Chapter XVII: Part SIX (1)

1890–1891

XXVIII
THE AUSTRIAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP IS FORMED
Return · Skeptical reception of my reports · Resumption of our literary
labors · Pandolfi suggests enlisting recruits in the Austrian parliament
for the conference at Rome · Correspondence with members: Baron Kübeck,
Pernerstorfer, Dr. Jaques, Dr. Exner · The group is formed, Baron
Pirquet turning the scale

On our return from Venice to Harmannsdorf we stopped for a few days in Vienna.

On the very first evening we met at the Hotel Meissl a few members of the Reichsrat who were friends of ours, and, still under the influence of our exciting experiences, I told them the whole story of the founding of the Venetian Peace Society through a member of the Italian chamber. I also told them about the Interparliamentary League which had been formed in Paris in the year 1888, had met in London the year before, and was to have its rendezvous in Rome this year.

The gentlemen listened with interest but with very skeptical faces. As to joining, none of them had any idea of it.

At Harmannsdorf we industriously resumed our work. My husband wrote his Caucasian story “Shamyl,” and I also sketched the plan of a new novel, _Vor dem Gewitter_ (“Before the Storm”). What was meant was the political and social storm whose clouds are rolling up in all quarters. Literary work did not keep me from busying myself with the peace cause so dear to me, for I kept up a steady correspondence with Hodgson Pratt, Moscheles, Frédéric Passy, and others.

I received word from Pandolfi that he, encouraged by his success in Venice, was now zealously at work in the Roman chamber, enlisting as large a committee as possible for the Interparliamentary Conference. He was having brilliant success; three hundred senators and deputies enrolled themselves. Now he was especially concerned to have parliamentary committees formed in Germany and Austria also, in order to send representatives to the conference in Rome, the date of which was set for November. He urged me, in case I had any connections with Austrian parliamentarians, to assist in the matter. That was at the beginning of June. What difficulties and what delays preceded the formation of an Austrian group, will be apparent from a bunch of letters which I have preserved from that time. The writers were people with whom I had communicated in the matter first personally (we went to Vienna for that purpose) and then by correspondence.

From Baron Kübeck, whose name I found in the London Peace Association and who therefore seemed to me most fitted to further the cause, I received a very explicit answer, which is interesting especially by its excursions into the domain of foreign politics as they were understood in the year 1891 in our political circles.

Vienna, June 11, 1891

Highly honored, most gracious Baroness:

First of all I beg your kind indulgence for my long delay in answering
your friendly communication. The highly interesting inclosure I return
with thanks, having taken a copy from the address circular (which
should perhaps be sent also to Smolka and Trautmannsdorf?).

My now somewhat overcrowded affairs, and especially my attempts to
sound some of my more prominent colleagues, are responsible for this
delay.

Taking all together, I believe that I find among the great men of our
party very little agreement with our—_your_—great ideas; that is to
say, in theory they may assent, but hardly as regards working to bring
them over into practical life.

Hofrat Beer regards it as inopportune and impossible to go to Rome as
a representative of the parliamentarians; Professor Suess is a kind of
war man himself in spite of his peace-breathing utterances;[31]
Bärnreither considers public talk about the matter as premature, and
so it goes. The proposition receives most assent, and, as it seems to
me, practical appreciation, among a few cultured Poles—why? because
they, having a tinge of cosmopolitanism, do not take that parochial
standpoint which unfortunately plays the principal part among our
German deputies.

I think I have also a strong inclination to sail in the cosmopolitan
channel; which has stamped me with a certain foreignness in the
circles with which I am in closest political harmony, and yet—wrongly.
But never mind—to business!

