PAM. 
 
 EUROPE 
 
 International Conciliation 
 
 PRO P ATRIA PER ORB IS CONCORDIAM 
 
 Published Monthly by the 
 
 American Branch Association for International Conciliation 
 
 EUROPEAN SOBRIETY IN THE PRESENCE 
 OF THE BALKAN CRISIS 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES AUSTIN BEARD, Ph.D., 
 
 Adjunct Professor of Politics in Columbia University 
 
 DECEMBER, 1908, NO. 13 
 
 American Branch of the Association for International Conciliation 
 Sub-station 84 (301 West 116th Street) 
 
 New York City 
 
More than two months have elapsed since a serious 
 crisis was precipitated in the Balkans by the un¬ 
 expected action of Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary, 
 and there is now every reason for hoping that the 
 threatened armed conflict will be avoided by the 
 settlement of the disputed points either in a general 
 conference of the powers or through independent 
 negotiations. Whatever may be the outcome of the 
 controversy, the conduct of the powers during the 
 crisis lends encouragement to those who believe that 
 sobriety is driving reckless militarism out of the 
 councils of the nations. There is also some reason 
 for believing that the Balkan region is not so dangerous 
 to European peace as past history has undoubtedly 
 implied. Such, at least, is the view which the follow¬ 
 ing statement of the case seems to warrant 
 
Up to the limit of the editions printed, copies of the following 
 documents, published by the Association, will be sent post-paid 
 upon application. 
 
 1. Program of the Association, by Baron d’Estournelles de 
 Constant. April, 1907. 
 
 2. Results of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress, by 
 Andrew Carnegie. April, 1907. 
 
 3. A League of Peace, by Andrew Carnegie. November, 1907. 
 
 4. The Results of the Second Hague Conference, by Baron 
 d’Estournelles de Constant and Hon. David Jayne Hill. January, 
 1908. 
 
 5. The Work of the Second Hague Conference, by James Brown 
 Scott. January, 1908. 
 
 6. Possibilities of Intellectual Co-operation Between North and 
 South America, by L. S. Rowe. April, 1908. 
 
 7. America and Japan, by George Trumbull Ladd. June, 1908. 
 
 8. The Sanction of International Law, by Elihu Root. July, 190S. 
 
 9. The United States and France, by Barrett Wendell. August, 
 1908. 
 
 10. The Approach of the Two Americas, by Joaquim Nabuco. 
 September, 1908. 
 
 11. The United States and Canada, by J. S. Willison. October, 
 1908. 
 
 12. The Policy of the United States and Japan in the Far East. 
 November, 1908. 
 
 13. European Sobriety in the Presence of the Balkan Crisis, by 
 Charles Austin Beard, December, 1908. 
 
 Association for International Conciliation. 
 
 American Branch, 
 
 Sub-station 84, New York. 
 
 Executive Committee of the American Branch 
 
 Nicholas Murray Butler 
 Richard Bartholdt 
 Lyman Abbott 
 James Speyer 
 
 Richard Watson Gilder 
 Stephen Henry Olin 
 Seth Low 
 Andrew D. White 
 
 Robert A. Franks 
 
EUROPEAN SOBRIETY IN THE PRESENCE OF 
 
 THE BALKAN CRISIS 
 
 From that fateful September of 1683 when Sobieski 
 beat the Turks back from the wails of Vienna and ex¬ 
 ultantly announced that the approaches to the town, 
 the camp, and the open fields were covered with the 
 corpses of the enemy, down to the bloody days of Se¬ 
 bastopol and Plevna, the Sultan’s territorial interests 
 west of the Bosphorus have been a standing menace to 
 the peace of Europe. Again and again in the eight¬ 
 eenth century, the Eastern powers were engaged in 
 desperate conflicts to wrest ever larger areas from the 
 grip of the Turk, and before the century had closed 
 the Western powers as well were drawn into the con¬ 
 test. They assisted at the formation of the independ¬ 
 ent kingdom of Greece and narrowly escaped a serious 
 clash when the Sultan defied them. In 1854, on a 
 pretext that seems criminally trivial (whatever may 
 have been the real motives) England, France, Turkey, 
 Sardinia, and Russia plunged into the terrible Crimean 
 War whose horrors at Malakoff and the Redan, gave a 
 dash of bitterness to “the brazen glories” of Inkermann 
 and the Light Brigade. In 1877, Alexander II, using 
 the call of Bulgaria as a pretext, threw his troops 
 across the border and they were cutting their way 
 through to the Sultan’s capital when they were checked 
 by a solemn warning from England that the settle¬ 
 ment of the Turk’s estate down to the minutest detail 
 was a matter of European interest. Recalling, perhaps, 
 the disasters of the Crimea, the victorious Tsar yielded 
 
