpose to join in Paris the representatives of the governments with which we have been associated in the war against the Central Empires for the purpose of discussing with them the main features of the treaty of peace. I realize the great inconveniences that will attend my leaving the country, particularly at this time, but the conclusion that it was my paramount duty to go has been forced upon me by considerations which I hope will seem as conclusive to you as they have seemed to me.
The allied governments have accepted the bases of peace which I outlined to the Congress on the 8th of January last, as the Central Empires also have, and very reasonably desire my personal counsel in their interpretation and application, and it is highly desirable that I should give it in order that the sincere desire of our government to contribute without selfish purpose of any kind to settlements that will be of common benefit to all the nations concerned may be made fully manifest.
The peace settlements which are now to be agreed upon are of transcendent importance both to us and to the rest of the world, and I know of no business or interest which should take precedence of them.
The gallant men of our armed forces on land and sea have consciously fought for the ideals which they knew to be the ideals of their country; I have sought to express those ideals; they have accepted my statements of them as the substance of their own thought and purpose, as the associated governments have accepted them; I owe it to them to see to it, as far as in me lies, that no false or mistaken interpretation is put upon them, and no possible effort omitted to realize them. It is now my duty to play my full part in making good what they offered their life's blood to obtain. I can think of no call to service which could transcend this.
I shall be in close touch with you and with affairs on this side the water, and you will know all that I do. At my request the French and English governments have absolutely removed the censorship of cable news which until within a fortnight they had maintained, and there is now no censorship whatever exercised at this end except upon attempted trade communications with enemy countries.
It has been necessary to keep an open wire constantly available between France and the Department of War. In order that this might be done with the least possible interference with the other use of the cables, I have temporarily taken over the control of both cables in order that they may l>e used as a single system.
I did so at the advice of the most experienced cable officials, and I hope that the results will justify my hope that the news of the next few months may pass with the utmost freedom and with the least possible delay from each side of the sea to the other.
May I not hope, gentlemen of the Congress, that in the delicate tasks I shall have to perform on the other side of the sea, in my efforts truly and faithfully to interpret the principles and purposes of the country we love. I may have the encouragement and the added strength of your united support? 1 realize the magnitude and difficulty of the duty I am undertaking; I am poignantly aware of its grave responsibilities.
I am the servant of the nation. I can have no private thought or purpose of my own in performing such an errand. I go to give the best that is in me to the common settlements which I must now assist in arriving at in conference with the other working heads of the associated governments. I shall count upon your friendly countenance and encouragement.
I shall not be inaccessible. The cables and the wireless will render me available for any counsel or service you may desire of me, and I shall be happy in the thought that 1 am constantly in touch with the weighty matters of domestic policy with which we shall have to deal.
I shall make my absence as brief as possible, and shall hope to return with the happy assurance that it has been possible to translate into action the great ideals for which America has striven.
President Supports Full Naval Program.—In the same message the President endorsed as follows the current naval estimates:
I take it for granted that the Congress will carry out the naval program which was undertaken before we entered the war. The Secretary of the Navy has submitted to your committees for authorization that part of the program which covers the building plans for the next three years.
These plans have been prepared along the lines and in accordance with the policy which the Congress established, not under the exceptional conditions of the war, but with the intention of adhering to a definite method of development for the navy. I earnestly recommend the uninterrupted pursuit of that policy. It would clearly be unwise for us to attempt to adjust our programs to a future world policy as yet undetermined.
The question which causes me the greatest concern is the question of the policy to be adopted towards the railroads. I frankly turn to you for counsel upon it. I have no confident judgment of my own. I do not sec how any thoughtful man can have who knows anything of the complexity of the problem. It is a problem which must be studied, studied immediately and studied without bias or prejudice. Nothing can be gained by becoming partisans of any particular plan of settlement.
The President’s Voyage.—President Wilson and his party sailed from New York on the U. S. S. George Washington on Thursday, December 5, and, arriving in Brest on Friday, reached Paris Saturday morning, December 14. He was given an enthusiastic reception by the people of Paris, and on the same day responded to the welcome of President Poincare and to an address presented by a Socialist delegation. The reply to President Poincare follows:
"Mr. President: I am deeply indebted to you for your gracious greeting. It is very delightful to find myself in France and to feel the quick contact of sympathy and unaffected friendship between the representatives of the United States and the representatives of France.
"You have been very generous in what you were pleased to say about myself, but I feel that what I have said and what I have tried to do has been said and done only in an attempt to speak the thought of the people of the United States truly, and to carry that thought out in action.
"From the first, the thought of the people of the United States turned toward something more than the mere winning of this war. It turned to the establishment of eternal principles of right and justice. It realized that merely to win the war was not enough; that it must be won in such a way and the question raised by it settled in such a way as to insure the future peace of the world and lay the foundations for the freedom and happiness of its many peoples and nations.