The opinion of the Poles with whom I have talked agrees with mine that
the present condition of chauvinistic hatred of Germany in France, and
likewise the danger threatening us on the side of Russia, cause the
Triple—or rather Double—Alliance, with its foundation of exorbitant
military preparation, to be a defensive necessity, a guaranty of
peace, even in the eyes of the populaces concerned. There is much
truth in this too, since the French _of to-day_ are not to be
capacitated, and Russia is only looking for a chance to conquer the
rest of Europe and British India by a sudden attack at an unexpected
moment—which, considering her supply of half-savage, battle-tried, and
pugnacious men, may easily be realized some day when Russia’s
shortcomings shall be exceeded by those of Europe; so probably nothing
remains but to wait for the ultimate undoing of this perpetual Gordian
knot, whether through the arduous work of a peaceful partition or
through the horrors of war.

But still there can and must be endeavor after that which can
_prepare_ for the final victory of arbitration, and under this head
come economic questions: customs unions, the facilitation of rail and
water transportation by unified tariffs, reciprocity of the credit
system and of the circulating medium, and so on. This will at least be
now attempted between Germany and Austro-Hungary, and will probably be
extended to Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, and some of the Balkan
states. The aim of these agreements is doubtless, among other things,
to make the burden of military preparations more endurable, and that
is _something_.

Furthermore, an effort should be made to diminish the horrors of war,
especially to put some limitation on the use of explosives[32] so as
to bring the destruction of property—to say nothing of human life—not
utterly out of proportion to the military purpose to be attained
(_vide_ the bombardment of Alexandria by Admiral Seymour, etc.).

This is the aim of the Polish gentlemen, one of whom, Koslowski, is my
fellow member in the Cobden Club of London and was also present at the
last Peace Congress. The second Pole would be Sopowski, who has
studied the Oriental question as very few have, and has written very
interestingly on it; finally, Szepanowski, whose long residence in
England has made him a genuine thorough-going cosmopolitan.

As regards arbitration, you will admit, most gracious Baroness, that
in a great political question arising, for example, between France and
Germany or between Russia and Austria, and affecting their very
existence, it will doubtless be impossible to find a power which could
undertake the office of arbitration, or to which it would be
intrusted. Perhaps the Pope? Yes, the idea would be quite worthy of
the Supreme Head of the Church, but will Protestant Germany or
schismatic Russia ever acquiesce in such an award? I doubt it. Yes, in
minor territorial questions (Luxemburg, Samoa, the Carolines, etc.)
submissiveness to an arbitrator who occupies a suitable neutral
position is possible and probable; but in such world-affecting
questions as those I have mentioned, probably not so soon, probably
not in the first thousand years.

This I desired to lay before you, most gracious Baroness. You know how
much I admire and appreciate you and your noble activities, and would
so gladly share in them as your faithful follower; but our
contemporaries will not heartily coöperate, and this must be taken
into consideration. But the modus to be provisionally adopted, as I
have permitted myself above to indicate it, bids fair to be successful
in securing many present advantages; and to this I should like to draw
your attention.

Accept, etc.

Max Kübeck

P.S. In Berlin, so far as my knowledge goes, Dr. Barth would be our
man; I will write him.

Permit me to lay at your feet my discourse on British India.

The Socialist deputy Pernerstorfer:

House of Deputies, Vienna,
June 16, 1891

Highly honored Lady:

I would willingly, at least for myself personally, obey your friendly
summons to go to Rome for the Peace Conference. But this is quite out
of the question for me, since such a journey, especially at the
present moment, exceeds my pecuniary ability; all the more as I should
have to take it not alone but accompanied by my wife. So what remains
possible toward meeting your desires is that I should help along the
propaganda for the Conference among the members of the Austrian House
of Deputies. Now you do mention some names, and I have not the least
doubt that the men you name are warm friends of the efforts toward
peace. Yet this friendship is certainly nothing but a highly Platonic
one, which does not go further than pathetic assurances and
sentimental phrases. You clearly have a far too favorable opinion of
the Austrian Parliament; the thoughts that govern this house are of a
purely practical, and often a very selfish, nature. Ideal endeavors
are here regarded as ideological, and moral indignation is not taken
seriously. It would be a tempting theme for a writer of creative power
to hold up a mirror to the world in a political novel. The detestable
picture would be seen of a class brutality such as had never before
come to light in such a degree.