 5 
 
as gracefully as possible, and at the memorable Berlin 
 Conference of 1878, the representatives of Great 
 Britain, Russia, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, and 
 Turkey drafted what has been called “the fundamental 
 law of Southeastern Europe,” establishing the status 
 of Bulgaria, Eastern Raumelia, Crete, Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina, Montenegro, Servia, Roumania, and 
 Macedonia. With the exception of the union of Bul¬ 
 garia and Eastern Roumelia in 1885 the grand settle¬ 
 ment reached at Berlin has remained substantially 
 undisturbed, each nation fearing that the slightest jar 
 might easily bring down the whole structure so pain¬ 
 fully erected, and precipitate a disastrous conflict 
 among the powers interested. Even the apparently 
 harmless attempts of the Cretans to unite with Greece 
 were several times repressed by military demonstra¬ 
 tions on the part of the powers entrusted with the 
 task of guarding the peace of the Southeast. 
 
 Suddenly in the summer and autumn of this year 
 (1908) there occurred a series of startling events 
 which, in the days of Napoleon III and Disraeli, would 
 certainly have afforded acceptable pretexts for a 
 general armed conflict. In July, the Young Turk 
 party in Constantinople was able to force the Sultan to 
 approve the restoration of the suspended constitution' 
 of 1876 and thus reconstruct the government of Turkey. 
 On October 5, Prince Ferdinand declared at Tirnovo, 
 amid great rejoicing, the freedom and independence of 
 Bulgaria from Turkish suzerainty. Two days later 
 came the official proclamation of Austria-Hungary an- 
 
 6 
 
nexing the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina which 
 the treaty of Berlin had placed under the administration 
 of the dual monarchy. Before the diplomats of Eu¬ 
 rope could catch their breath, the Cretans announced 
 their emancipation from Constantinople and their final 
 union with Greece. It seemed that Turkey had com¬ 
 mitted political suicide, that respect for law and order 
 was being cast to the winds, and that the hour had 
 come for a general scramble in which the strongest 
 might hope for a lion’s share. 
 
 The war spirit at once flamed up in Europe and 
 for a time it looked as if hasty action on the part of 
 some minor power in the Southeast might bring on a 
 local conflict whose larger implications could scarcely 
 be apprehended. The king of Servia at once signed a 
 decree ordering the mobilization of the first reserves 
 of the army numbering about 35,000 and his call to 
 arms was greeted with great enthusiasm. Crowds in 
 Belgrade, shouting “Long live our Bosnia! Down 
 with Austria! ” attacked the Austrian legation. The 
 mayor of Belgrade presided over a meeting of 25,000 
 persons at which members of parliament indulged in 
 the most violent war talk and were greeted with shouts 
 of “ On to the Drina to save our brothers! To arms! 
 To arms! ” The Servian Crown Prince addressing the 
 soldiers clamoring for war declared, “For him who 
 would die, I wish life; for him who would live, I wish 
 death.” The Servian newspapers published inflamma¬ 
 tory articles urging the government not to yield, and 
 the Servian parliament on Monday, October 12, voted 
 an extraordinary credit to the minister of war and 
 
 7 
 
passed a resolution that it was willing to support the 
 ministry to the fullest extent in the defense of Servian 
 interests. The Charge d'Affaires representing Servia 
 at London gave out the following statement: “ Austria 
 has cynically thrown a bomb into the powder magazine 
 of Europe and it is impossible to foretell to what the 
 indignation of the Servians may lead them. In Servia 
 the matter is one of life or death. To explain the 
 indignation in my country it is necessary to point out 
 that the majority of the population which will now 
 
 pass under Austrian rule is Servian.Twice 
 
 Servia has gone to war over the question of Bosnia.” 
 
