Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

former session, both with respect to the amount of the sum to be granted for purposes of defense, and to the manner in which it should be raised. The ministry replied, declining to entertain any further consideration of the subject upon the basis of the method of defense approved by the Folkething; stating that they regarded the imposition of new taxes as un

in the taxes and of other reforms important to the country which affected the Treasury would have to be postponed. With regard to the amount to be expended in the works, the committee were of the opinion that 30,000,000 crowns was the maximum sum which the country would be willing to allow to be applied to this purpose. The statements of the minis

THE THORWALDSEN MUSEUM AT COPENHAGEN.

necessary; that they judged that the usual surplus of revenues would afford sufficient means not only for the purposes of defense, but also for other objects, as for the improvement of the means of communication; and remarking that the difference between the appropriation asked by the Government and that voted by the House only amounted to the

EXCHANGE, COPENHAGEN.

inconsiderable sum of 3,000,000 crowns. In answer to this the committee remarked that its views on both points of difference were unchanged. With regard to the subject of the method of raising the money, it was true that the sums needed could be provided out of funds in the Treasury; but, if provision was made in this manner, the questions of reform

try gave no guarantee that their expenditures would stop with the 33,000,000 crowns which they now asked. It was apprehended that this would be only a part of much larger sums which would be demanded in the future to complete works once undertaken. The committee then addressed several questions to the ministers: Did they consider the sum of 33,000,000 crowns sufficient for the completion of the extraordinary works of defense which they thought desirable? Had the ministry definitely given up the completion of the works formerly proposed, which were not included in the drafted bills, which were to provide for the security of Copenhagen by means of fixed forts on the side of the land as well as of the sea? If this were the case, would the ministers lay before the committee the grounds on which they could assure them that the application of the designated sum of 33,000,000 crowns would be made most judiciously in the manner prescribed in the bill, if these works were no longer regarded as parts of a greater whole, but as complete in themselves, and requiring no further additions? The committee asked also to have communicated to them the reports which the military experts had made upon the plans of the Government. To these questions the ministry replied that the appropriations designated by the Chamber, if applied upon the plan of defense favored by it, would, no less than the sum demanded by the Government, and applied upon its plan, demand supplementary appropriations; on the other hand, the plan of the Government could be quite as well regarded as a completed whole as that adopted by the Folkething, that it would be found entirely useful even if no further defenses were added to it, and that the ministry were constrained to adhere to their plans in any event. The reply was regarded as evasive, but the commit tee construed it as an answer in the negative to their questions. The committee reported their correspondence to the Folkething, with a review of some of the details of fortifica tions, which they regarded as needful, and

[graphic]
[graphic]

closed with the statement that they could not advise the Chamber to continue a discussion which under present circumstances offered no prospect of a practical result. The minority of the committee considered that a basis of adjustinent could still be had, and advised that a positive proposition be made, with a view to securing an agreement. For this end they proposed a measure combining some of the features of both the measures which had already been considered. This was not acceptable to either side. After hearing the reports, the Folkething, June 12th, by a vote of 62 to 26, reiterated its adherence to its previous positions, and passed to the order of the day. It afterward adopted a vote of want of confidence in the policy of the ministry, in which 71 members agreed.

The regular session of the Rigsdag was opened on the 2d of October, without a speech from the throne. With 60 members present, the Folkething elected its former president and vice-presidents, Krabbe, Hagsbro, and Hansen, giving to each 57 votes. The budget was submitted. It estimated the revenues of the country at 47,000,000 crowns, the expenses at 45,000,000, and the increase of revenues at 8,000,000 crowns. A bill for the alteration of the tariff by the reduction of duties in some items, and increase in others, and a bill offered by the Minister of Instruction for the building of a Polytechnic School, were rejected by the Folkething. No progress having been made in the consideration of the budget, the King, at the beginning of December, authorized a prolongation of the session for two months, or till February 2d. The discussion on the second reading of the budget was opened on the 15th of December, on the presentation of the reports of the majority of the committee proposing amendments, and of the minority supporting the measures submitted by the Government. The first division took place on the 18th, on the statement of the finance minister. All of the amendments proposed by the Opposition were adopted, by votes of 60 against 15 or 18. The propositions offered by the Opposition in amendment of the statements of the Ministers of the Interior and of Justice were also accepted, while an appropriation asked by the Government for the building of a mail-steamer was denied. The discussion became very heated over the estimate of the Minister of Instruction. Berg, a leader of the Opposition, said that the Government would commit a breach of its oath if it framed a provisional finance law, as it was proposed to do if the two Houses failed to agree upon a measure. An appropriation was granted for finishing the Royal Theatre. Before adjourning for the holidays, the Folkething had approved the amendments proposed by its committee to the marine budget, and denied the appropriations asked by the Government. The Landsthing, having nothing to act upon, had taken a recess from the 19th of December to the 9th of January.

