Volume 2 / Part 7 — PART SEVEN [CONTINUED] (continued 6)
Reading edition
The German delegate’s speech is regarded by the others as a clear proof that Germany is going to vote against the limitation motion.
Then Schilinsky, Den Beer Poortugael, and Dr. Stancioff of Bulgaria speak once more in defense of the motion.
309The chairman proposes the nomination of a committee to study into the subject. For this committee the opponent, Colonel von Schwarzhoff, and the maker of the motion are chosen; also army and navy experts.
June 30. So, then, to-day, in the “House in the Wood,” the fate of the proposal for limitation of armaments was decided.
Rejected. Referred for further consideration to the cabinets of the great powers. A resolution made by Léon Bourgeois and adopted by the Conference saved the principle.
Last soirée at Minister Beaufort’s.
Sir Julian Pauncefote comes and sits by me. Of course I lead the conversation to the Conference again and ask him how long it will probably continue.
“At least a fortnight,” Sir Julian opines. “I can assure you,” he adds, “the Conference is doing a great work, and other conferences will follow. To be sure, the limitation clause was voted down, yet with the general declaration that it must be taken up later. But, on the other hand, the permanent tribunal has become a fact, and for this result Professor Zorn is to be specially praised for his endeavors.”
Turkhan Pasha escorts me to the refreshment table. There Herr Beernaert hands me an ice. He has recently arrived from Brussels, where the disturbances have fortunately come to an end. The obstruction of the socialists in the Chamber consisted in their always starting the Marseillaise whenever any one began to speak.
310“Things are now all right again,” says the minister, “ils ont mis bas les armes. But here I understand some things are not all right. ‘Limitation’ is buried; the military experts declared it was out of the question.”
“Buried? At all events, the flowers are saved. Bildt[40] spoke wonderfully, beautifully; and a motion by Bourgeois was voted and assures a resurrection. The coffin is not nailed up; the boards are loose....”
“Such questions,” I added, “should not be treated from the technical but from a quite different standpoint. If the military men alone are to be allowed to decide about disarmament—”
“Surely,” says Herr Beernaert, finishing my sentence. “It is as if cobblers should deliberate on how men could give up wearing footgear!”
July 1. Now I know the report concerning yesterday’s limitation session. Servia first declared its adhesion; then Greece its dissent. Hereupon the report of the commission on studies was read—a very laconic report:
1. That it would be very difficult, even for a space of only five years, to fix the number of the troops without simultaneously regulating other elements of defense.
2. That it would be no less difficult to regulate the elements of this defense by means of an international convention, since the defense is organized in each country from very different points of view.
Consequently the committee regrets its inability to accept the proposal made in the name of the Russian government.
311The committee recommends that the subject of the subsequent decision be intrusted to the respective governments.
Such is the text of the military commission’s report; and so the matter was simply set aside. The execution of the proposal offers difficulties, “consequently” it cannot be accepted! This “consequently,” however, is not satisfactory. The motive adduced for setting aside a project of such wide scope is not sufficient. There is more to be said about it than that it is difficult to carry out. It must also be clear whether it is not desirable, beneficent, nay, more, essential. And if this conclusion is reached, then if it is to be rejected, there must be a better reason than its difficulty; its impossibility must be shown.
But the matter before us cannot be impossible in principle; certainly not in the form just presented. And it must not be rejected, but rather postponed for future realization. This was the feeling of a large part of the Conference; and two other delegates—the Swede Baron Bildt and the Frenchman Léon Bourgeois—give expression to this feeling in fiery extempore speeches.
From Baron Bildt’s speech (“It is not enough”):
... Now, at the conclusion of our labors, we shall realize that we have faced one of the most important problems of the century, and that we have accomplished very little. We have no right to cherish illusions. If the transactions of the Conference come to public knowledge, then, in spite of all that has been done for arbitration, the Red Cross, and the rest, a loud cry will be raised, “It is not enough!”
312And the majority of us, in our own consciences, will justify that outcry, “It is not enough!” To be sure, our consciences will tell us, for our consolation, that we have done our duty, because we have been faithful to the instructions that have been given us. But I venture to say that our duty is not yet completed, and that we still have something left to do. That is, to investigate with the greatest frankness and truth and to report to our governments what defects are to be found in the preparation or execution of the great work, and with steadfastness, with obstinacy, to seek the means to do better and to do more. Now let these means be found in new conferences, in direct negotiations, or simply in the policy of a good example. This is the duty which is left for us to fulfill.
This speech made a sensation. The applause had not died down when the head of the French delegation took the floor.
From Léon Bourgeois’s speech (“Our task is higher”):
I have listened with great delight to Baron Bildt’s eloquent words. They correspond not only to my personal feelings and those of my colleagues of the French delegation,[41] but also, I am sure, to the unanimous feelings of the Conference. I join in the appeal which Baron Bildt has made. I believe that (to express his ideas still more explicitly) our commission has something further to do.
I have carefully read the text of the conclusion reached by the technical committee. This text shows the difficulties which at the present moment attend the limitation of armament. This investigation was also the mandate of the committee. But our commission is under obligation to regard the problem before us from a universal and higher standpoint.
... Colonel von Schwarzhoff tells us that Germany easily bears the burdens of its military organization, and that in spite of these burdens it can point to a great economical development.
313I come from a country which also bears cheerfully the obligations of national defense, and we hope next year, when the Exposition will be held, to show the world that our products and our economical development stand on a high level. But the colonel will grant me that in his country as well as in mine, if a share of the considerable resources now spent for military purposes were devoted to the service of productive activity, the total of prosperity would be developed at a much more rapid rate.
Moreover, we have here not only to take into account how our country endures the burdens of the armed peace. Our task is higher,—we are called upon to consider the joint situation of all the nations.
After further considerations, Bourgeois proposes that the question be referred to the governments for further discussion at the next Conference. But, that the position of the present Conference may be brought to a definite expression, he offers the following amendment to the report:
The commission takes the view that the limitation of the military burdens resting on the world would be in the highest degree desirable for the improvement of the moral and material condition of mankind.