 While the excitement in Servia seemed swiftly bear¬ 
 ing the population toward war, the Montenegrins 
 joined in the clamor for armed resistance to Austrian 
 aggression. In opening the parliament on Monday, 
 October 12, the Prince declared that his people had 
 suffered a great wrong at the hands of Austria, and 
 were ready to sacrifice their last drop of blood to set 
 matters right if necessary. Parliament promptly passed 
 a vote of confidence in the government and unani¬ 
 mously sanctioned the demand for military supplies. 
 
 The European press treated the violation of the 
 Berlin Treaty as a serious event, and some of the more 
 belligerent papers, confidently anticipating war, an¬ 
 nounced the actual commencement of hostilities be¬ 
 tween Austria and Servia The Paris Journal declared 
 that the Balkan States “ are on the brink of a precipice 
 and the European powers are about to give free rein 
 to their appetite for dominion.” The Petit Parisien 
 urged, “the chances of war are manifold unless Europe 
 
 8 
 
is sensible enough solemnly to declare that no blood 
 shall be shed.” The London Times deplored the injury 
 which the action of Austria and Bulgaria had done to 
 the prestige of the new regime in Turkey, and added: 
 “Were that prestige destroyed, the steps taken by 
 these two Christian lands would probably result in 
 plunging Macedonia and other wide regions of Turkey 
 into a welter of blood and rapine more horrible than 
 that from which they have been rescued by the revolu¬ 
 tion.. They must bear the consequences of 
 
 their acts. ” 
 
 While the papers in Western Europe realized the 
 gravity of the situation, not a single one of weight 
 took advantage of the opportunity for “good jour¬ 
 nalism ” to urge any hasty action inviting even the risk 
 of war. And the governments of all the great nations 
 took a judicial attitude, which conclusively demon¬ 
 strated their realization of the responsibilities resting 
 upon the power making the first belligerent move. 
 Even the government of Turkey, whose prestige and 
 interests were most seriously affected by the crisis, 
 speedily announced a pacific policy, while making it 
 clear that the offenses committed by Bulgaria and 
 Austria against legitimate rights warranted the use of 
 force. Instead of rushing to arms and calling on the 
 Powers that had signed the Treaty of Berlin to main¬ 
 tain their own public agreements, Turkey appealed to 
 the decision of the contracting parties, and stated that 
 she would “await their decision with calm.” 
 
 Russia responded to the appeal from Constantinople 
 with a proposition that a conference of the powers 
 
 9 
 
signatory to the Treaty of Berlin should be held, and 
 the contested issues peacefully adjusted by the parties 
 interested. This view of the impasse was taken also 
 by Great Britain, France, Italy, and, conditionally, by 
 Germany. Although it is by no means decided that the 
 vexed questions are to be settled by a great confer¬ 
 ence of the powers, it seems certain that no country is 
 willing to take the huge risk of plunging Europe into 
 war. While the expected conference is being in¬ 
 definitely delayed, negotiations are proceeding between 
 Turkey and Bulgaria and Austria; the representatives 
 of all countries show an anxiety to reach a peaceful 
 settlement; and a pacific note runs through the 
 propositions and counter-propositions which have thus 
 far found their way to the public. It is hazardous, of 
 course, to prophesy, but if the tone of the European 
 press, the rates of war insurance, and the avowed 
 policy of the most militant of the Powers involved are 
 to be accepted as indications, Europe will escape the 
 threatened war. 
 
 It would be unwarranted, however, to conclude 
 that such a happy result has been achieved through 
 the influence of abstract notions of justice and 
 righteousness alone. It would be unwarranted also 
 to assume that material interests alone have been 
 responsible for the cautious reserve which now char¬ 
 acterizes the policy of all the powers concerned. 
 In fact, from the standpoint of the advocate of 
 peace, it matters little whether war has been so far 
 prevented by a complex of economic interests, the 
 
 io 
 
fear of war in itself, the unwillingness of statesmen to 
 assume the terrible responsibility for a general con¬ 
 flict, or by a belief in the folly and futility of war. 
 Indeed, no single factor has been responsible for the 
 outcome. If one examines the comments of the 
 European papers on the crisis, the semi-official state¬ 
 ments from the respective governments, and the gen¬ 
 eral distribution of interests in Southeastern Europe, 
 he will discover that many elements have entered into 
 the maintenance of peace. 
 
