Now we began to write 1900. A new century. To be sure the ancient controversy raged a good deal as to whether the century began with the cipher or with the figure one; but I think that the number 1901 signifies that the first year of the twentieth century is finished, so that it begins with 1900, therefore it already is.[44] To be sure, time runs without figures into the Ocean of Eternity, but such turning points are always impressive.
Even the Tsar’s rescript said, “This Conference should be, by the help of God, a happy presage for a century which is about to open.” Our age, however, allowed this significant epoch to pass by without “turning over a new leaf,” without saying, “Now we will dedicate the twentieth century by breaking with the old barbarism.”
Barbarism was happily rescued by its admirers, and an immeasurably horrible and pitiful war, with lurid-glaring jingoism in its train, raged as a portentous presage marking the transition from the old century to the new.
All the pacifists were troubled and indignant over this turn of affairs; but none was disheartened. It is well known that the line of progress often runs back a little in order later to advance with accelerated rapidity; and the results already achieved, the unexpected new victories in the domain of the peace cause, were already in our hands. That certainly was not going backwards. In the work of the pioneers also there was no moment of inaction; the protests against the continuation of the South African war, the reminder to the powers that mediation was open to them, the articles, the petitions,—all these things were zealously attended to by our Bern Bureau, by Stead in his Weekly, by the Unions in their meetings. Even though no direct result was attained, still the principle was unviolated, the standpoint was held, the banner was kept aloft.
Our friends had organized an international demonstration in the form of an address to the powers, signed by public societies and distinguished individuals of all nations. The names of those who were included were both numerous and imposing; but I will here call attention only to the answer of one great man who refused to join with us. I had sent out a great many invitations, among others one to Henryk Sienkiewicz. He sent me a long reply, in which he declined to sign the petition because he held the opinion that there were much worse and more pressing sufferings to be relieved than those of the Boers; for instance, the sufferings of the Poles persecuted by “Hakatism.” He believed that the English would never be able—even though they might be victorious in the Transvaal—to attempt to denationalize the people there and deprive them of all freedom. So we might much better work for people nearer at home; such was the conclusion of Sienkiewicz’s letter:
Ah, madam, before taking up with Africa, interest yourself in Europe. A gigantic humanitarian work is within your reach. Endeavor to make the spirit of the German nation ennoble the present régime, and see to it that it does not become debased by false statesmanship.
England gave birth to a great minister who spent his life in defending the rights of oppressed Ireland; can you show me another in all Europe? Leave the English spirit in peace, for it will of itself attain the end that you propose, and work for causes nearer home. Elevate political morality, ennoble the consciences of the mighty; may the clouds of injustice and of treason against human right vanish away! May a breath of humanity freshen the air poisoned by Hakatist currents! Carry the good tidings to your neighbors, bring them words of love, endeavor to instill the Kingdom of Christ into their souls. You have a noble heart, a good and unshaken will!
I replied in a few lines in which I informed him that I desired to reply to him in an open letter. Thereupon Sienkiewicz wrote back:
I allowed a Cracow newspaper to publish the letter which I sent in reply to yours, for in circumstances so important the greatest publicity cannot fail to be advantageous to the ideas which you, madam, defend with such commendable warmth.
The news that you wish to reply in an open letter causes me real joy. I believe that the more light we carry into these gloomy vaults the more we drive out of them the creatures that exist only in the darkness.
Our correspondence was accordingly published in French and Polish newspapers. The text of my reply is not within my reach; I only know that I pointed out that one should never say to any one who is undertaking something useful and helpful, “Better do this than that.” If “this” as well as “that” is directed to the same end—freedom, and suppression of injustice and suffering—then do both; but better than that which is nearer in space is the universal; for if the general principle is saved, it can be applied to other and local cases.
All this political correspondence did not prevent me from exchanging letters with my own intimate friends. Even with our friends in the Caucasus, in spite of years of separation, intercourse was not broken off.
The following letter from the Prince of Mingrelia, which I find in my letter-file for 1900, is a witness of that fact:
How much I should like to see you and chat with you! At St. Petersburg all your writings are translated and your individuality interests the public.
It is clear that the sympathies of all are aroused by your beautiful ideas. Nevertheless a strange thing is happening: every one is in favor of peace, and along with that all the powers are arming. International laws are easily read, but the application of them is pretty difficult. One must be resigned and confess that the system of Brennus is always the order of the day.[45] The English are doing in the Transvaal what others are doing elsewhere. Did not these very Boers who are pillaged now, first pillage the native Africans? In this world each has his turn. ’Tis the great immutable law. “He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword.” When one is a philosopher, injustice seems the rule, justice the exception.