This resolution was adopted.
I immediately translated the text of both speeches and dispatched it to the Neue Freie Presse.
July 2. Yesterday a ball at the Staals’. When we arrive, at ten o’clock, the drawing-rooms are already almost full. All the lower rooms of the Vieux Doelen—the peristyle, salons, dining-room, and other apartments—have been engaged for this function and are richly decorated. The walls of the ballroom are adorned with greenery from which gleam white lilies. Nothing but white flowers everywhere, the symbols of 314peace. There is a flood of electric light from the chandeliers. The orchestra is hidden behind a hedge of palms. Softly lighted corridors lead to smaller adjoining rooms, in which the guests find nooks for confidential conversation. The doors leading from the ballroom to the terrace stand open, and a broad flight of steps leads down into the lighted garden.
All the delegates are present except Admiral Fisher,[42] whose absence is all the more to be regretted because he is one of the jolliest of the dancers.
Baron Bildt presents his son to me, a young man of twenty-two, just arrived from Upsala, where he is studying at the University.
“I was on the point of devoting myself to a military career,” the young Swede told me in the course of our conversation. “And do you know, gracious lady, what kept me from it? The reading of your book. And to-day, in this company, I am doubly glad that I chose another profession. Perhaps later it will be permitted me to labor for the great cause that brought my father to The Hague.”
“I see; a new ambition is awaking, in a new field! Remain faithful to this impulse, and may you sometime by means of it become a judge in the International Arbitration Court or Swedish Minister of Peace!”
“Oh, how glad I should be!”
315Andrew D. White urges me, in case I have the opportunity, to oppose those pessimistic prejudices which have gone abroad regarding the Conference, and which render more difficult the possibility of further work and the assembling of new conferences. He expresses the opinion that the Emperor of Russia has one good means at his command,—simply to introduce into his country the shipwrecked “limitation” or even the reduction of the military effective. He is the autocrat—his will decides. And the policy of such an example would be most effective.
Well, indeed, the manifesto, the summoning of the Conference, the motions laid before it, which implied the pledge that he would do what he proposed,—all these things were indeed examples. But those who are eagerly bent on the preservation of the entire military system have not been constrained to follow in the same track. How can any one venture, after all, in a matter requiring common agreement, to take the lead alone?
A Russian tells me that in his own country there is also a strong military party which holds the Tsar’s plans in deep disfavor, so that, even in his immediate proximity, opposition and differences of opinion are strongly felt. It would require iron energy to hold out against them. Alas, the cruel are apt to be iron....
We give an afternoon reception. Among those present are Herr and Frau Berends and their daughter; Dr. White and his wife, who has just arrived; 316Monsieur and Madame Descamps; our countrymen, Count Welsersheimb, Lieutenant Colonel von Khuepach, and Professor Lammasch; my young Russian officer whom I met at yesterday’s ball, and young Bildt; Dr. Holls; Bourgeois; the Persian ambassador; Bonnefon; Vasily and his son; Pompili; Schmidt auf Altenstadt, editor of the Dagblad; Herr von Raffaelovitch and his daughter; and Minister Beernaert.
Beernaert goes to-morrow to Brussels. They have had a ministerial crisis there too.
“I am going to play the rôle of Bourgeois at Brussels,” he said with a laugh.
“Then,” rejoined the other, “play it to the end and come back.”
To-day I noted a deep remark uttered by Léon Bourgeois. The talk turned on the great progressive ideas which permeate the world so slowly, altogether too slowly, because the daily happenings, the problems and sensations of the moment, claim everybody’s entire attention. L’actualité, c’est l’ennemi, said he.
The Swedish envoy’s son again took his oath to me that he would remain true to the ideal of peace and work for it according to his ability.
The conversation reverted to that session in which Colonel Schwarzhoff delivered his speech against the proposition of limitation. The gentlemen remarked that he had spoken with great mordant. Now the German equivalent for that word is not beissend (“biting”) but schneidig (“keen”). In either case it is an adjective 317expressing admiration. Now, it seems to me, sharp teeth and polished sonority are very valuable things in their place, but are they specially suited for the Peace Conference?
At dinner we are in Oriental company,—with Noury Bey and Mirza Rhiza Khan. Were it not for the fez, one might take Noury Bey for a Frenchman. He takes the point of view of the Turkish patriotic party, faithful to the Sultan, not that of the Young Turks. The persecution of the Armenians has been necessary, he says; they are revolutionists, rebels, conspirators. In short, they are wicked lambs; the wolf is in the right!
We were regretting the failure of the project for restricting armaments or talking of something similar, I do not remember exactly what.
“But that is a thing,” remarked Noury Bey to my husband, “which you, as an Austrian patriot, ought to approve of.”
“We friends of peace do not recognize this contradiction,” replied my husband; “what one must regret as a man, one cannot be glad of as a patriot. And indeed it is a mistake to believe that what will not benefit mankind will be useful to one’s own country. In any case, the interest of humanity, absolute right, always stands higher than the special advantages of any one country.”
“Splendid!” cried Noury Bey in amazement, but not without irony. “People with such views ought 318to be appointed judges in the coming international tribunal.”
July 4. To-day, in connection with the American holiday, an excursion to Delft in commemoration of Grotius. In the early morning a severe storm is raging and rain is beating on the window panes. We countermand our order for a carriage and stay at home.
It is a melancholy, gloomy day. The windows rattle and tremble; an ice-cold wind forces itself in. Gray are the rolling clouds and the foaming angry sea. Lamentation, brawling, and menace commingle in the roar of wind and waves.
The beach is deserted. As far as the eye can see there is not a living creature. The bath houses and covered chairs and booths are all moved off—or have the billows carried them away? The high, foam-capped breakers tumble over one another and come nearer and nearer, and are already dashing over the terrace wall. Perhaps the whole terrace may be destroyed, as it was a few years ago. And all the time this tumultuous lamentation! How can one feel cheerful?