 First among the pacific influences must be placed 
 the calm and reasonable attitude of the Constitutional 
 Liberals in Turkey. Instead of attempting to stir 
 the mob spirit by mad appeals for “ a holy war on the 
 infidels,” in accordance with the vogue once famous 
 in Constantinople, they sought to quiet the unrest of 
 the militant elements among the population. In its 
 note to the powers, the Turkish government stated 
 that it “could resort to force to ensure the protection 
 of its rights, but being above all respectful to treaties 
 and anxious for the common interests involved in the 
 need for peace, it desires to avoid such an extremity.” 
 It is well known that members of the Young Turk 
 party have been long in Western capitals studying 
 modern political methods, and also that they have 
 manifested an intense interest in the conferences at 
 the Hague and in the proposed programs for the 
 peaceful adjustment of international disputes. The 
 Constantinople correspondent of the London Times 
 telegraphed his paper, when the news of the action of 
 Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary was made known, as 
 
follows: “All Turkish journals publish long leading 
 articles dealing with the situation. Their tone is 
 almost without exception the reverse of Chauvinistic, 
 and an appeal to arms is generally deprecated.... It 
 is pointed out that in spite of the cruel blows dealt to 
 national prestige, the interests of the empire demand 
 a calm and pacific attitude on the part of every section 
 of the population.” 
 
 A second factor in the maintenance of peace was 
 the clear, firm, and moderate attitude taken by the 
 Liberal government in England. Sir Edward Grey, 
 in a public address delivered soon after the declaration 
 of Bulgarian independence, stated that the Govern¬ 
 ment could not agree to the violation of the treaty 
 until the other powers were consulted, that every effort 
 should be made to prevent the startling events from 
 militating against the reform movement in Turkey, 
 and that the practical and material changes had not 
 been so great as alarmists had contended. The Prime 
 Minister, Mr. Asquith, at the opening of Parliament a 
 few days later, expressed the hope that those interested 
 in reaching an agreement would not precipitate a crisis 
 by hasty action but would continue to show modera¬ 
 tion and restraint. The leader of the opposition in 
 the House of Lords stated, “that their one desire 
 was to strengthen the hands of the government in the 
 task of maintaining the public law of Europe and pre¬ 
 serving the peace of the world.” 
 
 In France the press in some quarters declared that 
 only a congress could avert war, but the government 
 showed no anxiety to make capital by assuming a bel- 
 
 12 
 
ligerent attitude. There was no Napoleon III to 
 appeal to the glories of Austerlitz and Wagram, and 
 the ministry, seriously occupied with pressing questions 
 of domestic reform and expedients for meeting already 
 overtopping military expenditures, did not betray the 
 slightest interest in the possibilities of winning fame 
 again at Sebastopol. Things have changed in France 
 since 1854. Doubtless the Journal des Debats voiced 
 the sentiments of all sober Frenchmen in the following 
 declaration: “Without neglecting our interests, we 
 should join with our allies and friends in preventing the 
 destruction of the European equilibrium. We ought to 
 see to it that Turkey receives the satisfaction due her, 
 and if war does arise compel a limitation of the conflict 
 and prevent the conflagration from becoming general. 
 Our role is that of a peace-maker. Our government 
 should speak firmly; it has all France behind it.” 
 
 There is no doubt also that the minor powers of 
 Southeastern Europe have learned some lessons dur¬ 
 ing the last twenty-five years. They have taken part 
 in the Hague conferences and are parties to the 
 Hague conventions. They have been devoting their 
 attention with more or less success to the advance¬ 
 ment of the arts of peace and industry. They are 
 developing financial and commercial interests which 
 give them pause in the face of the derangement of 
 business that war inevitably engenders. Despite some 
 bluster and unquestionable pressure from the excitable 
 elements of the population, the governments most 
 deeply involved took a studiously pacific attitude 
 after the first impulses were inhibited. 
 
 13 
 
Credit must be given likewise to the ententes now 
 existing between England, France, and Russia. Dur¬ 
 ing the period when the crisis was at its height, the 
 negotiations among these powers were conducted with 
 a frankness and cordiality which were undoubtedly 
 facilitated by the previous good understanding. Cer¬ 
 tainly this may be regarded as an illustration of how 
 friendly relations cultivated assiduously in time of 
 peace may be conductive to judicial calm in critical 
 situations. 
 
 Thus a great political revolution has taken place; a 
 general European settlement has been violently over¬ 
 turned; Austria has been guilty of aggression akin to 
 that of Russia in times past; every pretext has been 
 afforded for some militant power to precipitate a con¬ 
 flict; and yet pacific councils have prevailed. High 
 talk about “the glory of France” so characteristic of 
 the Second Empire has been conspicuously absent from 
 the French press. England has found no responsible 
 political leader to emulate the example of the flam¬ 
 boyant Beaconsfield and call for the war dogs to avenge 
 the attack upon “the integrity of Turkey.” Every¬ 
 where in the voluminous discussions of the upheaval, 
 there is a note of moderation and good sense. Instead 
 of the reckless abandon of old fashioned militarism, 
 there is a sane conservatism born of the clear recog¬ 
 nition of the responsibilities assumed by the Power 
 that dares cast the first fire-brand. Surely without 
 undue optimism, this happy escape from the crisis may 
 be deemed a triumph for the cause of peace. 
 
 CHARLES A. BEARD. 
 
 14 
 
COUNCIL OF DIRECTION FOR THE AMERICAN BRANCH 
 OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL 
 
 CONCILIATION 
 
 Lyman Abbott, New York. 
 
 Charles Francis Adams, Boston. 
 
 Edwin A. Alderman, Charlottesville, Va. 
 Charles H. Ames, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Richard Bartholdt, M. C., St. Louis, Mo. 
 Clifton R. Breckenridge, Fort Smith, Arkansas. 
 William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Neb. 
 
 T. E. Burton, M. C., Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Nicholas Murray Butler, New York. 
 
 Andrew Carnegie, New York. 
 
 Edward Cary, New York. 
 
 Joseph H. Choate, New York. 
 
 Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Arthur L. Dasher, Macon, Ga. 
 
 Horace E. Deming, New York. 
 
 Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 John W. Foster, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Richard Watson Gilder, New York. 
 
 John Arthur Greene, New York. 
 
 James M. Greenwood, Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Franklin H. Head, Chicago, III. 
 
 William J. Holland, Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 Hamilton Holt, New York. 
 
 James L. Houghtaling, Chicago, III. 
 
 David Starr Jordan, Stanford University, Cal. 
 Edmond Kelly, New York. 
 
 Adolph Lewisohn, New York. 
 
 Seth Low, New York. 
 
 Clarence H. Mackay, New York. 
 
 W. A. Mahony, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 Brander Matthews, New York. 
 
 W. W. Morrow, San Francisco, C.al. 
 
 George B. McClellan, Mayor of New York. 
 
 Levi P. Morton, New York. 
 
 Silas McBee, New York. 
 
 Simon Newcomb, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Stephen H. Olin, New York. 
 
 A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Ira Remsen, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 James Ford Rhodes, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Howard J. Rogers, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 
 
 J. G. Schurman, Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
 Isaac N. Sei.igman, New York. 
 
 F. J. V. Skiff, Chicago, III. 
 
 William M. Sloane, New York. 
 
 Albert K. Smiley, Lake Mohonk, N. Y. 
 
 James Speyer, New York. 
 
 Oscar S. Straus, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, San Francisco, Cal. 
 George W. Taylor, M. C., Demopolis, Ala. 
 
 O. H. Tittman, Washington, D. C. 
 
 W. H. Tolman; New York. 
 
 Benjamin Trueblood, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Edward Tuck, Paris, France. 
 
 William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Ore. 
 Andrew D. White, Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
IRVING PRESS, NEW YORK