Salomé will be in Paris in May, I think. I expect to take a trip in August. At all events I will keep you informed of my deeds and actions. I am going to send you my photograph very soon.
Please give my love to your husband, and think of me always as
Count Apponyi was still at work on his press project. He wrote me regarding it:
Yesterday something took place here which, with God’s help, may prove of incalculable importance for the peace movement. That is, we have taken the first step toward the establishment of an international peace union of the press, and the Hungarian group, made up of almost all the newspapers of the capital, is already formed. The proposed press union, for which we have elaborated a provisional charter, is to be organized in every degree parallel with the Interparliamentary Union, and is to be in constant touch with it. The idea originated with the Hungarian Interparliamentary Group, which, as a Conseil interparlementaire will make the motion at the Paris Conference, as indeed it has already done at the Brussels meeting, that all the national groups shall endeavor to help form the press groups, and that our Interparliamentary Bureau shall serve these groups as a center until there shall be so many of them that the independent international organization of the press can come into existence.
I have got the matter under way through correspondence; have written Descamps, Labiche, Rahusen, Dr. Hirsch, Stanhope, Pierantoni, and Pirquet. Pirquet is already at work on it; I have not yet had any answer from the others.
The importance of the plan scarcely requires argument. But I am taking the liberty of inclosing an extract from the address which I gave before the press club here and which clearly outlines my idea. It is hardly to be expected that the scheme will be everywhere so enthusiastically and unanimously adopted as it has been here, where an exceptional intimacy exists between parliament and press. But influential newspapers will everywhere be enlisted, and what we need is the systematic labors of these unpartisan journals.
What advantage is it if, for example, the Neue Freie Presse publishes to-day an article from your pen, Baroness, or one by Councilor Bloch, but on the other six days of the week speaks of the peace movement—if at all—in a scornful tone? Such sporadic articles of individual persons, no matter how distinguished, are put down as special labors, and any possible influence that they might have on the reader is immediately rendered nugatory. Only the constant logical attitude of the editorial boards renders the action of the press effectual. Now then, imagine the press organized and conducted for one purpose throughout the whole civilized world and brought into tactical partnership with the parliamentary activity; then that steam power which the Hague peace machinery needs to put it into action would be supplied. This seems to us practically much more important than to discover new articles which might be added to the Hague Convention.
After all this I hardly need to ask your benevolent furtherance of our scheme, for I do not believe that anything could impart more power to the peace movement than the success of this plan.
With greatest respect, I am
Undeterred by the South African war, the Interparliamentary Union held its Conference, and the Peace Unions likewise assembled for their annual Congress. Both organizations met in Paris, where the World’s Exposition was being held. I got a letter from the French Senate inviting us to attend the Conference as guests. Various circumstances prevented us from accepting this invitation.
The Conference was opened with impressive words by the president of the Senate, M. Fallières, now President of the Republic. The sensation of the Conference was the bearing and eloquence of Count Apponyi. He outlined his plan for a press union to be allied with the Interparliamentary Bureau, and in fact the foundation for such a union was actually laid. Unfortunately the matter did not materialize and was not generally adopted. Success will come with the next attempt.
The political bitterness which at that time divided the French into two camps, under the still convulsing excitement of the “Affair,” was a very unfavorable circumstance for the holding of an Interparliamentary Conference. The following letter from Count Apponyi refers to this:
I should like to add to the accompanying text of my speech just a few remarks on the Paris Interparliamentary Conference.
We were very sorry indeed that you were not there, but you may well congratulate yourself that you were not. It was the gloomiest meeting, the most disappointing of all our hopes, of any that I ever attended. The French were for the most part absent: Si M. un tel en est, je n’en suis pas; so the word goes. It was an unfortunate idea to lay the scene of our endeavors in the France of to-day, where everything is regarded from the visual angle of a party quarrel so accentuated that it has almost reached the point of civil war.
Everything that is not in accord with the present régime,—more accurately, with the left wing of the present régime,—was on strike, Deschanel, president of the chamber, included; the press was partly indifferent, partly hostile. I am afraid that this Conference will have a bad reactionary influence on men’s minds everywhere. The German group seemed to me infected by the French unsteadiness; it was numerously represented, but evaporated almost completely toward the end.