Truly, there is reason enough for melancholy. This Conference, which should show sorrow-laden, danger-threatened mankind a way to get finally rid of the sorrow and the dangers which arise not from the elements but from their own selves,—how its work has met with misunderstanding and resistance both in the world outside and in its own midst! Nowhere 319enthusiastic aid—nay, not even eager curiosity, and not once a warm word from those who hold the power in their hands. Cold, cold are all the hearts—cold as the draft that penetrates through the rattling windows. I am chilled to the bone!
In the evening a festival in the concert room in honor of the American delegates. The decorations are star-spangled banners; there is a rendering of American songs. Dr. Holls tells me that the Grotius festival was a brilliant success, and useful words were spoken, especially by Ambassador White. He also informs me that the permanent Court of Arbitration is accepted. Only the paragraph about obligatory cases is omitted.
July 5. In reply to my note of regret, addressed to Andrew D. White, and explaining that our absence from the festival was caused by the weather, I receive the following reply:
House in the Wood, July 5, 1899
Dear Baroness von Suttner:
We were very sorry not to see you and the Baron at Delft, but we fully understood and appreciated the reason. We really did not expect more than a dozen or twenty people, and were greatly surprised to see so large a number present.
It was to me very inspiring and gave me new hopes as to the results of the Conference.
I beg you not to forget what I urged upon you at our last meeting. We are to accomplish here more than we dared hope when we came together,—far more; and the great thing is to prevent thoughtless, feather-brained enthusiasts from discrediting the work, since to do so is to discourage all future efforts of this sort.
320We have paved the way for future conferences which will develop our work—unless the people at large are taught that nothing has been done in this way.
Please call me kindly to the remembrance of Baron von Suttner, and I remain, dear madam, most respectfully and truly yours,
Andrew D. White
July 6. At the last session an important article was added to the project of the arbitration tribunal. It was proposed by D’Estournelles, and is to the effect that the signatory powers, in case of a conflict threatening between two or more countries, shall consider it their duty to remind these powers that the Court of Arbitration stands open to them.
Servia and Roumania make a lively protest against the word “duty.” Roumania, represented by Beldimann, moreover protests regularly, consistently, and forever.
After a persuasive speech by Léon Bourgeois, D’Estournelles’s motion is adopted.
July 7. We take our departure. Ever so many friends accompany us to the railway station. The coach is filled with farewell bouquets. Good-by, thou lovely city of gardens! Will coming generations make pilgrimages to thee because the first International Court of Arbitration came into existence here? Enriched by the memories of lovely days and interesting people, and by uplifting impressions, I take my departure from thee, historic place....
We were obliged, on account of private affairs, to leave before the close of the Conference, but I received from there every day papers, letters, and dispatches, 321which kept me informed of the progress and the acte final of the Conference.
I jot down here the most important of these records.
On the seventh of July the session of the third committee (on peaceful adjustment of international controversies) adjourned until the seventeenth, that in the meantime further instructions might be received from the governments. Sir Julian Pauncefote makes a trip to London. The articles which principally give occasion for seeking further instructions are those that treat of the International Commission of Inquiry. The text up for debate runs:
In cases of an international nature, involving neither honor nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the signatory powers recommend that the parties, having been unable to come to an agreement by the usual means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an international commission of inquiry, which shall clear away these differences by getting at the facts through an impartial and conscientious investigation.
What a bundle of limitations! “As far as circumstances allow,” “neither honor nor vital interests.” It can be seen with what timidity and circumspection these grewsome instruments called “jurisdiction,” “process of inquiry”—that is, right and truth,—are taken hold of. Torpedoes, dumdum bullets, ekrasit, and lyddite—we are already used to such things, we are no longer afraid of them; but legal processes in international affairs,—those would be too dangerous for vital interests: at all events, for the interests of militarism....
322The origin of this formula “honor and vital interests of a nation” is well known. It has always been produced in the following form by the opponents of international arbitration: “Hitherto courts of arbitration have exercised their functions in small matters but not in important ones.” What has hitherto been used as an argument is now to be incorporated in a treaty!
To some the limitations seem superfluous, to others the whole proposition seems too far-reaching and—being without precedent—too uncanny; hence the adjournment to wait for further instructions. Stead, in his chronicle in the Dagblad, calls attention to this and implores the committee to modify the article at the next reading.
On the nineteenth of July the committee assembles again. Herr Beldimann in an hour’s speech attacks the Commission of Inquiry with all his energy. Roumania, he declares, will enter into no arrangement that shall have an obligatory character. Not for a moment will it permit the rights of its sovereign independence to be brought into question. (I love the Roumanians proud!) He moves the rejection of the whole proposition. Servia upholds the arguments of the previous speaker. Chevalier Descamps defends the motion, and he is followed in this by Herr Martens, who speaks with still greater energy. Objections like those expressed by the representative of Roumania ought not to prevent an arrangement which is calculated to assure universal peace and avoid conflicts.
323In the afternoon comes the second meeting of the committee. The text of the controverted paragraph is somewhat altered. An additional clause reads:
The report of the International Commission of Inquiry is limited to a statement of facts, and has in no way the character of an arbitral decision. It leaves the powers that are in dispute entire freedom as to the weight to be given to this statement.
On the other hand, the phrase “honor and vital interests” is omitted. Roumania and Servia desire to wait for further instructions by wire.
July 20. The articles regarding mediation and good offices are accepted without objection. When the article on the Commission of Inquiry is reached, Beldimann declares that he has not yet received any reply from his government. A few delegates are indignant at the further procrastination, and it is finally decided to take up the article again in two days. Now, without further objections, the reading of the report is continued. When Article 27 is reached,—the one proposed by D’Estournelles, which lays an obligation upon the powers to remind parties in dispute that there is a Tribunal,—the interest of the session reaches its culminating point.
The representatives of Roumania and Servia set themselves in violent opposition to it. But Professor Zorn warmly advocates its acceptance. Dr. Holls declares that Article 27 is the crown of the whole work, and he decidedly protests against any change in its wording.