The chief point of difference in the dispute between the Government and the Folkething concerns the plan upon which the defenses of the country shall be constructed. Both parties agree that defenses are necessary, and should be provided, but cannot agree upon any measure as to details. This disagreement has operated as a check upon the most important legislation for several years. During the former half of the present century the naval force was held in high regard as the most important and efficient instrumentality for defense, while the army was given a subordinate position. A different view has prevailed since the War of 1848. The fleet played an inferior part in the campaigns of that period, and suffered severe losses, while the army showed itself strong and effective; consequently, since that time the army has received particular attention, while no more than was necessary has been done for the fleet. In 1867 the army had been given a thorough organization, but no specific plans were thought necessary for the care and increase of the navy, and no new ships were built. In 1872 the Government began to entertain the apprehension that the country might become involved in a war with a great power, as Germany, and to give attention to the preparation, against such an event, of stronger defenses. It formed plans for the improvement of the army, for such an increase of the fleet as would place it in a condition to endure a conflict on the open sea, and for building fortifications at different points. It especially contemplated works to defend the capital against a capture from the side nearest the mainland. For these works it sought at first an appropriation of 40,000,000 marks. Its plans were disapproved by the Legislature. Nevertheless it presented them again the next year, in the same form as before. The Folkething answered them with other plans, in which a considerable sum was allowed for the improvement of the fleet, but nothing for the fortification of the capital from the land-side. In 1874 the Government succeeded in obtaining an appropriation to begin the building of an iron-clad vessel. In 1875 the Government again submitted its plans to the Chambers, in a form differing from the original plans, and calling for larger expenditures. The Landsthing made some slight modifications in the plans, and approved them as modified. The Folkething again rejected them, and adhered to the plans which it had previously approved. The plans were again submitted to the Chambers in 1876, in the form in which they had been approved by the Landsthing, and formed the subject of debate during the whole year, without the two Houses being able to come to any agreement upon them. The original plans of defense submitted by the Government contemplated the building of fortresses, to be so arranged as to afford a degree of protection to all parts of the country. They were open to the objection that such a disposition of forts

would compel a scattering of the military forces. In the later plans the defense of the whole country was given up, and attention was directed to making secure only Seeland, or rather the capital. The plans included, indeed, shore-batteries to be built along the shores of the Little Belt as well as of the Great Belt, but these were intended especially to secure communication with the mainland. To defend the capital against bombardment from the side of the sea, the old sea-forts were to be strengthened and new ones built. Works to prevent the irruption of small hostile forces from the side of the land could be built after the other works were finished. Great stress was laid upon the strengthening of the fleet, which it was desired to put in such a condition as to be capable of preventing the landing of an enemy's force, of destroying his transports, and even of engaging in battle on the open sea. A fortified naval station on the west side of Seeland was proposed, to furnish a place of retreat and a point of support for the fleet.

The Governor of the Danish West India Islands visited Copenhagen early in February, in order to attend to the legislation to be had respecting those islands, and especially to secure an advance from the Treasury of a sum of money to help the sugar-planters in building refineries. The Folkething voted a loan of 2,000,000 crowns for this purpose.

In July the King opened the exhibition of the industries of Jutland at Aarhuus, and subsequently visited the military exercise camp at Hald.

A statue of the astronomer Tycho Brabe was unveiled at Copenhagen on the 8th of August.