"Never before has war worn so terrible a' visage or exhibited more grossly the debasing influence of illicit ambitions. I am sure that I shall look upon the ruin wrought by the armies of the Central Empires with the same repulsion and deep indignation that they stir in the hearts of the men of France and Belgium, and I appreciate, as you do, sir, the necessity of such action in the final settlement of the issues of the war as will not only rebuke such acts of terror and spoliation, but make men everywhere aware that they cannot be ventured upon without the certainty of just punishment.
"I know with what ardor and enthusiasm the soldiers and sailors of the United States have given the best that was in them to this war of redemption. They have expressed the true spirit of America. They believe their ideals to be acceptable to free peoples everywhere, and are rejoiced to have played the part they have played in giving reality to those ideals in cooperation with the armies of the Allies. We are proud of the part they have played, and we are happy that they should have been associated with such comrades in a common cause
"It is with peculiar feeling, Mr. President, that I find myself in France joining with you in rejoicing over the victory that has been won. The ties that bind France and the United States are peculiarly close. I do not know in what other comradeship we could have fought with more zest or enthusiasm. It will daily be a matter of pleasure with me to be brought into consultation with the statesmen of France and her allies in concerting the measures by which we may secure permanence for these happy relations of friendship and co-operation, and secure for the world at large such safety and freedom in its life as can be secured only by the constant association and co-operation of friends.
"I greet you not only with deep personal respect, but as the representative of the great people of France, and beg to bring you the greetings of another great people to whom the fortunes of France are of profound and lasting interest.
"I raise my glass to the health of the President of the French Republic and to Mme. Poincare and the prosperity of France."
Interallied Conferences Postponed.—Plans for the reassembling of the Interallied Conference and the meetings of the Peace Congress are gradually being matured. It was the first intention to have the Interallied Conference meet to-morrow or Tuesday, but owing to the inability of Premier Lloyd George and Foreign Minister Balfour to be here because of the British elections and the approaching holidays, the formal session will not be resumed until after Jan. 1.
Meanwhile President Wilson will have an opportunity to confer with the Premiers and leading statesmen of the Allies and to visit the battlefields and perhaps Italy. King Victor Emmanuel, the Crown Prince and Premier Orlando arrived in Paris Thursday. They will dine with the President some time this week.
The merits of the questions and considerations to come before the conference thus far have developed only in their initial phases, discussions of them having been more or less informal. For the American delegates the chief object to be obtained during the next fortnight is a first-hand understanding of the views of the European statesmen and an opportunity to convey to them the American point of view.—N. Y. Times, 16/12.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS
In press and public discussion during the period preceding the opening of the formal peace conference, the President's statement regarding freedom of the seas took precedence over other issues, as the clause most difficult of interpretation and most likely to involve differences of opinion among the allied powers. It will be recalled that clause 2 of the President's "Fourteen Points" of January 8, 1918, read as follows:
2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
The allied governments, in agreeing to the German request for an armistice, accepted the President's terms of peace, but made an exception of this clause, pointing out that the phrase freedom of the seas was "open to various interpretations, some of which they could not accept." They therefore "reserve to themselves complete freedom on this subject when they enter the peace conference." In later discussion it was generally agreed that in time of peace "freedom of the seas" had already existed throughout the past century. It was further accepted that, should some form of a league of nations come into being, the power of blockade and interdiction of commerce would be employed by it as a most effective measure against nations violating the agreements of the league. If, however, such a league were not formed, doubt was expressed whether the maritime states would be wise to give up the safeguards of commerce warfare, which in the past had been the chief weapon of sea power. Following arc quotations from various sources.
Churchill Says Britain Won’t Limit Navy.—In a speech at Dundee on Dec. 5, Winston Churchill declared that British delegates at the peace conference would demand abolition of conscription throughout Europe, but that Great Britain would consent to no limitation of her naval defence. These views were afterward expanded as follows in an article in the Glasgow Sunday Post:
"Our safety from invasion, our daily bread, every means whereby we maintain our existence as an independent people; our unity as an empire or federation of commonwealths and dependencies—all these float from hour to hour upon our naval defence," Mr. Churchill writes.
"If that defence is neglected, weakened, or fettered," he continues, "we all shall be in continual danger of subjugation or starvation. We should be forced to live in continued anxiety. If that naval defence were overpowered or outmatched by any other navy, or probably by a combination of navies, we should hold, not merely our possessions, but our lives and liberties, only on sufferance.
"Where else in the whole world can such conditions be paralleled ? We have the right to demand from all other nations, friends and foes alike, full recognition of those facts. We are also entitled to point out that this naval strength that we require and which we are determined to preserve has never been used in modern history in a selfish and aggressive manner, and that it has on four separate occasions in four separate centuries— against Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and the Kaiser— successfully defended civilization from military tyranny, and particularly preserved the independence of the Low Countries.
"In this greatest of all wars the British Navy shielded mighty America from all menace of serious danger, and when she resolved to act it was the British Navy that transported and escorted the greater proportion of her armies to the rescue and deliverance of France. Our record in a hundred years of unquestioned naval sway since Trafalgar proves the sobriety of our policy and the righteousness of our intentions. Almost the only ports in the world open freely to the commerce of all nations were those of our islands. Its possessions and our coaling stations were used freely and fully by the ships of all nations.