Perhaps I see things in too dark colors, but truly I have no personal reasons for doing so; my efforts were received in the friendliest spirit, and my group, numerously represented, made the most delightful picture. I can guarantee the soundness of this group.
But I do not give up the cause in France; as far as it was permitted me by the brevity of the time and the general flight of those concerned, I tried to get into touch with the absent parliamentary circles, and I shall certainly be able to strengthen these relations and perhaps serve as a neutral connecting link in the interest of our cause. No Frenchman is capable of uniting two of his fellow-countrymen who are not wholly unanimous in their views, even though it concerns an object highly regarded by both; not even our very sympathetic friend D’Estournelles, who is in great favor in all camps, at least socially. And without France nothing can be accomplished.
If you ask the question, Who is to blame for this? I can only reply, All. But who is most to blame? That would be a long chapter, and I will not go into it, although I have a definite answer ready. I hope you will not lay this pessimistic statement of the case up against me; but we must see clearly, not so as to be discouraged, but so as to act in a suitable manner.
Our friend Dr. Clark, a Scotchman, who has never missed a Peace Congress and has always distinguished himself by his clever speeches characterized by a certain dry humor, had just been made the object of bitter attacks by the British press. He sent me the following explanation of the circumstances:
I have received your letter, for which I thank you very heartily. These are indeed evil days for the cause with which we are associated, though I cannot but think that the events of the last year must have led many to the contemplation of the awful waste of life and suffering caused by the present system of settling international disputes by force of arms, and will induce them to work for the day when arbitration shall take the place of war with its horrible human sacrifice.
You mention the letters written to President Kruger and General Joubert by me on the 29th of September of last year, which have lately been published by Mr. Chamberlain and copied by the continental press. It is quite true that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation on that subject. For some months before the war began there had been a small party in this country who had been working to bring about a peaceable settlement. I had some correspondence with President Kruger and General Joubert, in which I had advised them to make such concessions to the British government that the calamity of war might be averted, since the prosperity of South Africa must depend on the good faith and friendly feeling between the two white races. The published letters, to which you refer, are the last portion of this correspondence, and were written less than a fortnight before the war began. In my letter to President Kruger I gave him the result of an interview which I had with Mr. Chamberlain, in which I endeavored to induce him to accede to the repeated request which the Transvaal government had made that matters at issue should be settled by arbitration, and to consent that a permanent arbitration tribunal should be formed to which all present and future disputes should at once be submitted. I told him that the Transvaal government were willing to submit the differences pending between the two governments to a court of arbitration, consisting of the four chief justices of South Africa, and to accept the Lord Chief Justice of England as umpire in the event of the two colonial and two republican chief justices not being able to agree,—a suggestion which, as you will have seen, the colonial secretary was not able to accept.
The force of misrepresentation and calumny which the peace party here have had to endure from the virulent and unscrupulous jingo press can be estimated by the manner in which they have misrepresented my warning to President Kruger. I knew, as every one who knew anything of the geography of South Africa must have known, that the obvious line of action for the Boers to adopt would be that of seizing the passes, and I warned President Kruger that to do so would alienate the sympathy of many of their supporters in this country and on the continent of Europe. My words were deliberately misconstrued, and it was asserted that I urged the Boers to seize the passes. Nothing further from the truth can be imagined.
But, in spite of the difficulties with which we have had to contend, there is, undoubtedly, a large minority here who are firmly convinced that the war is an unjust one, and who regard the settlement by annexation as another wrong against which they will continue to protest. We shall go on working by all constitutional means for the restoration of the independence of the two republics, believing that by these means only can peace and prosperity exist once more in South Africa. We believe that we are working in a just cause, and shall hope in the not too distant future that we may be able to appeal to the justice of this people, who will then have recognized the folly and wickedness for which they have been made responsible.
We do not doubt the future. We are sure that it is with us. It is true that the middle classes and the moderate liberals have abandoned their old watchword of “Peace, retrenchment, and reform,” but the radicals and socialists are standing firmly by these principles. I send you a copy of the socialist paper Justice, which expressed fairly the attitude of the democratic party. I have, as you know, opposed the growth of socialism, which I formerly believed to be inimical to freedom and progress, but I am considerably modifying my views. The power for evil of the lawless and conscienceless capitalism which is now rampant is so great, and entails such unlimited moral and physical degeneracy, that I am convinced some form of collective action is a necessity to put an end to its baneful influence.
The history of this miserable war determines us to stand more determinedly by the principle of the substitution of arbitration for war. It becomes clearer and clearer that no permanent settlement can be based on war, and that, as between individuals, so between nations, magnanimity is not only morally desirable, but it is the best policy.
I am taking a yachting holiday in Scotland, but we may be overtaken by a general election here at any time.
Thanking you again for your letter, believe me to remain
But in this Transvaal affair I must also let the altera pars have its say. The English nation, so vilified on the Continent because of the Boer War, was not as a whole (as many liked to assert) led into this campaign merely by the passion for gain and through love of warfare. Noble motives—as is usually the case in every war—animated the majority. The desire is to “give freedom,” to make wrong into right, to serve the fatherland; life itself is sacrificed. The object and aim may be praiseworthy; only it is unfortunate that the method is so unholy and vicious. I received the following letter from the sister of the Minister of Cape Colony:
Because of the high honor in which I bear you and the deep sympathy with which I read Die Waffen nieder, I send you this letter, written by a Cape Dutch woman, sister of Mr. Schreiner, Prime Minister of Cape Colony. I do not know if you are well enough acquainted with Cape politics to be aware of the full significance of the fact that he came into office as leader of the Afrikander Bond.
That his sister should write as she does about this war should surely come as a startling revelation to many people on the Continent who are so sorely misjudging my beloved country.
She will answer for you as to the motives of those Cape Dutch who are holding by the Union Jack. For those of my own country I, living in the heart of England, daily in touch with the lower, middle, and upper middle classes, affirm to you, as before God, that no wish for conquest and no lust for gold weighs anything at all with us.
We are giving the lives of our best beloved—giving them by thousands—to right wrong, to destroy oppression of our fellow-subjects, both white and black, to put an end to a very unjust and most corrupt form of government. Also to prevent our Colony of the Cape, Natal, Rhodesia, and Bechuanaland, conquered by our blood and treasure at various times, from being wrested from us.
This is the simple truth. We should like high-minded people abroad to know and recognize that truth. But if it may not be, we can only still repeat the old battle cry of our forefathers, “May God defend the right!”
Pardon an insignificant old Englishwoman for venturing to address you. It is only because of the immense sympathy with your noble-hearted efforts to stop wars, ambitious and unjust, that I have done so. England loves peace also, and her united millions who now with one heart and soul are carrying out this war (and madam, the very peasants are naming their children after our generals) would never allow war to be made on our European neighbors. There is not the slightest wish or expectation of such a thing among us. Foreign journals which assert the contrary and thereby try to fan the flames of war are guilty of a European crime.
The year 1900 brought, besides the struggle so obstinately contested in South Africa, still other warlike events into the world, notably the troubles in China. First the Boxer uprising, the assassination of the German ambassador Ketteler, then the expedition for rescue and revenge sent by the combined European powers.
I can still remember vividly with what feelings we followed the successive phases of these events. First the tidings of alarm, then the full horror of it. Then the Emperor William’s “Pardon-will-not-be-granted” speech—“Never in a thousand years shall a Chinaman venture to look askance at a German!” Great Heavens! in a thousand years it is to be hoped that no man will any longer inspire other men with fear.... Then the anxious question every day, “Are the legations still safe?” Then the joy that something corresponding to our ideal had been spontaneously developed: an international protective army for the rescue of the oppressed European brotherhood-in-arms,—a precursor of European unity. Then again the sorrow at the behavior of this army. Not only protection but also revenge, cruelty, and looting! The description of the outrages committed there by Europeans on noncombatants, even on the innocent, made one’s blood run cold. The thing itself—a united force of French, Russian, and other troops under the command of a German general—belonged to the new methods that are to come; but the execution still showed the old spirit.
Even before things had reached their worst in China, the Chinese ambassador in St. Petersburg, Yang-Yü, whom we met at The Hague, wrote the following letter in reply to one which my husband had addressed to him in this emergency:
The melancholy events now happening in my country often make me think of the friends of peace and those whom I had the honor of knowing at The Hague.
Your letter of the eighth instant has deeply touched me, and I am persuaded that, in spite of the fact that you are, as you say, a negligible quantity, you will finally triumph and rule. The light will shine from this negligible quantity, and a spark will suffice to kindle forever this pharos of peace. May the sword and the cannon of which you speak soon be beaten into plowshares.