So I cannot do anything in this second direction either. It is
possible, no doubt, to induce a few members of the Austrian Parliament
to take a trip to Rome, on which occasion they would have also to take
part in the Peace Conference; but do you really regard that as any
gain and as especially desirable?

I would not let this opportunity pass, highly honored lady, without
thanking you from the bottom of my heart for the great gratification
which you have given to me, as well as to so many, many others, by
your splendid book _Die Waffen nieder_. For those who, like myself,
are in public life, such a book is more than an enjoyment; it is a
great consolation and means an uplift and a new stimulus.

With the deepest respect,
Your sincerely devoted
Pernerstorfer

Here follow two more letters from deputies:

House of Deputies, Vienna,
June 21, 1891

Much-honored Baroness:

First of all allow me to thank you most heartily for your exceedingly
delightful favor. Baron Kübeck had already spoken to me of your noble
endeavors, with which I too am in the most cordial sympathy.

As I have long been in touch with the English Committee—and also have
the pleasure of personal intimacy with Rugg. Bonghi—I am fairly well
_au courant_ with the condition of things. Besides, it has always
intensely interested me to follow the course of cases in which the
principle of arbitration has come to be applied in international
controversies.

Certainly it cannot be denied that progress in this matter takes place
with infinite slowness; hence, to begin with, it is peculiarly
difficult, at least in our circles, to enlist adherents for a cause
which to-day seems still Utopian. The counter argument, in the words
“Russia, France,” is not to be got rid of.

We must, therefore, begin by realizing that to-day there can be
attained at best nothing more than perhaps to have a small number of
deputies show an inclination toward an expression of sympathy, and, in
addition, toward inducing one of their number to go to Rome.

Baron Kübeck and I will not fail to try for this. You will understand
that of course I shall not fail to confer with Baron Pirquet and
Pernerstorfer, and likewise with Count Coronini.

In case I have any favorable news to send, I shall take pleasure in
reporting it, since personal contact with you, Frau Baronin, even if
it be only by letter, can only be very delightful to me.

With respect,
Dr. Jaques

Dr. Wilhelm Exner, president of the Technological Trade Museum and section chief, wrote:

Vöslau, June 29, 1891

Highly honored Baroness:

Your friendly lines of the twenty-sixth instant cause me some
embarrassment, as does any disproportionately great reward which one
yet neither can nor would decline. I am much surprised to find any
value attached to the fact when a politician who _as such_ plays so
unimportant a part joins himself to those who declare for an idea the
justification of which cannot be gainsaid by any one. I made my avowal
to the last Peace Congress held in London; what does that signify in
comparison with your brilliant literary propaganda?!!!

I am going to send your letter to an autograph collector, who is a
friend of mine, the Princess Pauline Metternich, if you will allow me.

It is my intention to go to Rome, if my parliamentary duties permit of
it, and I look forward to obtaining one great personal advantage
thereby—your acquaintance. If my genial colleagues Pirquet and Kübeck
also go to Rome, the days there are likely to be splendid. This
prospect is almost too fine to hope for realization.

For the present, allow me, honored Baroness, to express to you my
sincerest and warmest thanks for your letter, and to put myself with
the greatest pleasure at the service of that endeavor for which your
pen is proving to be such a valuable factor.

With especial esteem, respect, and devotion, most gracious Baroness,

Yours,
Exner

To this correspondence belong also the two following letters from the Marquis Pandolfi in Rome.

I

Rome, June 13, 1891

Dear Baroness,

I have to inform you that the deputies of Germany have replied,
accepting all our propositions and promising to visit us. Only they
wish the Conference to be postponed till the beginning of November.

So then all countries have heeded the appeal with the exception of the
parliaments of Vienna and Budapest. These must be labored with, and
you can do that better than I, with the assistance of a friend in the
Reichsrat.