DESPOIS, EUGÈNE ANDRÉ, a French writer and scholar, born December 25, 1818; died September 23, 1876. He studied at the Collége Saint-Louis, entered the normal school in 1838, taught rhetoric during one year at Bourges, and was called to Paris, where he became Professor of Rhetoric at the Collége Louis-le-Grand. After the coup-d'état of 1851 he devoted himself entirely to literary labors. He furnished to the "Bibliothèque LatineFrançaise" of Panckoucke, the translation of "Rutilius Nunvatianus," of "Rufus Festus Avienus," and of "Aratus "-the two latter together with Saviot (1844). He contributed to the publication in Latin of the works of Abelard by Cousin (1849), and published several annotated editions of the classics. He became well known by his contributions to the Liberté de penser, the Revue des Deux Mondes, the Revue de Paris, the Revue Nationale, etc. He also published a number of historical works, the best known of which are: "La Révolution d'Angleterre, 1603-1668" (1861), "Les Lettres et la Liberté" (1865), and Le Vandalisme révolutionnaire" (1869). DIAZ DE LA PENA, NARCISSE VIRGILE, a French painter, born in August, 1809; died November 18, 1876. He made his first ap

[ocr errors]

pearance in 1831, with several landscape sketches, and afterward brought out "The Surroundings of Saragossa (1834), "The Battle of Medina Cœli" (1835), and "The Old Ben - Emek." "The Nymphs of Calypso" (1840), and "The Dream" (1841), showed a change in his style; and in 1844 his "View of Bas-Bréan," ""The Oriental," and "Bohemians going to a Festival," displayed those effects of light which formed his characteristic. In 1851 he finished his two paintings, "The BathingWoman" and "Love disarmed." He sent to the Universal Exhibition of 1855 several of his older works, among them "The Presents of Love," "The Rival," "The Close of a Fine Day," "Sleeping Nymph," "The Nymph tormented by Love," and "The Last Tears," of which the dull coloring called forth considerable criticism. About this time he undertook a journey to the East, and in 1859 exhibited "Galathea," ," "Venus and Adonis," and other paintings. Recently his older works were sold at very high prices, while his later works were not valued so highly. His son, Eugène Diaz, has gained considerable renown as a musical composer.

DIDOT, AMBROSE FIRMIN, the head of the celebrated French publishing-house of Firmin Didot Frères, Fils et Cie., born December 20, 1790; died February 22, 1876. He studied particularly the ancient languages, traveled through the East, was attached for a time to the legation in Constantinople, and then entered his father's business, of which he took charge with his brother Hyacinthe Firmin in 1827. He published numerous works of Champollion, Jacquemont, and others; a new edition of the "Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française," and a new revised edition of the "Thesaurus Linguæ Græca" of Henricus Stephanus. He wrote himself "Notes d'un Voyage dans le Levant en 1816 et 1817," and gained considerable fame by translations of Anacreon and Thucydides, and by excellent works on bibliography and other subjects, of which the best known are: "Essai typographique et bibliographique sur l'Histoire de la Gravure sur Bois" (1863), "Etudes sur la Vie et les Travaux de Jean Sire de Joinville" (1871), "Études sur Jean Cousin" (1872), and "Alde Manuce et l'Hellénisme à Venise (1875). He also wrote several works on French orthography. In 1873 he was elected a member of the French Academy. Among the more recent works published by Didot are: “Collections des Classiques Français," "Bibliothèque des Auteurs Grecs," "Glossarium Mediæ et Infimae Latinitatis" of Dufresne, and the "Nonvelle Biographie générale" (1851, et seq.). The house is one of the oldest in Europe, having been established in 1713 by François Didot. Under his successors it rapidly grew, occupying at the present time a foremost rank among the publishing-houses of Europe.

DIEZ, FRIEDRICH CHRISTIAN, the founder of the philology of the Romance languages, died