"We suppressed the slave trade. We put down piracy. We put it down again the other day. Even our coastwise traffic, so jealously guarded by every power in the world, was thrown open to all comers on even terms by that ancient people in whose keeping the world has been wisely ready to entrust the freedom of the seas.
"We are sincere advocates of a League of Nations. Every influence Britain can bring to bear will be used to make such a league a powerful reality. This fine conception of President Wilson has been warmly welcomed by British democracies all over the world. We shall strive to faithfully and loyally carry it into being and keep it in active benefit and existence. But we must state quite frankly that a League of Nations cannot be for us a substitute for the British Navy in any period that we can foresee."
British Press on Freedom of Seas.—The London Times reports Mr. Macpherson, the Under-Secretary for War, as saying:
"We are an island. Our one security is our navy. We can never submit to anything that can weaken this one security."
Archibald Hurd, the naval critic of the London Daily Telegraph, thinks that freedom of the seas is another way of saying "abolish the right of blockade," and he argues that—
"In war, as recent events have shown, effective freedom of the seas, as of the world, demands maintenance of ancient sea rights which have repeatedly proved to be the salvation of civilization. Philip II of Spain, Napoleon, and the Kaiser were defeated, and the American Union was saved thereby in the Civil War. Abolition of the blockade and of contraband would reduce the value of sea-power 75 per cent, because it would enable great continental armies to be sustained almost indefinitely. The sea controls the land, and so-called freedom of the seas means military autocracy by land."
Another prominent naval expert, Mr. A. H. Pollen, of the London Pall Mall Gazette, agrees, and remarks:
"Germany was defeated largely because, at last, she was effectively besieged by sea. Had neutrals been free to supply her, the war might have continued another year. Had all supplies, especially from America, been stopped from the first, it would have been over long ago. Noncombatant trading with Germany has cost Europe and America millions of lives and fifty billion dollars. If this is freedom of the seas, it has been a costly luxury."
The Manchester Guardian is the only English paper that professes to know the President's mind on this subject, and it tells us:
"By freedom of the seas he did not mean that naval fortresses such as Gibraltar or fleets should be interfered with, hut that in peace or war there should lie freedom of neutral navigation except when action was taken by the League of Nations. Submarine action, it was argued, had changed the whole question of blockade, and the two island kingdoms had more to gain by this freedom of the seas than countries with land borders."
In the course of an exhaustive article the London Spectator makes this flat statement:
"When the time arrives for presenting to Germany the final terms of peace for her acceptance or rejection, it will be of the utmost importance that all the associated powers should speak with one voice. To this end it is essential that each power should frankly state its own point of view wherever that, either in substance or in fact, differs from views expressed by other members of the great partnership. In the affairs of nations, as of individuals, frankness combined with courtesy is an essential element of good fellowship. For this reason it is most desirable that the newspaper press and the public men of Great Britain should make clear without delay that in no circumstances can an island power, which is also the center of a sea-linked empire, consent to what is called 'the freedom of the seas' if that term carries the meaning which has usually been attached to it in this country."
The reason for this definite rejection is then given:
"Let us see, then, what would be the consequences of the 'freedom of the seas,' that we have always repudiated. President Wilson demands 'absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas outside territorial waters alike in peace and in war.' Now, in peace there already is absolute freedom of navigation. Therefore what President Wilson must mean is 'in war as well as in peace.' That is the real issue. The President of the United States apparently proposes that when two nations are at war they shall only fight on land, or within their own territorial waters. No reason is advanced for this limitation of the area of warfare. War at sea is in no respect more cruel than war on land: in some respects it is less cruel.
"The idea underlying this proposal is that the seas outside territorial waters are the common possession of the whole world, and what is common to all should not be used as a battle-field by some. That is certainly an attractive idea, but will it bear examination? The sea is not merely a vacant space: it is also a highway. The effect of President Wilson's proposal, strictly interpreted, would be that a belligerent could use the sea as a safe highway for his troops up to the three mile line, which is the boundary of territorial waters. The Germans, for example, would be at liberty to organize a gigantic fleet of transports loaded with men and munitions, and these transports might move up and down the coasts of England and Scotland seeking a safe landing place, and as long as they kept outside the three-mile limit they would he immune from attack."
Most of the comment in the Paris papers emphasizes the fact that President Wilson has not yet defined what he means by freedom of the seas, but most of the French journals agree with the Matin when it says: "If this doctrine means any diminution of the power of the British Navy. France will reject it."
Both the Temps and the Journal des Debats point out how anxious Germany would be to disarm the western nations, especially England, on the sea, if she could only do so.—Literary Digest, 14/12.
British Naval Policy Justified.—The supremacy of her fleet is the "Monroe Doctrine" of the British Empire; indeed the maintenance of this supremacy is even more vital to her security than is the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine to the security of the United States. A violation of the Monroe Doctrine would not necessarily imperil our existence as a nation; whereas it is well understood that a defeat of the British fleet would sound the death-knell of the whole British Empire.