I am sending you the copy of a letter which I have addressed to the
Germans; it may serve you as a pattern of what you will want to write
to your friends, of course with such changes as are requisite.

Finally, I beg you to give me the names of the presiding officers of
both houses in Vienna and Budapest. I am sending you under separate
cover the constitution of our Committee, and later, as soon as it is
printed, you will receive the full list of our Parliamentary
Committee,—more than three hundred members.

Best regards to your husband, etc.

B. Pandolfi

II

(Without date)

Dear Baroness:

I have come to Stra for some days. As soon as I return to town you
will get:

The first circular, which we have sent to all our deputies and
senators;

The second circular, which we dispatched a few days ago.

Baron Kübeck will have to do just as I did if he wants to make a
success of it:

1. In order to form the first nucleus of deputies he must personally
tackle the most active and best-known members, one at a time, and
request their signatures to a declaration by which they concur in the
formation of a Parliamentary Committee.

2. When this first nucleus is formed (thirty or forty are enough) hold
a first meeting and appoint a provisory board.

3. Then the board will send out invitations to all the deputies,
explaining the purposes of the organization, and, above all, the first
purpose—to designate a number of such deputies as are willing to come
to Rome.

4. After that, for all further steps, to communicate with me.

5. As soon as the committee is formed and the board appointed you must
let me know their names, and thereupon a letter will be sent to the
gentlemen in the name of the whole Italian Committee, asking them to
come to Rome. They will receive the formal invitations and programmes
later.

In the meantime I will inform you that at the last conference in
London thirty-six members of foreign parliaments were appointed to
make preparations for the third conference. Among these thirty-six
members Austria is represented by Count Wilczek and Cavaliere Bolesta
von Koslowski, and Hungary by Count Apponyi and Dr. Viktor Hagara. I
have sent to each of these four gentlemen a circular, of which you
shall receive a copy as soon as I get to Rome; but thus far not one of
the gentlemen has replied, so far as I am aware, and this is not
encouraging.

Altogether this committee of thirty-six has turned out badly, and I
think the matter must be otherwise arranged in future.

The best way is for Parliamentary Committees to be formed in each
country in the manner that I have explained above.

With heartiest greetings, etc.,
Pandolfi

The Interparliamentary Group in Austria was formed—formed through the zeal, born of real conviction, of one of the deputies to whom at my suggestion Baron Kübeck (himself not wholly convinced, as his letter shows) had addressed himself: Peter, Baron Pirquet. He remained for years at the head of the group, represented it with talent and tact at all the subsequent conferences, and his crowning act was the organization of the Interparliamentary Conference at Vienna in the year 1903. After the group was formed, delegates for Rome were appointed, among them Dr. Russ and Baron Pirquet, and thus the participation of Austria in the third Interparliamentary Conference was assured.

XXIX
FOUNDING OF THE AUSTRIAN PEACE SOCIETY
Appeal in the _Neue Freie Presse_ · Response from the public · Adhesions
and contributions of money · Prosper von Piette sends a thousand
florins · Dr. Kunwald · Preliminary meeting · Joining the International
League · Circular for the formation of a national union · Letter from
the Duke of Oldenburg · Permanent organization · Voices from members of
the world’s intellectual aristocracy

But how was it with the Peace Congress,—that is, the congress of the private peace society, which was to meet in Rome at the same time,—would Austria be unrepresented in that? Of course, since no peace association existed in Austria. This thought gave me no rest. It must surely be possible to gather adherents for the idea. The result of my excogitations was an appeal which I sent to the _Neue Freie Presse_ on the first of September, 1891, without much hope that the paper would publish it. Great were my joy and amazement when on the third of September, on opening the sheet, I discovered my article in a prominent place, with a footnote by the editor saying that “no one can have a better right to speak on the question proposed than the author of _Die Waffen nieder_.”