So, then, it is a sacred duty for you to defend this noble cause without ever yielding to discouragement, with absolute firmness, resolution, and conviction, and without ever ceasing to make your voice heard!
I should be most happy if by my opinion and my personal impressions I could contribute in some way to the humanitarian work in which you are engaged. During journeys which I have taken, both as an envoy and as an investigator, I have visited the United States of America, Peru and other states of South America, Austria-Hungary, Germany, England, Spain, France, Holland, Japan, and Russia; everywhere I went I studied the customs of the people, and I have been particularly interested in the army, in commerce, and in agriculture, all of which I have found most perfectly administered. I took note of what differentiates these countries from ours and what benefits they have to confer upon my country. But what should I say? This incessant rivalry and this jealousy manifested among all nations somewhat detract from this perfection. If I have one desire to formulate, it is to see all countries rise superior to these sentiments and live always in a good understanding; this would assure them a lasting peace.
The conflict existing at present between China and the foreign powers comes in large part from mutual misunderstandings. I am firmly convinced that neither China nor any of these powers desires to break these pleasant relationships. Things have been pushed to this point, owing to the heedlessness of Chinese functionaries and military parties blinded by ambition. It is more than time to do away with these misunderstandings, and to reëstablish the old relations; otherwise, not only will China be brought to the greatest distress, but, moreover, international quarrels may result, and this would certainly not be in the interest of humanity as a whole. I hope that the governments of none of the countries will lose sight of the opportunity of putting an end to this state of things.
The first cause that prepared and brought about the present conflict is due to the sworn hatred of the people against the Christians. Assuredly the end pursued by the missionaries, of doing good to others, is very praiseworthy. But, as a general thing, right-thinking Chinese would not for anything in the world abandon the religion that comes down to them from their ancestors, for the sake of embracing one that is wholly foreign to them; the result is that the new converts are unfortunately in large measure dishonest people who hide behind the shelter of the Church to give themselves up to their evil passions, such as bringing lawsuits with impunity, and molesting and robbing their fellow-countrymen. The feelings of the people, which were at first merely wrath and indignation, and do not date from yesterday, have been changed into an implacable hatred, the fury of which it is impossible any longer to restrain. The Chinese no more desire to be converted to Christianity than the Europeans would wish to embrace the maxims of Confucius.
My personal opinion is that commercial relations between China and the foreign powers may be developed to any desired extent; but as for the question of religion, it would be more prudent to allow each to respect his own as he understands it; this would be calculated to preserve the future from all conflict. I do not know whether the foreign governments will at last recognize the whole importance of the question and renounce it definitely.
In the belief that I have answered all your questions, I beg leave to assure you that I shall always be charmed to be useful and agreeable to you.
And a little later a second letter came from the same source:
Sincere thanks for your kind letter, as well as for the newspaper clippings, which have greatly interested me.
I hasten to send you and the Baroness my best wishes for a good journey and a happy sojourn in Paris. I likewise hope that you will have a brilliant success in the noble assembly of the ninth Peace Congress. Once again you are going to spread the light and to plead for that peace cause which ought to be dear to every human heart. Therefore I should be greatly delighted to learn that all your endeavors toward this end have fully succeeded.
In the late summer we went to Paris to attend the Peace Congress that was to be held there, and to see the Exposition.
Johann von Bloch, who was living with his family at the Hotel Westminster, had invited us to stay at the same hotel as his guests. Now I made the acquaintance of our friend’s wife and daughters. Frau von Bloch looked like her eldest daughter’s sister, so similar and so young. This daughter is the wife of Herr von Koszielski, formerly so well liked at the Berlin court. He was known popularly as “Admiralski.” Bloch had good reason to be proud of his family. It would be difficult to imagine a bouquet of prettier, wittier, or more elegant women than the four that formed his entourage.
The Congress was opened by Minister Millerand. Frédéric Passy was honorary president; Professor Charles Richet presided.
Madame Séverine was a new apparition. I had often read, in the French papers, articles by this talented woman, and had admired the brilliancy of her style, and especially the greatness of her heart; for almost always, when she wrote her chronicles, there was some distress to reveal and to alleviate, some past wrong to right, ideas of freedom and gentleness to defend. Now I made her personal acquaintance and heard her speak. One who has never listened to Madame Séverine’s extempore speeches has no notion to what a height of passion and poetry eloquence can rise. Madame Séverine is also interesting outwardly. She was then forty-three years old, but her hair was already perfectly white—the result of the tragedies of life which she had passed through. She had dark, flashing eyes, vivacious play of expression, and a neat figure. Toward the close of her fascinating speech she greeted me as notre sœur d’Autriche, and when she finished,—both of us standing on the platform,—in my emotion I threw my arms around her, and that elicited a storm of jubilation in the hall.