Unlike the United States, which is entirely self-supporting and geographically a unit, the British Empire consists of an island, no larger than some of our smaller states, which is the seat of the Imperial Government and the heat of the system, with numerous outlying colonies and dominions scattered throughout the world. If the mother country be considered as the heart of the system, the trade routes of the world are its arteries.
Only so long as these arteries are unobstructed can the empire function. If Great Britain were blockaded and the trade routes of the world were controlled by an enemy, the mother country would be starved into submission in a few months' time, and the Whole empire would fall like a house of cards. Hence she has laid it down that her fleet must always be of sufficient strength to preserve intact the great trade routes of the high seas. To insure this, she has made it her policy to maintain a navy equal in strength to that of any other two navies combined.
This policy is purely protective and has been accepted as such by every naval power except the one which recently aimed at the domination of the world. And in pursuance of her policy of preserving the freedom of the seas, she has followed a liberal course. Her ports have been open to the ships of all the world upon equal terms with those of her own merchant marine. She has charted the seven seas; and these charts, representing an outlay of millions of dollars, have been at the service of the whole mercantile world. Her markets have been open, without any restrictions, to the goods of her competitors in trade, including those of her greatest rival, Germany. She charges the same harbor dues and the pilot dues are the same.
In guarding the trade routes to her far-flung empire, she has, incidentally, preserved the freedom of the seas for the whole maritime world. Her record is clean and consistent; for tree trade and free seas have been the indispensable corollary, the one of the other.—Scientific American, 14/12.
Mr. Roosevelt on Anglo-American Peace.—In a letter, dated Dec. 5, to Col. George Haven Putnam, Mr. Roosevelt said in part:
I regard the British Navy as probably the most potent instrumentality for peace in the world. I do not believe we should try to build a navy in rivalry to it, but I do believe we should have the second navy in the world. Moreover, I am now prepared to say what five years ago I would not have said. I think the time has come when the United States and the British Empire can agree to a universal arbitration treaty. In other words, I believe that the time has come when we should say that under no circumstances shall there ever be a resort to war between the United States and the British Empire, and that no question can ever arise between them that cannot be settled in judicial fashion, in some such manner as questions between states of our own Union would be settled.
It is wicked not to try to live up to high ideals and to better the condition of the world. It is folly, and maybe worse than folly, not to recognize the actual facts of existence while striving thus to realize our ideals. There are many countries not yet at a level of advancement which permits real reciprocity of relations with them, and many other countries so completely unlike our own that at present no such agreement would be possible with them. But the slow march forward of the generations has brought the English speaking peoples to a point where such an agreement is entirely feasible; and it is eminently desirable among ourselves.
A LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Mr. Balfour Declares League Essential.—In an interview to press representatives on Dec. 6, Foreign Secretary Balfour expressed himself as follows in favor of an international league:
The Foreign Secretary said he believed the question of a League of Nations was the most important work imposed on the conference.
"The prominence Mr. Wilson has given the subject is a valuable contribution to civilization," he declared. "I think a league of nations a vital necessity if this war is to produce all the good we expect to come out of it. The United States would have to bear a large share in the work it involves. It should be something more than a mere instrument to prevent war. The world is more complicated than we are inclined to think. It would be folly to imagine it possible to constitute a world with states endowed with equal powers and rights.
"But I wish to say emphatically that in my opinion to devise in concert workable machinery for them is one of the highest functions the conference can deal with."
Referring to President Wilson's phrase, "make the world safe for democracy," Mr. Balfour said:
"I do not think the world can be made safe for democracy merely by multiplying the number of democratic states…
"I believe a league of nations will be required to superintend and control not only the criminal ambitions of great autocracies, but to prevent any rash and inconsiderable countries from going to war. It is impossible to talk about democracy except for countries which have reached a relatively advanced stage of civilization. A league could be trustee for those less developed. Holding this view, I regard a league of nations the greatest work of the conference."—N. Y. Times, 7/12.
Sir Robert Cecil Advocates League.—Addressing a body of American editors on Dec. 2, Lord Robert Cecil said:
We talk lightly of a league of nations, some of us, and I am not sure that all those who talk about it have really considered what it means. We have to reconcile two principles, both entitled to our warmest support— national sovereignty and international cooperation. Believe me, only those who have tried in detail to reconcile those principles know the difficulties that there are. But that we ought to try, that we ought to set up some system of that kind, that we ought to establish it as a guarantee for our descendants against the evils we have been through, no one who is neither a lunatic nor an imbecile can doubt. We have to do something, and let us approach the task in the right spirit. Let us cast aside as far as we can selfish aims, selfish ambitions, and selfish aspirations, and approach this task in that spirit and with those desires, and I doubt not we may bring it to a successful conclusion.—N. Y. Nation, 14/12.