324Count Nigra, kindled by the electricity of the atmosphere, springs up and apostrophizes the representatives of the Danube states: “We are here neither as great nor as small states; we are all alike sovereign—we act here as free and equal.”
The sensation of the session was still to come. Never before had a more excited and more elevated feeling ruled in the “House in the Wood.” Never before had the transactions aroused so much moral enthusiasm. So the moment was favorable when Léon Bourgeois took the floor, and in fiery words, in the name of France, supplemented the speech made by Professor Zorn. In one point he was obliged, he said, to oppose Count Nigra,—there are great and smaller powers. But the measure of greatness is not to be found in the area of their territory, nor in the effectiveness of their troops, nor in the number of their inhabitants. The greatness of a power is to be measured by the greatness of its ideas and by the faithfulness with which it adheres to the principles on which the progress of mankind is based.
The orator spoke further in the same tenor, and all listened as if under a spell. When he ended, the storm of applause would not cease, and one delegate after another warmly pressed around the speaker to congratulate him.
And Article 27 was accepted.
July 22. Again the Commission of Inquiry. The question is asked whether the representatives of Roumania, Greece, and Servia have received the answers 325of their governments. Mr. Delyannis declares, in the name of Greece, that he has been instructed to accept the new form of the convention. Dr. Velkovitch,[43] in the name of Servia, makes a similar declaration. Now it is Roumania’s turn. The president announces that he has just had a letter from Herr Beldimann, stating that his instructions have come to-day authorizing him to accept the new form, but only on condition that the eliminated clauses, “honor and interests of the nations” and “when circumstances allow,” be restored. Otherwise Roumania cannot sign the convention.
Put to vote, the Beldimann ultimatum is accepted.
In the last plenary session, on July 28, Descamps’s “Rapport final à la Conférence sur le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux” is read.
The introduction to this document brings out thoughts and points of view which embrace the whole ideal of peace,—I might rather say the whole gospel of peace,—as, for example:
Resolved to use every endeavor to bring about the peaceful solution of international conflicts; recognizing the solidarity which unites shoulder to shoulder all the civilized nations; desirous of extending the sovereignty of law and of strengthening the sentiment of international justice, etc., the undersigned [the names follow] have agreed upon the following provisions.
The first of the sixty-one paragraphs gives the gist of everything that is elaborated in the rest:
326“With a view to obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in the relations between states, the signatory powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.”
Early on July 29 the conventions were signed in the “House in the Wood,” and the formal concluding session took place in the afternoon. The last word—it was uttered by D’Estournelles—was:
“May our Conference be a beginning, not a conclusion. May our countries, by inaugurating new assemblages such as this has been, continue to serve the cause of civilization and of peace!”
327
LXI AFTER THE HAGUE CONFERENCE
Journey to Norway to the ninth Interparliamentary Conference · The woman’s movement in the North · Military honors shown the friends of peace · Evening before the Conference · Björnstjerne Björnson · Opening in the Storthing · A mot by Minister Steen · Report on the Nobel foundation · Garden party at Steen’s · Henrik Ibsen · At M. Catusse’s · Excursion to Frognersättern · Last session · Message from The Hague · Final banquet · Björnson as a speaker · My interview with him · Harmannsdorf again · Aunt Büschel’s death · Margarete Suttner’s betrothal · Letter from Count Apponyi · What then constituted my life · A physician’s prescription · Controversy between the jingoes and pacifists in England · End of the Dreyfus affair · Germany’s naval plan · The South African war breaks out · Letter from Count Nigra
As soon as we returned to Harmannsdorf I set to work revising my diary from which have been taken, for this autobiography, most of the passages referring to the Conference. I sent the book to the publisher, and it appeared in 1900, but I cannot report any great awakening of interest thereby. The contemporary world is either indifferent or unfriendly in its attitude toward the Hague Conference.
We remained at home only a short time. After about three weeks we started forth again, this time for Norway. Invitations from the management of the Interparliamentary Conference which was to meet there from the first to the sixth of August had come to us, as well as to Herr von Bloch, requesting us to attend 328the deliberations and festivities as guests of honor. We did not require a second invitation. A journey to the Northland, what a holiday!
Again a wholly new part of the world opening before us. We reached Christiania on the evening of July 30. On the thirty-first the ship placed at the disposal of the interparliamentarians was to arrive. This ship was met by another, on which were the managers of the Conference as well as such of the deputies as had preferred to come by rail. John Lund invited us to accompany him on the trip.
There were many other guests besides us on board. We met many old friends and acquaintances, including Ullman (the president of the Storthing), Von Bar of the University of Göttingen, Marcoartu, Baron Pirquet, and others. It was two o’clock in the afternoon, the blue sky was cloudless, the fiord lay bathed in the brightest sunshine, and a cool breeze stirred the air. A military orchestra was on board, and to the strains of the Norwegian national hymn our steamer moved away. Streamers of the various colors of the fourteen countries represented at the Conference waved from the masts.
We made many new acquaintances. The wife of Blehr, afterwards minister but at that time ambassador in Stockholm, told me about the progress of the woman’s movement already started in Norway; she said that they were not far from the attainment of suffrage. Every one, from the wives of statesmen down 329to the peasant women, was taking an active part in political life.
I asked if it were true that Sweden and Norway were living like quarrelsome brethren.
“No,” replied Frau Blehr, “the relationship is that of a marriage in which the man has everything, the wife nothing, to say; and, according to modern ideas, that can be no kind of a happy marriage. Norway, in this union, plays the part of the wife without authority, and what she wants is what to-day the woman with equal privileges demands in marriage—the right to her own personality.”