We made a flying visit to the Exposition under the guidance of Charles Richet. All expositions are alike. The things that especially remained in my memory were the Eiffel Tower, the trottoir roulant, the tiny corner in the pavilion in which our Bern Bureau and its literature were displayed, and the gigantic hall in which army and navy had heaped up their latest appliances for destruction.
Richet invited us also to a small dinner given for a few friends. D’Estournelles sat next me. We talked about the general lack of information on the part of the public regarding the Hague Conference, and he told me that he had delivered explanatory lectures on this subject in various cities in France.
“Oh, if you could only come to Vienna and give such a lecture!”
“You need only to invite me,” he replied; “I will render you any service that you may require of me.”
I made him shake hands on it.
At Paris during that time I formed a new bond of friendship which has proved very valuable to me. An English lady, the daughter of a sea captain, earning her living in Paris by giving English lessons, had asked to be presented to me in the Congress hall. I exchanged a few pleasant words with her and then turned to others. The following day she wrote me a letter. This was filled with such enthusiasm, with such devotion to my cause and my person, that I was captivated and asked the writer to come to see me. Miss Alice Williams—for that was her name—came immediately and brought me a bunch of roses. But more than flowers, she brought me a soul—a soul overflowing with the ideals that are precious to me. As the daughter of an English “sea-bear,” and rather chauvinistically educated and inclined, she had been, so she told me, converted by reading Die Waffen nieder, and from that time forth had been a devoted adherent. In the course of years she has proved that such was the case. I am deeply indebted to her for her friendship, her wise suggestions, her energy, and her activity.
After our return to Harmannsdorf I devoted myself once more to literary occupations. I wrote the novel Marthas Kinder, the sequel to Die Waffen nieder. My Own also again resumed his labors and wrote on his novel Im Zeichen des Trusts. But in spite of this we did not neglect our work for the Unions and our journalistic writing. I took especial pains to make the newspaper public acquainted with the Hague business, which now threatened to be entirely forgotten in the excitement of Chinese and South African events.
But, in the meantime, the various conventions were ratified and the judges of the permanent tribunal were nominated. In accordance with the agreement, each country was to nominate four judges from among its most influential and distinguished men. The number of names thus selected furnishes a list from which, in case of a controversy which is referred to the Hague tribunal, the contending parties may each select two judges, not belonging to their own land; and these in their turn will choose a fifth to serve as president of the court.
The newspapers brought us the names of the nominees. Among those from Austria were Count Schönborn, and Lammasch; from Hungary, Count Apponyi; from France, Bourgeois and D’Estournelles. Of the Russian judges I found only the name of Professor von Martens. So I wrote to him both to congratulate him and also to ask him who were the three others named by the Russian government. I received the following letter in reply:
I hasten to offer you my sincere thanks for your congratulations on my nomination as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. The honor which you have been good enough to speak of so warmly is indeed the greatest that I have ever received, and I am proud of it; it is a genuine pleasure to receive your felicitations. Your eminent merits in the defense of the interests of peace and arbitration have given you, madam, an exceptional place among the partisans of this great idea. I thank you again from the bottom of my heart.
You ask me, madam, who are my Russian colleagues in the Permanent Court. I am happy to be able to tell you that they are the leading jurists and statesmen of Russia. Here are their names:
1. His Excellency, the Secretary of State, Pobyedonostsef, Procurator of the Holy Synod. M. Pobyedonostsef’s religious ideas and his great influence in the most exalted governmental spheres are known throughout Europe; but he is at the same time a great lawyer, an accomplished scientist, and a sincere friend of international arbitration.
2. His Excellency, the Secretary of State, De Frisch, who holds in the Council of the Russian Empire the office of president of the “Section of Laws.” He is a Russian statesman of very great influence in all legislative questions, and is one of the highest dignitaries of the empire. He has been president of the Grand Commission to elaborate the new criminal code of Russia.
3. His Excellency, the Secretary of State, Muravieff, present Minister of Justice for the Russian Empire. He is a statesman endowed with the greatest talents, and a very eminent lawyer. The late Count Muravieff was his cousin.
Finally, the last—is your humble servant. His Majesty the Emperor, by his nomination, in the month of May, of these Russian members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, has certainly tried to prove once more what deep sympathy he feels for this creation of the Peace Conference, and his utmost desire to give this court the greatest possible éclat and the most serious importance. Such certainly is the opinion that at present obtains in high governmental spheres.
You would infinitely oblige me if you would send me three copies of your article on the Permanent Court and its members. Do you suppose you could possibly publish the article in the Neue Freie Presse, which is read in Russia? Madame de Martens wishes to be remembered, and I beg you to accept the assurance of my highest regard.
I received other letters from the newly appointed delegates, thanking me for my congratulations; but I will cite only the one from Count Schönborn:
Will you accept my heartiest and humblest thanks for the thoroughly kind letter of the eighth which reached me yesterday, and which I should have instantly answered had not an unusually long session of the Court of Administration occupied my time. Please accept at the same time my warmest thanks for your kindness in sending me the highly interesting publication, as well as your congratulations.
I am so deeply impressed by the importance of the duty imposed upon the Hague Court of Arbitration that I was at first dubious about accepting the nomination, and not until after some explanations were made which pacified my scruples did I dare accept the complimentary mandate.
We, that is to say the Arbitration Tribunal, shall not have much to attend to at first, probably, but I confidently hope that a good vital germ has been planted, and that later, if the institution proves its value in several apparently unimportant cases, the number of its adherents and the number and importance of the contentions submitted to it will increase.
With the expression of especial respect, I am
I sent my congratulations, together with a copy of my Hague diary, to two German gentlemen nominated to the same dignity. One of them did not reply at all; the other sent me three marks!
The beginning of the year 1901 still brought no cessation of the Boer War. Such a mighty power opposed to such a small one, and yet the decision was so long delayed!
Many of Bloch’s predictions regarding modern warfare were justified,—for instance, the advantage held by those who were on the defensive, the long, indecisive continuation of battles, the enormously increased sacrifices of money and men, and many other things. Bloch was at that time in London, where he was delivering lectures at the Navy Club before an audience of admirals and generals. Moreover, he was busily engaged with the preliminary arrangements for the founding of his War and Peace Museum at Lucerne.
Mindful of the promise which I had obtained from D’Estournelles, I wrote urging him to come to Vienna and give a lecture on the Hague Conference. He consented without hesitation. Count Apponyi, as soon as he heard of his coming, invited him to take advantage of this opportunity to spend a few days with him at his castle of Eberhard, and also to deliver a lecture in Budapest. This invitation D’Estournelles likewise accepted.
We put ourselves out to secure the attendance of a select and influential audience for the lecture in Vienna. I addressed myself to the then French ambassador, Marquis de Reverseaux, who gave me every assistance in his power in behalf of his fellow-countryman, whom he so highly prized. He not only saw to it that the members of his embassy should be present at the lecture, but he also undertook to extend invitations to the whole diplomatic corps. We for our part sent invitations to the ministers, to the principal officials at court, and to the leading politicians. We made no attempt to arrange for a particularly democratic assemblage, for in the first place the common people would not understand French, and in the second place we were particularly desirous that the political, court, and aristocratic circles, which are accustomed to look so superciliously cold upon the peace cause and the Hague Conference, should for once have a chance to hear an explanation of it from the lips of a man who was himself a diplomat and a politician and an aristocrat, and who had taken a prominent part in the work of the Hague Conference. I had also taken pains to get the directors of the Theresianum and the Oriental Academy to send us a number of their students, for the teaching offered would be particularly useful to just such young men, destined for political and diplomatic careers.
The affair went off brilliantly. D’Estournelles spoke splendidly, and the very numerous public, composed of just the elements that we desired, listened with great attention and approbation. It was a succès.
That evening—the lecture having occupied the time from four till six—we gave a small souper intime in honor of our foreign guest. Among those present were D’Estournelles’s two Austrian colleagues of the Hague Court, Count Schönborn and Lammasch; also Barons Ernst von Plener and Peter Pirquet of the Austrian Interparliamentary Group.
This year we did not attend the Peace Congress, which was held at Glasgow. The following letter I received from the American delegate to the Hague Conference, Dr. Holls, who, as it appeared, had undertaken to make a journey through Europe on a peace mission. I had extended him an invitation to visit me in Vienna.