May 29, 1876. He was born at Giessen, March 15, 1794. He attended the gymnasium at that place, and entered the university at Giessen in 1811. Here he devoted himself especially, under the care of F. G. Welcker, to the study of classical philology. In 1813 he joined as a volunteer the Hessian corps in the campaign against Napoleon, and acquitted himself with credit as a soldier. After the peace, he discontinued the study of philology, and devoted himself to that of the law. He soon found that he had made a mistake in choosing this branch, which was not adapted to his taste, and turned his attention to modern languages and literature, which he studied at Göttingen with great zeal and energy. He was confirmed in giving this new direction to his studies by his intercourse with Goethe, with whom he became acquainted at Jena in the spring of 1818. Goethe induced him to devote himself especially to the Provençal languages and literature, and Diez followed the advice, the more willingly as his own inclination accorded with it. He became deeply engaged in his newly-chosen studies, and did not even lose sight of them when circumstances compelled him, in 1819, to accept a position as tutor in Utrecht. The next year he lived privately for a short time at Giessen, in order to qualify himself to become a private tutor in Bonn. In 1823 he was made a professor-extraordinary, in 1830 a regular professor, in the university at Bonn. Here he continued to work and enjoy the fruit of his labors. Till the end of his life Diez displayed a stirring activity. His earliest works-"Old Spanish Romances" (Berlin, 1821), and "Contributions to the Knowledge of the Poetry of the Romance Languages" (Berlin, 1825; republished in French under the title of " Essai sur les Cours d'Amour," Paris, 1842)-displayed a remarkable talent for the interpretation of foreign poetry. His "Poetry of the Troubadours (Zwickau, 1826; republished in French at Paris, 1845), and his "Life and Works of the Troubadours" (Zwickau, 1829), were very important contributions to the study of the modern languages, and soon made their author famous. The chief works of his life were the "Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen" (Grammar of the Romanic Languages, 3 vols., Bonn, 1836-42), and the "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen" (Etymological Dictionary of the Romanic Languages, Bonn, 1853). The "Grammar of the Romanic Languages" has also been published in a French translation (Paris, 1863), and in an English translation (London, 1863). Among his other works are: "Altromanische Sprachdenkmale" (Bonn, 1846); "Two Old Romance Poems" (Bonn, 1852); and a work on the early Portuguese poetry, "Ueber die erste portugiesische Kunst- und Hofpoesie" (Bonn, 1863). Diez contributed many and important articles to the literary journals, especially to the Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik,

of Berlin, and to Haupt's Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altherthum, and to other learned works.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. The relations of the United States with other nations have been of a most peaceful and ordinary character during the year. Only two or three points appear to be of sufficient importance to deserve a notice here.

The immigration to California from China has recently awakened so much interest as to attract the attention of Congress. It seems that the Chinese immigrants of that State are natives of the province of Kwangtung to such an extent that it is safe to refer more than ninetenths of the whole to it. The entire area of this province is reckoned at about 80,000 square miles; but the largest portion of the emigrants go from its most populous prefecture of Kwangchow, in which the city of Canton and colony of Macao lie. This prefecture, which contains fourteen districts, may be roughly estimated at one-tenth or more of the whole province, and for population, resources, and energy of its inhabitants, is the leading division. They speak generally the same dialect, and as they have peculiar facilities for intercourse through the great number of creeks and canals which intersect it and connect with the Pearl River and the sea-coast, in their admirable boats, they are very well acquainted with each other's movements, wants, and industries. It is from this region, one also more or less connected with foreign trade for the last three centuries, that emigration has flowed to California and Australia more than from other parts; and to this familiarity with that trade, by having shared in its benefits, may partly be ascribed the readiness with which its inhabitants have gone abroad. The area of country from which the emigration proceeds hardly exceeds 15,000 square miles, and this includes portions of the adjoining prefectures.

The population of this province of Kwangtung, according to the best information, is about 20,000,000, and the proportion of this particular region which furnishes the emigrants not less than 5,000,000. Foreigners have not that ready access to the official returns of local censuses which will enable them to compare them with the population personally observed, even on a small area, and thus ascertain what degree of accuracy can be fairly ascribed to them; but, as this region is exceedingly fertile and accessible, this estimate of 5,000,000 is no doubt within the truth. The city of Canton contains 1,000,000, and there are other large cities.

The American secretary of legation, Mr. George F. Seward, under date of March 22, 1876, writes to Secretary Fish as follows:

into our Pacific States would give rise to grave politiIt is certain that a great immigration of Chinese cal difficulties. But, to my mind, it is quite as certain that no such immigration will take place. The

opportunities open to the Chinaman in other directions are, perhaps, nowhere else so lucrative, but they are more inviting to him for the reasons I have given. It is to be said further that, while he may earn a higher wage in America than at home, his expenses, too, are higher. He pays here less than a cent of our money for his sandals; his boots cost him in California perhaps five dollars. A mere comparison of the rates paid for labor here and there, leaving out of view other considerations, would lead to very wrong conclusions. And, again, his country is not so overpopulated as is believed. Under an improved system of administration, which would embrace the working of mines and minerals, the construction and operation of railroads, etc., there would be a demand at home for all the labor that would be available. As things are, there are perhaps as few persons pinched by want to be seen in the streets of most Chinese

cities as in those of the cities of Christendom. If, then, the people of the Pacific States need Chinese labor, they may safely encourage immigration; when they cease to need it, the Chinese will cease to come to their shores. I mean by this that when the call for labor ceases to be an urgent one, the Chinaman will stop his migration in that direction. Even with a great call for labor in all our Western and Southern country, he cannot be induced to go to either.