We sailed past a small flotilla of war vessels which were in readiness to meet the ship of the interparliamentarians and give it convoy. A war flotilla to meet a ship of peace! This new method of showing honor surprised me. Lund told us that the committee had found some difficulty in overcoming the opposition of the conservatives, who regarded it as out of character that military honors should be paid to the champions of antimilitarism. Such parties are accustomed to take great stock in the notion of a quiet amalgamation of contrarieties. Soldiers and pacifists need not be antagonistic or endeavor to destroy one another, but may join in a higher unity,—an army fighting for assured legal protection.
Greetings and shouts were exchanged between our ship and the fleet, although this conduct was contrary to the stipulation that during the trip they should take 330no notice of each other. About five o’clock the vessels met. John Lund and other members of the Storthing were rowed over to the parliamentary vessel and boarded her to extend greetings.
The fortification of Oskarborg fired a salute. At the foot of the walls troops were drawn up and a loud hurrah, divided into three regular periods and nine times repeated,—that being the Northern cheer,—came across distinctly, and the flags were dipped in salutation. Beyond Oskarborg, as soon as the two parliamentary vessels arrived, the war ships took the lead and gave convoy up to the city of the Congress.
At nine o’clock in the evening, but still in clear daylight, we make our entry into Christiania. The quay along its whole extent is thronged with jubilant townspeople; people stream forth from all the side streets.
On the evening of the first of August there is a miscellaneous assemblage, with a concert in the Hans-Haugen, a public garden situated on a hill. We meet old acquaintances: Dr. Barth from Berlin, Dr. Harmening from Jena, Pierantoni from Rome, Senator Labiche from Paris, Count Albert Apponyi from Budapest, Gniewocz and Dr. Millanich from Vienna. Also many new delegates attending their first Interparliamentary Conference are presented to me; among them several members of the Center in the German Reichstag, Dr. Herold, and a few of the Young-Czech party from the Austrian parliament.
331A gigantic figure approaches me. I instantly recognize the characteristic head with the white lion’s mane: oh, joy—it is Björnstjerne Björnson. He kisses my hand and we chat a few minutes; but soon a frail little woman in a white gown hurries up to him, with the words, “Father, they are looking for you....”
Björnson introduces his daughter, Frau Ibsen.
A buffet was arranged for the assembled guests in a large hall. During the festival the papers arrive with news about the close of the Conference at The Hague. A passage from Beaufort’s speech was most eagerly discussed. On account of technical difficulties the formula for a limitation of armaments adapted to the new conditions in all countries has not as yet been drawn up, but all are agreed on the principle that this formula must be sought and found. Here now is a task laid out for the Interparliamentary Union, namely, to develop further the work begun at The Hague.
At this writing—1908—however, that formula has not been found. Parliamentarians, with but few exceptions, when they are not in the Conference but in parliament, do nothing but consent, consent. The study of the problem was postponed from the first to the second and from the second to the third Hague Conference, and still it remains uninvestigated. Where there is no will, there is no way.
On the next day—to return to 1899—came the formal opening in the Storthing. At the earlier Conferences scarcely more than sixty or eighty persons 332were present; this time there are more than three hundred. Germany, which hitherto has been represented by not more than two or three, sends forty to Christiania; France sends twenty-six, Austria fourteen. If this continues, special halls will have to be built for the “Interparliament”!
I noted the final sentence from Minister of State Steen’s opening speech: “And so we shall be victorious—which will be a blessing to the defeated.” That gives the criterion for what all noble champions of the future are to attain.
President Ullman makes a report on the Nobel foundation. The first distribution is to take place on the tenth of December, 1901. The interest accruing up to that time is to be employed as a capital fund for the creation of a Nobel Institute in Christiania, that is, a central school for the study and development of international law. From the annual income of the bequest (200,000 Swedish kroner) 50,000 kroner are to be reserved for the support of the Institute.
For the first time the United States of America is represented at an Interparliamentary Conference. Mr. Barrows reports that in his country there are many people who have never seen an officer and many officers who have never seen their regiment assembled. He believes that he is warranted—especially in view of the instructions and proposals intrusted to the delegates to the Hague Conference—in declaring that the jingo spirit, which was aroused by the last war with 333Spain, and which is in such absolute opposition to the fundamental principles of the land of the star-spangled banner, will never get the upper hand.
So this was the first time that an American representative appeared in the arena of the Interparliamentary Union; but of late the New World is taking the first place in the universal peace movement. From that direction will come for the Old World the impulse, the example,—perhaps the necessity,—for the creation of United Europe.
Mr. Barrows was followed by Count Albert Apponyi. He informed the meeting that Koloman von Szell, the former leader of the Hungarian Interparliamentary group, had now become prime minister. Fiery, eloquent as always, flowed Apponyi’s speech, and when he had finished, Björnson went up to him and pressed his hand.
In the evening a garden party at Minister of State Steen’s. Here I met Ibsen. Long ago I had written him to get his views in regard to the peace cause. He then replied that his life was wholly devoted to the dramatic art and he had no views at all on the question at issue. I now wanted to ask if his presence was a sign of an awakened interest in the movement, but some one came between us and I had no other chance to resume the interrupted conversation.
The next afternoon we made the acquaintance of all the members of the French group present. M. Catusse, the recently accredited ambassador of France at 334Stockholm, whom we had met before both at Nice and at The Hague, had invited all his French colleagues to take tea with him, and my husband and I were also asked. We found more than a dozen members of the Chamber and the Senate, among them the former premier, Cochery.
We spoke of Léon Bourgeois. He had left The Hague for Paris on account of the last cabinet crisis, and there he had informed several of the gentlemen that he should be unwilling to undertake the formation of a new cabinet, because he considered the work that he had to complete at The Hague more important.
Senator Labiche told us that the day before, when he was introduced to Björnson, the poet asked him point blank, Êtes-vous Dreyfusard?—for Björnson himself is.
The day and evening ended with an entertainment given by the city. A hundred and fifty carriages were in readiness and took the guests to the Frognersättern, a favorite place of resort, the road to which winds up continuously for five miles through thick forest trees, past all the red cottages of the peasantry, which give the characteristic physiognomy to “the land of the thousand homesteads,” as the poet of the national hymn (Björnson) calls his native land. In the midst of the forest, on high land, you pass glittering lakes, and, wherever there is a wide prospect, fiord and city gleam in ever-varying beauty.