GREAT BRITAIN
Parliamentary Elections.—General elections were held in the United Kingdom on Dec. 14, for the first time under the wider suffrage. Little apparent interest was taken in the political campaign. The election gave an increased parliamentary majority for the present government.
Lloyd George on Allies’ War Bill.—Bristol, England, December n (Associated Press).—The war bill of the Allies against Germany is £24,000,000,000 ($120,000,000,000), according to the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, who spoke before a large gathering here to-day.
Before the war the estimated wealth of Germany, said the Premier, was £15,000,000,000 to £20,000.000.000 sterling, so that if the whole wealth of Germany were taken, he said, there would not be enough to pay the account, therefore, he had before this used the words, "Germany should pay to the utmost limit of her capacity."
The Premier stated that the war had cost Germany less than it had cost Great Britain. It had cost Great Britain, he stated, £8,000.000.000 ($40,000.000,000)—a gigantic sum. The German bill, he believed, was £6,000,000,000 ($30,000,000,000) or £7,000,000,000, ($35,000,000,000). He contended that it was indefensible that the person who was in the wrong and had lost should pay less than the person who was declared to be in the right and had won.
Demands Full Cost of War.—The Premier said that a British Imperial Commission had been appointed lo investigate the capacity of Germany (to pay) and that he had received its report. He summarized his remarks on this point as follows:
First—As far as justice is concerned we have an absolute right to demand the whole cost of the war from Germany.
Second—We propose to demand the whole cost of the war from Germany.
Third—When you come to the exacting of it, we must exact in such a way that it does not do more harm to the country that receives it than the country that is paying for it.
Fourth—The committee appointed by the British Cabinet believes that that can be done.
Fifth—The Allies are in exactly the same boat. We shall put in our demands all together and whatever they are they must come in front of the German war debt.
The Prime Minister continued:
"The first consideration in the minds of the Allies will be the interests of the people upon whom the Germans have made war, and not in the interests of the German people who have made war and have been guilty of that crime."
Total Claims.—The bill of $120,000,000,000, which Premier Lloyd George said at Bristol yesterday the Allies had against Germany, is evidently based upon the accounts which the various allies have against the Berlin Government, and which approximates their actual expenditures for the war. plus damages in certain cases.
According to returns calculated by the Metals National Bank of New York, these expenditures amount to $123,400,000,000, distributed as follows:
Great Britain $41,500,000,000
United States 18,000,000,000
France 26,800,000,000
Russia 21.500,000,000
Italy 8,500,000,000
Belgium, etc 7,100,000,000
Total $123,400,000,000
—N. Y. Times, 12/12.
BELGIUM
Belgian Government Reestablished in Brussels.—On Nov. 22, King Albert again addressed the Belgian Parliament in the redeemed capital city. In his speech he promised universal and equal suffrage and equal rights to both Flemings and Waloons. Belgium, he declared, would no longer trust to a guaranteed neutrality but would "rule its destinies according to its aspirations and in full sovereignty."
At the time of King Albert's re-entry into Brussels President Wilson sent this congratulatory telegram:
"At the moment that you re-enter Brussels at the head of your victorious army, may I not express the great joy that it gives to me and to the American people to hail your return to your capital, marking your final triumph in this way, which has cost your nation so much suffering, but from which it will arise in new strength to a higher destiny?"
The new Belgian ministry consists of six Catholics, three Liberals, and three Socialists, with M. Hymans as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
GERMANY
Crown Prince Renounces Claim to Throne.—Crown Prince Frederick William has renounced his right to the German throne. A dispatch received in Basle from the semi-official Wolff Bureau in Berlin quotes the renunciation as follows:
I renounce formally and definitely all rights to the Crown of Prussia and the Imperial Crown, which would have fallen to me by the renunciation of the Emperor-King, or for other reasons.
Given by my authority and signed by my hand; done at Wieringen, Dec. 1, 1018.
Wilhelm
Ex-Kaiser Asked to Leave Holland.—Holland is just awakening to the danger of harboring the Hohenzollerns.
The question of the ex-Kaiser was again brought up in the Second Chamber yesterday, and after he has been here one month it is decided that he is an unwelcome guest and that the Government would have preferred for him not to come to Dutch territory. The Premier's statement that Wilhelm abdicated Nov. 9, but that the Dutch Minister only communicated the facts Nov. 27, is considered worthy of further investigations.
The New York Times correspondent learns from official Dutch circles that the ex-Kaiser is to be unofficially but definitely informed within the next few days, if not to-day, that he is persona non grata to Holland, and that, moreover, he is a menace to the state. This coincides with the statements in the Second Chamber. If he refuses to take the hint, it is likely that official steps will be taken.
On asking where the ex-Kaiser would be sent The Times correspondent received the answer:
"That is not Holland's business, but he can only go to Germany."— N. Y. Times, 14/12.
The Hague, December 16.—The Amsterdam Telegraaf reports this morning that the ex-Kaiser has been requested to leave the country voluntarily, owing to the precarious position of Holland if her hospitality to him continues. According to the Telegraaf, the ex-monarch refuses to heed the request.
Armistice Appeals Must Go to All Allies.—The State Department has given formal notice to Germany and Austria, through the legations in charge of the interests of those Governments here, that the United States insists that communications addressed to the United States Government or to the President of the United States as to the terms of armistice or as to other matters in which the associated governments are alike concerned should be sent to all the associated governments and not to this government alone.
This is the second request along this line which the State Department has made to the enemy countries. The latest note, which Acting Secretary Polk has sent to the Swiss and Swedish legations for transmission to Germany and Austria, is brought out particularly by a communication from the National Council of Lemhurg, regarding boundary lines, and brought out also by various other communications received from Austria and Germany which bore no evidence of having been similarly communicated to the governments associated with the United States.—Official Bulletin, 10/12.
Solf Quits Foreign Office.—At the end of November the Executive Committee of the Workers' and Soldiers' Council in Germany demanded that the People's Commissioners dismiss Foreign Secretary W. S. Solf, who had held over from the old regime. This demand on the part of the radical faction was first pushed by Kurt Eisner, Premier of Bavaria, who threatened the separation of Bavaria, unless the central government rid itself of men regarded as not in full sympathy with the extreme Socialist wing.
Though this policy of the radicals received slight support, it was announced on Dec. 11 that Dr. Solf had handed in his resignation, which had been accepted by the Ebert-Haase Cabinet.
Ebert Cabinet Gains Strength.—Following its establishment, the Ebert government in Germany steadily strengthened its control. On Nov. 24 the Liebknecht faction attempted in vain to force itself into power. On the night of Dec. 6 apparently prearranged rioting and disorder occurred in Berlin, which, however, instigated, demonstrated that the established government was receiving general support. On this occasion the Executive Committee of the Soldiers' and Workers' Council was arrested, apparently without authorization, by a body of soldiers. They were at once released by order of the government.
A crowd of about 500, formed to secure the release of the arrested committee, was in the meantime fired upon by guards, with the result that 12 or 15 were killed and some 50 wounded. While this was going on, a long column of soldiers and sailors marched down the Wilhelm strasse to the Chancellor's Building and their leader in a speech condemned the Soldiers' and Workmen's Council and attempted to proclaim Ebert President of the German Republic. Ebert declined in the following words:
"Comrades and friends, I am unwilling to accept your offer without first having consulted my colleagues in the government. This is so serious a matter that it must be left to the Council of the People's Commissioners."
Meeting of Soviet Council, December 16.—In the palace of the Prussian Diet in Berlin, the National Conference of Soldiers' and Workers' Councils assembled, some 450 in number, on Dec. 16. More than half of them were ex-soldiers still in field gray, with a few ex-officers, and the remainder chiefly of the "hard working, deep thinking type of factory employee." One of the first acts of the Conference was to defeat decisively a resolution introduced by the Spartacus group proposing that Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg be invited to attend the gathering.
The People's Commissioners, Ebert, Barth. Haase, Rittmann, Landsberg, and Schiedemann, together with the Executive Committee of the Council, occupied the benches reserved for the government under the old regime. Richard Miiller, one of the two presidents of the Executive Committee of the Soldiers' and Workers' Council, opened the meeting. He was followed by Commissioner Ebert, who dwelt in his speech on the future of the socialist republic and insisted on the necessity of establishing a stable government.
The sentiment of the meeting indicated that the National Assembly, originally scheduled for Feb. 16, would be held early in January.
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE
The Adriatic Problem.—One of the most serious danger points in European international relations at present is the conflict between Italian and Jugoslavs regarding the proper boundary between the two nations east of the Adriatic.
The Treaty of London in April, 1915, on the basis of which Italy entered the war, allotted to Italy, if she could get it, the annexation of Austrian territory east of the Adriatic, including all of Gorizia-Gradisca and Istria. with the City of Trieste, together with the coastal province of Dalmatiu as far as a line just north of Spalato, and most of the Dalmatian Islands. (See map.) In this region there were several hundred thousand Italians and nearly a million Jugoslavs—Slovenes and Croats in Istria and GoriziaGradisca, Serbo-Croats in Dalmatia. Each side claims that the Austrian census figures are falsified in favor of the other, and there is dispute as the geographical distribution of the races. Generally, however, it may he said that the Italian population predominates in the western part of Gorizia-Gradisca and Istria, and in several of the chief seaports. The population of the back country and of the islands is almost wholly Slav.
Knowledge of the Italian aspirations excited many Jugoslav troops in the Austro-Hungarian Army to fight willingly against the Italians; but many thousands of them, placed against the Russians or Serbs, surrendered without fighting and were presently formed into Jugoslav legions which fought hard in the allied armies. The fact that the Serbian people were to be included in the proposed unified State of Jugoslavia, and that they were deeply interested in the welfare of all parts of the race, made the question very largely one between two allies. A large section of the liberal Italian press, most notably the Corrierc della Sera of Milan, protested against the annexation program whose most active official supporter was the Foreign Minister, Haron Sydney Sonnino; and when Trotzky published the text of the London treaty last winter further protests followed.
This favored the movement toward cooperation between the two nations, which would divide the coast of the Adriatic between them in the event of the defeat of Austria-Hungary; it was argued by many of their leaders that they were natural allies, threatened by the common Austro-Hungarian danger. So, after the Italian defeat at Caporetto an agreement was signed between Dr. Ante Trumbitch, President of the Jugoslav Committee, and Andrea della Torre, a well-known Italian journalist representing the elements friendly to the Jugoslavs, which suggested as a solution that territorial questions should be settled on the basis of self-determination, "with due regard to the vital interests of the two peoples," and that full rights should be granted by each race to minorities of the other that might be included within its borders. This agreement was reaffirmed at the Congress of Oppressed Nationalities held at Rome last April, which, though not official so far as the Italian Government was concerned, was held under the Presidency of Premier Orlando and was generally regarded as having at least semi-official standing.
There was soon a reaction, however. Last summer the Italian press was engaged in a sharp controversy over the relations with the Jugoslavs, most of the liberal papers supporting Premier Orlando and Professor Nitti, the Minister of Finance, who favored a policy of conciliation with the Jugoslavs, while the conservative papers backed up Sonnino, whose influence, it was claimed, was manifested in several ways opposed to Jugoslav aspirations. And the Treaty of London was never formally repudiated by the Italian Government.
This fall insurrections broke out in the Jugoslav country, as in the rest of Austria, and these insurrections undoubtedly made somewhat easier the task of the Italian Army in its overwhelming final victory over the Austrians in October and November. There promptly developed on both sides, however, an unwillingness to admit that there was glory enough for all or territory enough for all. The armistice concluded with the -Austro-Hungarian Government just as that government was passing out of existence gave the Italians the right to occupy territory up to a line practically identical with that marked off for Italian annexation in that the occupation of Fiume had been requested by the Italian population. Another sore point was the Austro-Hungarian fleet, manned chiefly by Jugoslavs from the Dalmatian Islands. In the collapse of Austria coincident with the final Italian victory on the Piave the sailors revolted and turned over the fleet to the Jugoslav National Council newly chosen as the Provisional Government of the Jugoslav provinces pending ultimate union with Serbia and Montenegro. The armistice terms, however, provided that the fleet must be surrendered. The Jugoslavs expressed their willingness to surrender the fleet provisionally to Americans or to a joint allied commission, and some of their leaders asked for American instead of Italian occupation of the allied territory.
However, the fleet was surrendered without trouble, and to an allied force under Italian command, but including representatives of the other navies. Apparently also the army of occupation is to include contingents from all the Allies, though the command and the major portion of the troops are Italian; for the General Staff has announced that of the American troops in Italy some will be stationed in Trieste, some in Fiume, and some in Cattaro pending the final settlement.
The feeling, however, continues very bitter, the Jugoslavs contending that the Italians were willing to compromise when their armies had just been defeated at Caporetto, but insisted on extreme demands after their troops had won great victories. The Italians, on the other hand, assert that the victories of the Italian Army are chiefly responsible for the liberation of the Jugoslavs and object to the attitude of the latter as ungrateful.
The above statement is an attempt to present an impartial summary of the principal events in the controversy which is now a serious menace to peace on the Adriatic.—N. Y. Times, 15/12.
Present Government of Hungary.—Formal proclamation of a Hungarian Republic was issued at Budapest on Nov. 17. The Hungarian Parliament was dissolved, and the government turned over to a National Council of twenty members, which appointed a coalition ministry headed by Count Michael Karolyi. The new government maintained comparative order, though faced by famine, and though its power extended little beyond the city of Budapest. The Jugoslavs, Rumanians, Ruthenians, and Chechoslovaks, formerly under Magyar domination, now lay claim to practically all the old Hungarian territory, their claims in many cases conflicting with each other.
Alexander of Serbia Heads Jugoslav State.—Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia has been appointed Regent of the Jugoslav State by the National Council at Agram, according to a Laibach dispatch. A State Council, comprising all the members of the Agram Council, fifty delegates from Serbia, and five from Montenegro, has been summoned to meet at Serajevo. This council will appoint a cabinet for the Jugoslav State.
It has been decided further that Prince Alexander will appoint Governors at Belgrade, Serbia; Cettinje, Montenegro; Laibach, Slavonia; Serajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Spalato, Dalmatia; and Agram, Croatia. As soon as the situation is settled, elections will be held for a Constituent Assembly, which will sit at Serajevo and definitely decide upon the form of state that will be set up and adopt the constitution.—N. Y. Times, 27/11.
Aims of Czechoslavs.—Dr. Karl Kramarz was appointed Premier of the Czech Republic on Nov. 19. In an interview with an Associated Press representative on Dec. 8, he stated that it was the aim of the Czechs to maintain close commercial relations with Jugoslavs and Rumanians, with a protective wall against Germany. Their goal was to reestablish the frontiers of ancient Bohemia, within which every liberty would be granted, regardless of race.
RUSSIA
Admiral Kolchak Dictator.—A despatch from Vladivostok on Nov. 19 announced that Admiral Alexander Kolchak, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet, had secured control of the All-Russian Government at Omsk, with dictatorial powers. Admiral Kolchak later received the support of most of the anti-Bolshevik leaders in Siberia, and remained in control at the date of going to press, though not formally recognized by allied representatives.
Attitude of Czech Forces.—The Czechs were greatly surprised by the developments at Omsk, and a special meeting of the Czech National Council has been called at Cheliabinsk to decide what attitude the Czechs shall take toward the new government. While the Czechs do not desire to interfere in internal Russian policies, they are faced by the Bolsheviki on this front, and must protect their lines of communication in the rear.
All their interest is in democratic government in Russia. It is exceedingly doubtful whether they can recognize Admiral Kolchak's dictatorship, but they are in a very unfortunate position, not knowing what attitude the Allies will adopt. It is generally reported in this city and at Omsk that the Allies will recognize the dictatorship. I have been asked repeatedly why the Allies did not recognize the All-Russian Government and bring it the moral support it needed to face the monarchist and Bolshevist agitation. Now it is argued that the Allies did not favor that government because they believed a dictatorship was necessary.—N. Y. Times, 27/11.
Russia at the Peace Conference.—The Government at Omsk, of which the United States and other governments have expected much, is now in the hands of a dictator and split into factions. The Entente nations have not given up hope that the Omsk authorities may yet evolve a stable form of government for Russia, but this has not been accomplished, and none of the allied governments has recognized the Omsk regime officially, although all of them are dealing with Russian representatives who are in close touch with Admiral Kolchak and his government.
Prince Lvoff, who was Premier in the Kerensky Cabinet and who has devoted most of his life to the development of the Zemstvo system in Russia, and Boris Bakhmeteff, Russian Ambassador in Washington, appointed by Kerensky, as well as Professor Paul Milukoff. Kerensky's Minister of Foreign Affairs, are on their way to Paris or already there with other prominent Russians to do whatever they can to aid the Allies in the solution of the Russian problem. But whether they represent the people of Russia at this time is a question it is privately admitted cannot be answered here.
Far from according any recognition to the Soviet regime at Petrograd, the United States some time ago called upon all civilized nations to condemn the Bolshevist reign of terror.
Even when a set of leaders is recognized as Russian spokesmen, the United States and the Allies must face the great question of how they can be aided in setting up a stable government and in preventing famine, for the benefit of Russia herself, as well as in the interest of the peace of the world.
To aid him in the conferences with the allied leaders, President Wilson has taken a corps of Russian experts with him to Paris.—N. Y. Times, 18/12.
MISCELLANEOUS
Chile and Peru in Difficulties.—During November Chile and Peru again became involved in their old dispute regarding the final disposition of the border provinces of Tacna and Arica, taken from Peru by Chile after the war of 1879-81. The final disposition of these provinces was to be decided by a plebiscite ten years later, which Chile did not permit. On Nov. 25, 1918, it was announced that the two countries had severed diplomatic relations, and early in December both undertook steps toward mobilization. On Dec. 9 it was reported that Peru had accepted the proffered mediation of the United States and Argentina. The following statement was published in the U. S. Official Bulletin of Dec. 12:
The American Ambassador at Santiago, Chile, and the American Minister at Lima, Peru, have handed the Presidents of Chile and Peril, respectively the following statement by direction of Acting Secretary Polk of the State Department.
"The President of the United States desires to inform your Excellency that the various incidents leading up to the severance of consular relations between the Republics of Chile and Peru have been viewed by the Government of the United States with the gravest apprehension. Any agitation tending to lessen the prospect of permanent peace throughout the world, particularly on the eve of the convoking of the Peace Conference in Paris, in which it is confidently expected that steps will be taken to provide for an era of lasting peace among all peoples, would be disastrous and those persons who had caused this condition would be charged with grave responsibilities before the world for their actions.
"The President of the United States feels it his duty to draw to the attention of the Governments of Chile and Peru the gravity of the present situation and to point out to these governments the duty which they owe to the rest of the world and to mankind in general to take immediate steps to restrain popular agitation and to reestablish their peaceful relations.
"That a satisfactory and peaceful solution of the matter in dispute between the two countries may be arrived at there can be no doubt and the Government of the United States stands ready to tender alone, or in conjunction with the other countries of this hemisphere, all possible assistance to bring about an equitable solution of the matter."
President of Portugal Assassinated.—Dr. Sidonio Paes, President of Portugal, was shot and killed by an assassin in a railway station in Lisbon on December 14. The assassin, named Jeetne, was killed by the crowd.
Dr. Paes seized control in Portugal, Dec. 11, 1917, after a comparatively bloodless revolution, which involved no change in Portugal's foreign policy. He was regularly elected president last June, and has given the country a liberal administration.