"the integrity and free development of China," they would reserve "the right to consider eventually the means of insuring the defense of their interests." As to affairs in China proper, it may be said that, after the opposition of the other powers had caused Russia to abandon its earlier terms for an evacuation of Manchuria (see RECORD for June, 1901, p. 390), negotiations to this end were resumed. Russia insisted upon stipulations that prolonged the period of gradual evacuation to three years at least, asserted the practical control of Russia over the Chinese troops in Manchuria, put forward claims to industrial concessions, and forbade the extension of certain railway systems without Russian consent. Great Britain and Japan supported the refusal of China to accept these terms. The United States also addressed a note to Russia, February 1, protesting against the acquisition by that power of any special privileges in Manchuria, as hurtful to China and as involving a violation of treaty rights and of the principle of the "open door." Eventually, on April 8, Russia agreed to modify its demands. The treaty then concluded with China declared Manchuria to be an "integral portion of the Chinese Empire," and fixed eighteen months as the period for a gradual evacuation of the province by Russia, provided that no disturbance arose in the region and that the other powers did not interfere. So long, however, as Russian troops might remain in Manchuria, the Chinese military authorities should "come to an agreement" with those of Russia as to the number and stations of the Chinese soldiers. Russia consented, also, to restore the Shan-hai-kwan-Niu-ChwangSin-Min-Ting railway to Chinese management, provided that China would undertake the sole care of it, obtain the approval of Russia for changes in the railroad system, and pay a separate indemnity for the recent expenditures of Russia on its repair and maintenance. Among the unsettled questions arising out of the Chinese imbroglio is that connected with the private claims for additional indemnities set up by various powers. In order to meet them it was suggested that the powers should reduce proportionately their shares of the general indemnity, and thus keep the total within the sum already fixed (see last RECORD, p. 756). To this proposition, however, Great Britain would not agree, for the reason that the private claims in question were excessive in comparison with its own. Another matter that caused some discussion was the request of the Chinese government that it be allowed to resume control over Tien-tsin. The diplomatic representatives of the European powers would not concede this without substantial guaranties of a military character to insure the preservation of public order and the security of foreigners in the province of Pe-chi-li. On similar conditions, including that of supervision by an international board, April 29, Great Britain agreed to restore to China the control of the Peking-Tien-tsin-Shan-hai-kwan railroad. — The return of the court to Peking took place on January 7. Before and after this event several important edicts of reform were issued. They deposed the heir apparent on the alleged ground of the crimes committed by his father, the banished Prince Tuan (cf. RECORD for June, 1900, p. 376, and that for December, 1900, pp. 761, 766). They encouraged "western ideas" of education by the erection of a special ministerial department, the extension of the existing field of European culture and the sending of Manchus, as well as Chinese, abroad for study. They deprecated the practice of foot-binding, and authorized the intermarriage of Manchus and Chinese. Also, in order to obviate frequent disturbances, a set of rules was provided for to restrain the interference of Catholic missionaries in litigation between converts and non-Christians. AFRICA. — During the past six months the conduct of the British military operations against the Boers has had one feature of particular interest, namely, the formation of several corps of Boer volunteers for service on the British side under the name of "National Scouts." The extension of the blockhouse system, and the practice of harrying, or "driving," the Boer forces, materially reduced them in numbers and resources, though not without a few severe reverses to the British. In one of these, March 7, General Methuen, the second in command in South Africa, was wounded and captured by the Boer commander, Delarey. Owing, however, to the Boer custom of liberating prisoners he speedily obtained his release. Another method of wearing out the Boer resistance was that made apparent in an order of the military authorities, issued in December, which forbade the landing of strangers in the Cape Colony, or in Natal, except under the most stringent regulations. On January 25, Great Britain received an offer of mediation from the Netherlands. As a means of facilitating negotiations for peace the Dutch government proposed that the Boer agents accredited to it should be given a safe-conduct to go to South Africa to consult with the burghers in the field on the advisability of ending the struggle. Great Britain declined to entertain the suggestion, specifically on the grounds that the Boer delegates had no authority to act, and that terms of peace could be discussed in South Africa only. At the same time the British government declared that "the quickest and most satisfactory means of arranging a settlement would be a direct communication from the leaders of the Boer forces" to the British military authorities. Proposals for peace from the Boers soon followed. On March 22, Messrs. Schalk-Burger, Reitz and other members of the so-called "Acting Transvaal Government" held a conference with Lord Kitchener at Pretoria, as a result of which they obtained a safe-conduct to discuss terms of peace with Mr. Steyn, General de Wet and other "irreconcilables" of the former Orange Free State. Lord Kitchener also agreed to facilitate the submission of the question to a vote of the rank and file of the burghers under arms. LATIN AMERICA. — Little public interest has been excited by the revolutionary movements in the northern part of South America (see last RECORD, p. 758), except when the struggles in Colombia so far endangered the persons and property of foreigners on the isthmus of Panama as to require the landing of marines from foreign warships. In December an insurrection was started in Venezuela against the rule of President Castro. During the next month a riotous tumult took place in Paraguay over a question of presidential succession. Similarly, in Santo Domingo, a rebellion in May displaced the president, Juan Jiminez (cf. RECORD for December, 1899, p. 760), in favor of the vice president, Horatio Vasquez. The possibility of a war between Chile and the Argentine Republic over some disputed territory was averted in December by their agreement upon a modus vivendi, pending the reference of the question to a British arbitrator. - In the relations between Latin-American states and the countries of Europe the disputes of Venezuela with France and Germany occupied some prominence. Upon a threat from France to 'impose duties on cacao, Venezuela agreed, April 29, to pay certain claims of French citizens (see last RECORD, p. 759), and to submit others to arbitration. Diplomatic relations were thereupon resumed, and a commercial treaty was concluded. Venezuela made similar terms regarding the arbitration of the German claims. In March, Spain signed treaties with most of the Latin-American states, including Santo Domingo, that provided for courts of arbitration composed of Spanish-Americans, but with a reservation of disputes over the personnel of the courts to the decision of the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague. On December 9, the Bolivian Congress approved postal and extradition treaties with the United States. Among the topics for discussion in the Pan-American Congress at Mexico were extradition, the creation of a Pan-American bank, the codification of international laws and the establishment of international copyright. The dominant theme, however, was the principle of compulsory arbitration of international differences. On this point the members of the Congress sharply divided. Chile, supported by the United States and a minority of the lesser powers, opposed the scheme, while the Argentine Republic, Mexico and the majority favored it. At length, January 17, the delegates resolved unanimously to accept in principle the several conventions of the Peace Conference at The Hague through the medium of the United States and Mexico, subject to the approval of the various home governments. The president of the latter republic, also, was requested to prepare for submission to the next session of the Congress a specific project for a convention of arbitration, based upon the sentiments of all the states concerned. At the same time the representatives of nine states made a separate agreement among themselves in favor of compulsory arbitration under certain restrictions. In this connection it may be mentioned that, in January, the presidents of the states of Central America signed a treaty providing for the adjustment of their international difficulties by a specified court of arbitration. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. WILLIAM R. Shepherd. POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. DO TRADE UNIONS LIMIT OUTPUT? VERY trade union I know limits output and I'm against "EVER that and therefore have been against the unions," said Mr. Schwab, the president of the United States Steel Corporation, at a recent conference on industrial conciliation.1 The answer to this charge by trade-union leaders was in part a denial, in part a vindication and in part a defiance; but neither side has attempted to make an analysis of the accusation and a reasoned exposition of trade-union policy on the subject. What does limitation of output mean? To the casual newspaper reader the charge dimly conveys the idea that the trade unions encourage the policy of skulk or "go canny"; that the workman, under pressure from his leaders, tries to cheat his employer by slyly reducing the normal amount of the day's work. In this form the accusation is without foundation. Even in England, where the unions are most vociferously accused of destroying trade by limiting output, only one case of the recommendation of such a policy has been discovered by the thorough historians of the union movement, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb; and in this unique case the policy was initiated by middle-class men, sympathizers with the workmen's movement, who were shortly afterwards excluded from the Trade Union Congress. Their recommendation ran thus: 1 Conference of National Civic Federation, Rooms of Board of Trade and Transportation, New York, December, 1901. There is no ground for doubting that the real relation of the employer to the workman is simply this to secure the largest amount of the best kind of work for the smallest wages; and, undesirable as this relation may be to the workman, there is no escape from it except to adopt the situation and apply to it the common sense commercial rule which provides a commodity in accordance with the price. . . . The employer insists upon fixing the amount he will give for an hour's labour without the slightest consideration for the labourer; there is, therefore, surely nothing wrong in the labourer, on the other hand, fixing the amount and the quality of the labour he will give in an hour for the price fixed by the employer. If employers of labour or purchasers of goods refuse to pay for the genuine article, they must be content with shoddy and veneer. is their own orthodox doctrine which they urge us to study.1 This Though the publication of such advice in the official organ of the Liverpool dock laborers - the men concerned may be considered as an irregular notice of intention served on the masters, there was of course no agreement entered into with the masters, and so far as the advice was acted upon it would be against the spirit of the understanding by which a man engages to give a customary day's work for a customary day's pay. On the competitive theory that every man is justified in getting the highest price for his goods and in giving the poorest quality the customer will take, these dock laborers were no more to be blamed than merchants who sell shoddy articles. But responsible trade-union officials immediately recognized that the departure advised would, in the long run, be against the workman's interests; and in 1896, when the suggestion was made that a similar policy should be adopted by the International Federation of Ship, Dock and River Workers, it was opposed by the leaders and rejected by the vote of the members. In all the recent newspaper controversy on the subject in London no facts have been adduced that indicate any change of policy in later years by the unions. Reduction of effort by agreement with the masters is slightly This is a method of raising wages. The main more common. 1 Webb, Industrial Democracy, I, 307. 2 Industrial Democracy, I, 309, footnote. |