On the second and last day of the Conference the transactions occupied the whole time from nine o’clock 335until five. The principal subject on the programme was the Conference at The Hague. Stanhope reads a message brought from there by W. T. Stead and bearing the signatures of Beernaert, Rahusen, D’Estournelles, Descamps, and others. This message communicates to their colleagues assembled at Christiania the outcome of the arbitration question,—a result which, as soon as its importance is grasped, will be recognized as the crowning event of the nineteenth century. The conclusion of the message read:
“So this is the machine which the Hague Conference has created, and it is for you, representatives of the nations, and for the nations to provide it with steam.”
A duty which—I repeat it with regret—neither the nations nor their representatives up to the present time have fulfilled.
It was voted that Paris should be the place for the next Conference, and the date, 1900.
The last evening was devoted to the parting banquet, given by the Storthing. Björnson arose as the first speaker. He spoke French. His somewhat singsong tone was not well suited to the French accent, but the emphasis and the enthusiasm of the address atoned for that. His theme was “The Truth.” Björnson wants to see truth injected into politics—politics should become ethical. Of course every self-respecting “practical politician” will smile indulgently at that idea. After leaving the table, the guests, four hundred in number, scattered through the many adjoining 336rooms. Here appeared a troop of young people in neat black clothes and white caps—I took them for students, but they were artisans—and sang Norwegian and German part songs. Björnson addressed them and they themselves expressed words of thanks to all the men and women present who were working for peace, that most important of all advantages for the laboring man.
While we were drinking our coffee, I had at last a long talk with Björnson. I can forgive him for not calling upon me, for he has not a moment of rest. He is regarded as a universal counselor. Young poets bring him their manuscripts; young women aspirants to a theatrical career play their heroine rôles before him; and he is incapable of refusing any one. Speaking of the artisans who had just been singing, he told me that in his country this class took more interest than the higher strata of society, in intellectual things. “I was recognized by them,” he said, “much earlier than by the so-called intelligent class.”
“And isn’t it true,” I asked, “that the peasants here are very advanced? I hear that there are no illiterate among them.”
“Oh, the peasants,” cried Björnson, “they are the foundation of our kingdom; they are its pillars.”
We made the return journey from Norway in Bloch’s company, though indeed only as far as Berlin. There our paths diverged, Bloch going to Warsaw and we to Vienna and Harmannsdorf.
337Here sad news and joyous news awaited us.
My Aunt Büschel, seventy-nine years old, whom I was in the habit of visiting every week at Eggenburg near by, to talk with her about old times, about Elvira, and about my mother,—had peacefully passed away during our absence. She had a short illness, and was cared for by my relatives. With her death the last link that connected me with the days of my youth was broken.
The joyous event was a betrothal. On the day after our return the whole family from the neighboring Stockern drove over to Harmannsdorf accompanied by a young cousin, Baron Johann Baptist Moser. All wore mysterious looks as they whispered together and put on such strange expressions! When we were gathered together at lunch, and dessert was served, my brother-in-law Richard suddenly rose and, portentously clearing his throat, said,—
“My dear friends, I hereby inform you that yesterday evening my dear daughter Margarete and my dear nephew Moser became engaged.”
Universal jubilation, and I myself felt the tears of joy coming into my eyes, for I had long cherished the desire that these dearly beloved young folks, who were so admirably suited to each other, should strike up a match, and so the news brought keen delight to me.
I had no lack of work to do. The interrupted Hague diary had to be finished; likewise the reports for my periodical. This, by the way, was to cease publication 338at the end of the year and to be absorbed by the Friedenswarte, edited by A. H. Fried, whose regular collaborator I am up to the present time.
One day I received several copies of the Budapester Tagblatt containing an excellent article by Count Albert Apponyi, who gave in it a very favorable report regarding the Hague Conference, and made the suggestion for a press league, to be associated with the Interparliamentary Union. I thanked the count for sending me the papers and praised the idea. In answer I received the following letter:
Eberhard, August 28, 1899
My dear Baroness:
In thanking you for your friendly letter I must observe that, though I certainly estimate at its full value the submission of my lucubrations to your very competent criticism, the thought of burdening you with several copies of the Budapester Tagblatt was entirely due to the editors of that paper. Had it been my doings it would have been inexcusably presumptuous.
It rejoices me that the thoughts that I wrote down meet with your approval. The optimism which I display is, however, rather a tactical maneuver than actual conviction. The great powers at The Hague were less than lukewarm, and I am not sure that their assent to The Hague conventions—especially in the case of Germany and Austria-Hungary—will be given. The rulers do not want the thing to succeed; they do not want war, indeed, but every institution in which they can detect any limitation of their absolute power (to do either good or ill) is instinctively repugnant to them.
Meantime, we in Hungary—where, after the beneficent parliamentary revolution of this winter, we are perhaps on the way to recuperation (but I repeat the word “perhaps”)—will do our best to bring our monarchy, through constitutional methods of pressure, into the right course. My position for this end has become somewhat 339better, and I will certainly make the most of it. I shall also endeavor to form the press league mentioned in my article. It is intended to form a connecting link between the Interparliamentary Union and the people. As for the rest, only a kind Providence can make anything good out of such wretched material.
With sincere respect,
Your wholly devoted
Albert Apponyi
As I turn over the leaves of my diary for that time, I find that three different objects filled my soul, each with different moods. There was my great life interest, my “one thing essential,” which just now through the Hague Conference had arrived at such a mighty stage of development. It was almost as if the goal, which only a few years before was so far away, had now come so near and was so distinct that soon all would perforce take note of it and therefore hasten to it. I saw clearly what I myself had to do: it was to give as many of my fellow-countrymen as possible a knowledge of the results of the Conference, and I devoted myself diligently to this task, writing numerous newspaper articles and my book on the Hague Conference.