But the most important feature of the correspondence of the year related to the treaty for the extradition of criminals between the United States and Great Britain. In February, 1876, Ezra D. Winslow, of Boston, Mass., charged with the commission of the crime of forgery in that State, escaped to London, where he was arrested and held awaiting extradition. On February 21st, Secretary Fish writes to General Schenck, the American minister at London, as follows:

SIR: A conversation occurred on the 17th instant, between Sir Edward Thornton (British minister at Washington) and myself, in reference to the course which might be adopted by the British Government on a demand being preferred for the extradition of Winslow on the charge of forgery.

Sir Edward suggested that if his surrender were requested it might be refused, unless a stipulation was entered into that the fugitive should not be tried upon any offense other than that for which he was extradited.

Whether this course, if adopted, grows out of the proceedings in the Lawrence case, or from a desire to make the extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain subject to the provisions of the British extradition act of August 9, 1870, I cannot

say.

You will remember that this act in section 3, under the head of "Restrictions on Surrenders of Criminals," provides that no criminal shall be surrendered unless provision is made by the law of the foreign state, or by arrangement, that the fugitive shall not be tried for any offense "other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded."

If the course adverted to be caused by the Law rence case, it may be well to say that it is believed that Lawrence has not, up to this time, been arraigned for any other than the extradition offense, and that no representation has been made to this Government on the question.

If such a course is taken for any other reason, it may be said that Great Britain has on more than one occasion tried surrendered criminals on offenses other than those for which they were extradited, and such trials afford a practical construction of the scope of the treaty and of the power and rights of either Government as understood and applied by Great Britain for a period of nearly thirty years after the ratification

thereof; and I cannot imagine that it will be claimed by Great Britain that either party to a treaty may at will, and by its own municipal legislation, limit or change the rights which have been conceded to the other by treaty, and have been practically admitted for such length of time.

I would also call your attention to the twenty-sev enth section of the act of 1870 (chapters 52, 33, 34, Vict.), repealing former acts under which extradition had, theretofore, been made; this section expressly excepts everything contained in the act inconsistent with the treaties referred to in the repealed acts, among which is the treaty with the United States. It seems to have been clearly the intent of Parliament not to apply to that treaty any of the provisions of the act inconsistent with the treaty, as it had existed and been enforced for nearly thirty years.

In answer to the demand for the surrender of Winslow, Lord Derby writes to General Schenck, under date of February 29th, as follows:

SIR: I have the honor to state to you that I have been informed by her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department that the chief magistrate of the Bow Street police-court issued, on the 13th instant, upon the information of Colonel Chesebrough, of the United States legation, warrants for the apprehension, dition act, 1870, of Ezra D. Winslow, who is accused under the eighth section, clause second, of the extraof the crime of forgery within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, in communicating this to me, has drawn my attention to the third clause, subsection 2, of the act,

which is as follows:

A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a foreign state unless provision is made by the law of that state, or by arrangement, that the fugitive criminal shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in that foreign state for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded."

And has inquired whether any provision has been made by the law of the United States or by arrange ment that Winslow, if surrendered, shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of return ing to her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in the United States for any offense committed prior to his surrender other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded. The Secretary of State for the Home Department fears that the claim advanced by your Government to try Lawrence in the recent case of extradition, with which you are familiar, for crimes other than the extradition crime for which he was surrendered, amounts to a denial that any such law exists in the United States; while the disclaimer by your Government of any implied understanding existing with her Majesty's Government in this respect, and the interpretation put upon the act of Congress of August 12, 1842, chapter 147, section 3, preclude any longer the belief in the existence of an effective arrangement, which her Majesty's Government had previously supposed to be practically in force.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department is, accordingly, compelled to state that, if he is correct in considering that no such law exists, he would have no power, in the absence of an arrangement, to order the extradition of Winslow, even though the extradition crime for which he has been arrested were proved against him, and the usual committal by the magistrate ensued thereupon.

I have thought it right to lose as little time as possible in calling your attention to the intimation which I have thus received from her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department; and I have the honor to request that you will bring the circuur

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »