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 century which is about to open.” Our age, however, allowed this significant epoch to pass by without “turning over a new leaf,” without saying, “Now we will dedicate the twentieth century by breaking with the old barbarism.”
Barbarism was happily rescued by its admirers, and an immeasurably horrible and pitiful war, with lurid-glaring jingoism in its train, raged as a portentous presage marking the transition from the old century to the new.
All the pacifists were troubled and indignant over this turn of affairs; but none was disheartened. It is well known that the line of progress often runs back a little in order later to advance with accelerated rapidity; and the results already achieved, the unexpected new victories in the domain of the peace cause, were already in our hands. That certainly was not going backwards. In the work of the pioneers also there was no moment of inaction; the protests against the continuation of the South African war, the reminder to the powers that mediation was open to them, the articles, the petitions,—all these things were zealously attended to by our Bern Bureau, by Stead in his Weekly, by the Unions in their meetings. Even though no direct result was attained, still the principle was unviolated, the standpoint was held, the banner was kept aloft.
Our friends had organized an international demonstration in the form of an address to the powers, signed by public societies and distinguished individuals of all nations. The names of those who were included were both numerous and imposing; but I will here call attention only to the answer of one great man who refused to join with us. I had sent out a great many invitations, among others one to Henryk Sienkiewicz. He sent me a long reply, in which he declined to sign the petition because he held the opinion that there were much worse and more pressing sufferings to be relieved than those of the Boers; for instance, the sufferings of the Poles persecuted by “Hakatism.” He believed that the English would never be able—even though they might be victorious in the Transvaal—to attempt to denationalize the people there and deprive them of all freedom. So we might much better work for people nearer at home; such was the conclusion of Sienkiewicz’s letter:
Ah, madam, before taking up with Africa, interest yourself in Europe. A gigantic humanitarian work is within your reach. Endeavor to make the spirit of the German nation ennoble the present régime, and see to it that it does not become debased by false statesmanship.
England gave birth to a great minister who spent his life in defending the rights of oppressed Ireland; can you show me another in all Europe? Leave the English spirit in peace, for it will of itself attain the end that you propose, and work for causes nearer home. Elevate political morality, ennoble the consciences of the mighty; may the clouds of injustice and of treason against human right vanish away! May a breath of humanity freshen the air poisoned by Hakatist currents! Carry the good tidings to your neighbors, bring them words of love, endeavor to instill the Kingdom of Christ into their souls. You have a noble heart, a good and unshaken will!
I replied in a few lines in which I informed him that I desired to reply to him in an open letter. Thereupon Sienkiewicz wrote back:
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.
The 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 of almost all the newspapers of the capital, is already formed. The proposed press union, for which we have elaborated a provisional charter, is to be organized in every degree parallel with the Interparliamentary Union, and is to be in constant touch with it. The idea originated with the Hungarian Interparliamentary Group, which, as a Conseil interparlementaire will make the motion at the Paris Conference, as indeed it has already done at the Brussels meeting, that all the national groups shall endeavor to help form the press groups, and that our Interparliamentary Bureau shall serve these groups as a center until there shall be so many of them that the independent international organization of the press can come into existence.
I have got the matter under way through correspondence; have written Descamps, Labiche, Rahusen, Dr. Hirsch, Stanhope, Pierantoni, and Pirquet. Pirquet is already at work on it; I have not yet had any answer from the others.
The importance of the plan scarcely requires argument. But I am taking the liberty of inclosing an extract from the address which I gave before the press club here and which clearly outlines my idea. It is hardly to be expected that the scheme will be everywhere so enthusiastically and unanimously adopted as it has been here, where an exceptional intimacy exists between parliament and press. But influential newspapers will everywhere be enlisted, and what we need is the systematic labors of these unpartisan journals.
What advantage is it if, for example, the Neue Freie Presse publishes to-day an article from your pen, Baroness, or one by Councilor Bloch, but on the other six days of the week speaks of the peace movement—if at all—in a scornful tone? Such sporadic articles of individual persons, no matter how distinguished, are put down as special labors, and any possible influence that they might have on the reader is immediately rendered nugatory. Only the constant logical attitude of the editorial boards renders the action of the press effectual. Now then, imagine the press organized and conducted for one purpose throughout the whole civilized world and brought into tactical partnership with the parliamentary activity; then that steam power which the Hague peace machinery needs to put it into action would be supplied. This seems to us practically much more important than to discover new articles which might be added to the Hague Convention.
After all this I hardly need to ask your benevolent furtherance of our scheme, for I do not believe that anything could impart more power to the peace movement than the success of this plan.
With greatest respect, I am
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 Conference. 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.
If you ask the question, Who is to blame for this? I can only reply, All. But who is most to blame? That would be a long chapter, and I will not go into it, although I have a definite answer ready. I hope you will not lay this pessimistic statement of the case up against me; but we must see clearly, not so as to be discouraged, but so as to act in a suitable manner.
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 South Africa must depend on the good faith and friendly feeling between the two white races. The published letters, to which you refer, are the last portion of this correspondence, and were written less than a fortnight before the war began. In my letter to President Kruger I gave him the result of an interview which I had with Mr. Chamberlain, in which I endeavored to induce him to accede to the repeated request which the Transvaal government had made that matters at issue should be settled by arbitration, and to consent that a permanent arbitration tribunal should be formed to which all present and future disputes should at once be submitted. I told him that the Transvaal government were willing to submit the differences pending between the two governments to a court of arbitration, consisting of the four chief justices of South Africa, and to accept the Lord Chief Justice of England as umpire in the event of the two colonial and two republican chief justices not being able to agree,—a suggestion which, as you will have seen, the colonial secretary was not able to accept.
The force of misrepresentation and calumny which the peace party here have had to endure from the virulent and unscrupulous jingo press can be estimated by the manner in which they have misrepresented my warning to President Kruger. I knew, as every one who knew anything of the geography of South Africa must have known, that the obvious line of action for the Boers to adopt would be that of seizing the passes, and I warned President Kruger that to do so would alienate the sympathy of many of their supporters in this country and on the continent of Europe. My words were deliberately misconstrued, and it was asserted that I urged the Boers to seize the passes. Nothing further from the truth can be imagined.
But, in spite of the difficulties with which we have had to contend, there is, undoubtedly, a large minority here who are firmly convinced that the war is an unjust one, and who regard the settlement by annexation as another wrong against which they will continue to protest. We shall go on working by all constitutional means for the restoration of the independence of the two republics, believing that by these means only can peace and prosperity exist once more in South Africa. We believe that we are working in a just cause, and shall hope in the not too distant future that we may be able to appeal to the justice of this people, who will then have recognized the folly and wickedness for which they have been made responsible.
We do not doubt the future. We are sure that it is with us. It is true that the middle classes and the moderate liberals have abandoned their old watchword of “Peace, retrenchment, and reform,” but the radicals and socialists are standing firmly by these principles. I send you a copy of the socialist paper Justice, which expressed fairly the attitude of the democratic party. I have, as you know, opposed the growth of socialism, which I formerly believed to be inimical to freedom and progress, but I am considerably modifying my views. The power for evil of the lawless and conscienceless capitalism which is now rampant is so great, and entails such unlimited moral and physical degeneracy, that I am convinced some form of collective action is a necessity to put an end to its baneful influence.
The history of this miserable war determines us to stand more determinedly by the principle of the substitution of arbitration for war. It becomes clearer and clearer that no permanent settlement can be based on war, and that, as between individuals, so between nations, magnanimity is not only morally desirable, but it is the best policy.
I am taking a yachting holiday in Scotland, but we may be overtaken by a general election here at any time.
Thanking you again for your letter, believe me to remain
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 aim may be praiseworthy; only it is unfortunate that the method is so unholy and vicious. I received the following letter from the sister of the Minister of Cape Colony:
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 peasants are naming their children after our generals) would never allow war to be made on our European neighbors. There is not the slightest wish or expectation of such a thing among us. Foreign journals which assert the contrary and thereby try to fan the flames of war are guilty of a European crime.
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! The description of the outrages committed there by Europeans on noncombatants, even on the innocent, made one’s blood run cold. The thing itself—a united force of French, Russian, and other troops under the command of a German general—belonged to the new methods that are to come; but the execution still showed the old spirit.
Even before things had reached their worst in China, the Chinese ambassador in St. Petersburg, Yang-Yü, whom we met at The Hague, wrote the following letter in reply to one which my husband had addressed to him in this emergency:
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, Germany, England, Spain, France, Holland, Japan, and Russia; everywhere I went I studied the customs of the people, and I have been particularly interested in the army, in commerce, and in agriculture, all of which I have found most perfectly administered. I took note of what differentiates these countries from ours and what benefits they have to confer upon my country. But what should I say? This incessant rivalry and this jealousy manifested among all nations somewhat detract from this perfection. If I have one desire to formulate, it is to see all countries rise superior to these sentiments and live always in a good understanding; this would assure them a lasting peace.
The conflict existing at present between China and the foreign powers comes in large part from mutual misunderstandings. I am firmly convinced that neither China nor any of these powers desires to break these pleasant relationships. Things have been pushed to this point, owing to the heedlessness of Chinese functionaries and military parties blinded by ambition. It is more than time to do away with these misunderstandings, and to reëstablish the old relations; otherwise, not only will China be brought to the greatest distress, but, moreover, international quarrels may result, and this would certainly not be in the interest of humanity as a whole. I hope that the governments of none of the countries will lose sight of the opportunity of putting an end to this state of things.
The first cause that prepared and brought about the present conflict is due to the sworn hatred of the people against the Christians. Assuredly the end pursued by the missionaries, of doing good to others, is very praiseworthy. But, as a general thing, right-thinking Chinese would not for anything in the world abandon the religion that comes down to them from their ancestors, for the sake of embracing one that is wholly foreign to them; the result is that the new converts are unfortunately in large measure dishonest people who hide behind the shelter of the Church to give themselves up to their evil passions, such as bringing lawsuits with impunity, and molesting and robbing their fellow-countrymen. The feelings of the people, which were at first merely wrath and indignation, and do not date from yesterday, have been changed into an implacable hatred, the fury of which it is impossible any longer to restrain. The Chinese no more desire to be converted to Christianity than the Europeans would wish to embrace the maxims of Confucius.
My personal opinion is that commercial relations between China and the foreign powers may be developed to any desired extent; but as for the question of religion, it would be more prudent to allow each to respect his own as he understands it; this would be calculated to preserve the future from all conflict. I do not know whether the foreign governments will at last recognize the whole importance of the question and renounce it definitely.
In the belief that I have answered all your questions, I beg leave to assure you that I shall always be charmed to be useful and agreeable to you.
Yours with most sincere esteem<