I must confess I could not take an unqualified joy in doing this, for I had been a witness to the opposition, open and secret, which had been directed at The Hague against the realization of the “warless age.” But all the more strenuous was the obligation to put to the service of the cause all the new facts and supports which the present state of the movement afforded its defenders.
340Something else was rising full of threat on the horizon. The war party in England seemed to be getting the upper hand; the Outlander crisis in the Transvaal was growing more and more acute. What if it broke into war? That would discredit the peace work that had been begun and would decidedly put it back. Can it be that between the two forces of Might and Right, Might is again to carry the day?
Another object of my thought and anxiety was found in our domestic circumstances. The losses in the quarries, in the failure of crops, and in unfortunate speculations had increased to such an extent that it was now almost impossible to keep our beloved Harmannsdorf above water much longer. And what then? What a grief for the poor old mother, for the sisters, and also for My Own, if the home nest were to be sacrificed!
The third field of my feelings and moods lay within our married happiness. In this was my peculiar inalienable home, my refuge for all possible conditions of life,—something beyond Harmannsdorf and the Transvaal, beyond everything, come what might,—and so the leaves of my diary are full not only of political and domestic records of all kinds, but also of memoranda of our gay little jokes, our confidential, enjoyable walks, our uplifting reading, our hours of music together, and our evening games of chess. To us personally nothing could happen. We had each other,—that was everything.
341The thought that we might be torn apart by the all-destroyer Death we put out of our minds. And yet at that time I was not very strong and I believe My Own felt some alarm about my condition. I had suddenly become so languid; it was hard for me to walk; after a few steps I became so dizzy that I could scarcely stand. My Own dragged me off to a physician; I say “dragged,” because all my life long I have been strenuously opposed to medical treatment. This physician gave me an examination and asked me all manner of questions and ordered—what do you suppose?
I will give the details because it is an interesting case. In the first place I followed his directions, which also was contrary to my custom; up to that time the only use I had made of medicine was to throw it out of the window. What is more, the treatment helped me. In a short time I became as healthy as a fish in water. Well then, what was the doctor’s prescription? Bicycling! I, a heavy woman of fifty-six, who had never mounted a wheel, was now to attempt this schoolgirl’s sport! It was comical, but I did it. The prescription was tremendously tempting to me. It had always been my keen desire to enjoy this skimming away on the thin-legged iron steed, and I had regretted that I was born too early to experience this delight. Now it was imposed upon me as a duty to my health! I immediately bought a wheel, and one of the castle servants was appointed my instructor. He helped me to mount the thing and down I went. Up 342again, down again—twenty times in succession. That was my first lesson.
“Would it not be better to try a tricycle?” asked My Own solicitously, for he gained no confidence at all from this début. But I would not hear to it. “The doctor has prescribed bicycling and bicycling it shall be.”
With a persistence at which I myself am amazed I kept up my lessons; more and more infrequently the wheel wobbled, ever more and more rare were the trees against which I obstinately steered, and after a long course of instruction—I certainly am not going to confess how long—I attained such skill that I wheeled in great style through the avenues of the park and really made a very elegantly executed figure eight!
In doing this I felt perfectly well; the blood circulated with reinvigorated energy; dashing away on the wheel became to me a perfect delight; I had no more attacks of lassitude; I grew slenderer, and at the same time I had a feeling as if youth, youth were streaming through my veins!
Things in the Transvaal were going from bad to worse. People in England, worked upon through their passion, were demanding war. The London pacifists were putting forth their utmost endeavors to ward off the misfortune; they instituted meetings, they wrote to the papers; W. T. Stead established a new weekly, War against War,—all in vain. Any one who pleaded 343for peace was repudiated, scouted as a “Little Englishman,” if not even held up to scorn and derision as a traitor. Managers of halls would no longer permit the use of them for peace meetings, and if such gatherings were held they were broken up by turbulent mobs. Assaults even were committed. At a public meeting held by the Peace Association in Trafalgar Square, the orators were not only overwhelmed with insults but were attacked with projectiles. An open jackknife was hurled at Felix Moscheles, narrowly escaping his head.
In the meantime the second Dreyfus trial was held at Rennes, and with the same military fanaticism and partisanship as in the days when Esterhazy was glorified and Zola was persecuted with shouts of à l’eau! à l’eau! Now a furious anti-Dreyfusard even makes an attempt upon the life of the defendant’s lawyer, Labori. The court-martial condemns Dreyfus to death—but he is pardoned.
In Vienna a meeting is held at which Dr. Lueger declares, “Dreyfus belongs to the Devil’s Island and all the Jews as well.” This impelled my husband to call a counter meeting of his Union. The combat with popular frenzy and against national hatred is a hard, apparently quite hopeless, task, only just begun. Pain and indignation and a bitter sense of feebleness take possession of the combatant; but still there is nothing else for him to do—he must take up the fight. And since absolutely nothing in this world is 344lost, such protests certainly have their effect ultimately in their own way, even if they seem for the moment to be wasted.
In the German empire plans for a tremendous fleet are adopted. “Our future lies on the water,”—therefore enormous increase of armament on the sea. Exactly the opposite of what was at the foundation of the Hague Conference. Bloch writes me that Emperor William is said to have persuaded the Tsar that the peace cause—that is, in the form of an arbitration tribunal and the limitation of armaments (the German Emperor is surely in favor of preserving peace by the protection of the bayonet)—is directly contrary to dynastic interests.
The South African war breaks out. Our opponents cry scornfully, “So this is the result of the Hague Conference, is it?”
I had desired to publish in my monthly an expression of opinion regarding this misfortune from an English peace champion so highly regarded as Philip Stanhope, who I knew would be deeply grieved by it. He replied that it would not be in good taste to express his views in foreign periodicals while his country was involved in war. Now that the war is long finished there is no indiscretion in my reproducing his letter:
Padworth House, Reading, November 19, 1899
Dear Baroness von Suttner:
I have to thank you most sincerely for your letter. In times like these, when one finds one’s self in a small minority, the encouragement 345of friends is of great service, and no one is more authorized than yourself to speak upon such an issue, having for many years given your life to the service of the cause of peace.
Just now it is impossible to write anything for publication in a foreign journal. While we are in the throes of a great war it would be unseemly to do so, and I will therefore ask you to kindly excuse me in this regard for the present. I may, however, say to yourself as a friend what I could not publicly say about the situation.
I think the jingo feeling is subsiding in England. Now that the people are at last realizing what war means, there is less shouting and enthusiasm. I am told that even in the music halls this tendency is very marked. Of course patriotic songs will always command a large audience and excite natural patriotic emotions, but people are beginning to think and to ask themselves what the war is about, and whether warfare is the best way of really pacifying South Africa. I have great confidence in the ultimate good sense of my countrymen when the fever has passed away.
All the same, the path of idealists like ourselves is not made more easy by what has happened.
I hope Baron von Suttner is well. Kindly remember me to him and allow me to subscribe myself as
Very sincerely yours
Philip Stanhope
I asked an expression of opinion from Count Nigra for the annual meeting of my Union. The ambassador replied with the following letter:
Rome, Grand Hotel, November 29, 1899
My dear Baroness:
You are quite right in seizing the occasion of the meeting of the Austrian peace society to ask a word of approbation and encouragement from those who worked for peace at the Conference at The Hague. That Conference has had to meet with two untoward accidents,—the Dreyfus affair and the conflict in the Transvaal. The first distracted public attention from our work; the other seems to contradict it. The coincidence is certainly very regrettable. But these 346are only passing incidents, while our work is destined to last as long as time lasts. The Conference is accused of not having produced immediate results. To tell the truth we enjoyed no illusion in this respect. We knew perfectly well that we had not been working to secure the peace of the world from one day to another. On the contrary, we had the consciousness of working for the future of humanity.
Moreover, is it true that the Conference had no immediate effect? I think that the mere fact that such a Conference was convoked by a powerful monarch, like the Emperor of Russia, that it was accepted by all the powers, and that it could meet and work for months with the purpose of making wars less frequent and less cruel for the nations,—that fact alone is already a great result. It proves at least that the ideas of peace and arbitration have entered into the consciousness of governments and of peoples.
Besides, as I have just said, we had in view not the fleeting moment but the future history of the world. The tree, the seed of which we have planted, is likely to grow but slowly, like everything else that is destined to increase and throw down deep roots. We shall not be able to repose in the shade of its branches, but those who follow us will gather its fruits. I have faith in our work for the future. The ideas that we have aroused in the minds of the governments and of the peoples cannot vanish like deceptive mirages. They have their raisons d’être in the universal consciousness. Like every human conception, they meet, in their application, with periods of arrested development and even, if one may thus express one’s self, with passing eclipses. But nothing shall prevent their onward course. The end which we have set before ourselves is that of a forward march in constant progress. It is the law of history. Blind is he who does not see it.
So then, sursum corda, and let us remember that Christ blamed men of little faith. You can remind your assembly of this in order that it may be taken in elsewhere.
Accept, madam, my very sincere regards
Nigra
347
LXII THE TURN OF THE CENTURY
1900 or 1901 · Address to the powers · Letters from Henryk Sienkiewicz · Letter from the Prince of Mingrelia · Count Apponyi’s press scheme · The Interparliamentary Conference at Paris · Count Apponyi on the Conference · Dr. Clark’s action regarding Chamberlain and President Kruger · Altera pars · The troubles in China · Letters from Yang-Yü to my husband · The Peace Congress at Paris · The Bloch family · Madame Séverine · The Exposition · Dinner at Professor Charles Richet’s · Miss Alice Williams · Literary work · Nomination of the Hague judges · Letters from Martens and Schönborn · D’Estournelles’s lecture in Vienna · Dr. Holls’s mission · Our silver wedding · Letter from Tolstoi · First assignment of the Nobel prizes · Dunant’s thanks · Decennial celebration of the Union · Letters of congratulation from Passy, Szell, Schönborn, D’Estournelles, Chlumecky, Rosegger and Björnson
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 348century 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, 349signed 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!
350I 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:
Warsaw, March 7, 1900
My dear Baroness:
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.
With assurances of my highest regard
Henryk Sienkiewicz
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.
351The following letter from the Prince of Mingrelia, which I find in my letter-file for 1900, is a witness of that fact:
St. Petersburg, March 24 (April 6), 1900
My dear Baroness:
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
Your very devoted
Niko
Count Apponyi was still at work on his press project. He wrote me regarding it:
Budapest, March 27, 1900
Dear Madam:
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 352of 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 353much 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
Your wholly devoted
Albert Apponyi
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 354Conference. The following letter from Count Apponyi refers to this:
Weidlingau, August 8, 1900
My dear Baroness:
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.
355If 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.
With great respect
Your wholly devoted
Albert Apponyi
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:
Ardnahane Cove, Dunbartonshire, September 11, 1900
Dear Madam von Suttner:
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 356South 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 357this 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
Yours faithfully
G. B. Clark
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 358aim 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:
Stockton, April 18, 1900
Madam:
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 359peasants 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.
I am, madam, faithfully yours
Emily Axbell
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! 360The 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:
Imperial Chinese Embassy
St. Petersburg, August 4 (17), 1900
My dear Baron:
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, 361Germany, 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 362converted 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.
Yours with most sincere esteem
Yang-Yü, Chinese Minister
And a little later a second letter came from the same source:
Imperial Chinese Embassy
St. Petersburg, September 10 (23), 1900
My dear Baron:
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.
Yours with most sincere esteem
Yang-Yü, Chinese Minister
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 363the 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 364the 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. 365I 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.
366But, 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:
St. Petersburg, November 1 (14), 1900
My dear Baroness:
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.
367You 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.
Martens
I received other letters from the newly appointed delegates, thanking me for my congratulations; but I will cite only the one from Count Schönborn:
368Vienna, January 11, 1901