By way of introduction the article told of the approaching congress in Rome, the assured participation of the Austrian parliamentarians, and the need of forming also a private association whose delegates should take part in the congress at Rome. Then it went on:

This is the way affairs stand: Armies millions strong—divided into two
camps clashing their arms—are awaiting only a signal to spring at each
other; but in the mutual trembling dread at the immeasurable horror of
the threatening outbreak may be found some security for its delay.

But postponement is not suppression. The so-called “blessings” of
peace which the system of armed dread endeavors to maintain are
guaranteed to us only from year to year, are always represented only
as lasting, “it is to be hoped,” for a while yet. Of the abolition of
war, of a total suppression of the principle of force, the powers that
are leagued in an armed fraternity for “the maintenance of peace” will
not hear a word. To them war is sacred, ineradicable, and men must not
dream of doing away with it; but it is also, in view of the dimensions
which a coming conflagration will develop into, dreadful to them,
inexcusable before their own consciences, so it must not be begun.

But what an unnatural thing that is which must not stop nor begin, not
be denied nor affirmed! An eternal preparation for that which is to be
avoided by the preparation, at the same time an avoidance of that
which by the avoidance is prepared! This monstrous contradiction is
thus explained: that creation of historical antiquity which they are
still trying to preserve—“merry” war that shifts jurisdictions,
bestows power, and claims only a fraction of the population—has in the
course of time, through the development of civilization, become a
moral and physical impossibility.

Morally impossible because men have lost something of their savagery
and disregard of life; physically impossible because the accessions to
our technology of destruction during the past twenty years would make
of the next campaign a thing that would be something quite new and
different, no longer to be designated by the name of war. _If one
should prepare a bath for long hours, heat the water, heat it until it
boiled and ran over, then could what happened to any one who should at
last get into the tub, or rather fall in, still be called a “bath”?_ A
few years more of such “maintenance” of peace, of such inventions of
machines for murder,—electric mines, ekrasit-loaded aërial
torpedoes,—and on the day when war is declared all the Dual, Triple,
and Quadruple alliances will be blown to shivers.

Those who have the slow-match in their hands luckily take notice of
this. They know that with such a supply of powder the consequences
would be terrible if they should carelessly or even wantonly set it
afire. So in order to increase this beneficent carefulness the supply
of powder is constantly increased. Would it not be simpler,
voluntarily and unanimously to take away the slow-matches? in other
words, disarm? Establish an international reign of law—fuse into one
group the separate groups which constantly swear to each other that if
attacked by some other group they will fight shoulder to
shoulder—_found the alliance of the civilized states of Europe_?

The various alliances now stand face to face as equals in power and
dignity. What is to hinder their making what they now set as their
aim—peace—the foundation of their existence? What hinders it? the law
of inertia on the one hand, and on the other hand the fomented
national hatred, the flurry constantly kept up by the noisiest
party—the war party—in every land.

The noisiest to be sure—but yet at the same time the smallest. A
little body of chauvinists here and there. In Russia a group of
Panslavists—the Tsar desires peace; in France a group of
revenge-seekers—the government desires peace; among us and in Germany
a few militarists—both the emperors desire peace. To say nothing of
the people; they yearn for peace and have a right to it. The shouts of
martial comradeship which are uttered here and there on the occasion
of various welcomes to fleets, and which may so easily be interpreted
as the expression of a desire for war on the part of the peoples,
ought no longer to be so misunderstood: have we really not yet learned
that there is nothing more epidemic than hurrahs and vivas? that these
shouts must always, on behalf of every cause, rend the air as soon as
the first signal is given—by a natural necessity, like the rolling of
thunder after the flash of lightning?

Small then, that is certain, is the number of those that still desire
a state of war. Still smaller the number of those that acknowledge
this desire aloud and proclaim it in their own name. On the other
hand, infinitely great are the masses who yearn for peace, not peace
prolonged in fear and trembling but peace securely guaranteed. Among
these, however, the number is again very small who believe in the
possibility of fulfillment for their wish, and who have combined to
proclaim aloud their purpose and to make for this goal with united
effort. He who waves the white flag has millions behind him, but these
millions are still dumb.

The article then went on to tell of the beginnings that had already been made in other countries, and ended with a request that people would send in letters of adhesion, with the purpose of having the supporters unite in a league which might send its representatives to the congress in Rome.

It had surprised me that the _Presse_ so willingly printed my appeal; I was still more surprised at the response which it awakened in the public. Hundreds of letters (they will be found among my possessions when I die) poured in on me from Vienna and from the provinces and from all classes of society. Enthusiastic concurrence, joyous offers of coöperation, also promises of pecuniary assistance. A rich manufacturer of Bohemia, Prosper Piette was his name, inclosed in his simply registered letter a thousand-florin note to be expended at will in the service of the cause; I sent the offering to Rome by the next mail, to the committee for the organization of the congress.

Out of the letters I selected a few which were especially adapted to inspire confidence, and entered into personal communication with the writers of them so as to form, with them and with their help, a provisory committee that should call a first meeting. Doctor Kunwald the lawyer, one of the first who had sent in their names in response to my article, and whose letter was among the most enthusiastic, gave me efficient help in this matter. An invitation was extended to all authors of letters of adhesion living in Vienna to meet together on a certain day at a certain place for the purpose of holding a constituent assembly. Accompanied by Doctor Kunwald I repaired to the designated hall. My husband had been ill with bronchial catarrh for several days, and could not come from Harmannsdorf to Vienna. The meeting was pretty well attended. The chairmanship was conferred upon me as having sent out the original summons; but, since I was too inexperienced to perform the duties of the office in parliamentary manner, I authorized Dr. Kunwald to preside in my name. Those present listened to the reading of that article of the constitution of the English Peace Association which says:

Each of these national sections, however great the number of their
members may be, is constituted through the simple fact that all are
agreed to work for the common end.

Even an assembly held in a private house, without any appeal to the
public, may be regarded as the nucleus of such a section. It is
sufficient to nominate a secretary and to vote to meet at least once a
month, in order to keep in touch with the progress of the union and to
devise means for propaganda.

As soon as a section is recognized by the Central Committee in London,
it belongs to the Association.

I was now commissioned to draw up a new circular inviting to the definitive formation of an association, and to induce influential personages to join in signing this circular as preliminary committee. I undertook this labor, and on the eighteenth of October all the journals printed the following appeal, with full headings:

The International Peace and Arbitration Association (headquarters in
London; president, Hodgson Pratt; vice presidents, the Duke of
Westminster, Cardinal Manning, the Marquis of Ripon, the Bishop of
London, etc.), whose various branches, established in almost every
country in Europe, are to be represented at the next Congress (Rome,
November 9, 1891), has now among the rest, by action taken at a
preliminary meeting of sympathizers held on the twenty-ninth of
September, an _Austrian section_.

But in order that this section may be able effectively to perform the
duties devolving on it in this country, in order that it may be in a
condition to spread and grow strong, it has determined to organize
itself as a regular and legal society, whose constitution is then to
be submitted to the proper authorities for acceptance.

The Association is _not to be political_, for its object—“the
furtherance of the principle of a durable peace among the nations”—is
purely _humanitarian_. If, in the last analysis, it is incumbent upon
this tendency to exert some influence on the course of politics in
general, this is only what is common to all humanitarian and
civilizing efforts; for all such are characterized by aiming at the
amelioration and progress of human society, and thus influence the
development of social conditions in all directions. We are concerning
ourselves only with one thing,—the recognition and promulgation of the
simple principle that

_human society—whether as individuals or as groups of individuals,
called nations—has to seek the foundation of its true welfare in
unity, not in separation; in mutual cöoperation, not in mutual
enmity_.

Moreover, connection with the society presupposes the conviction that
war is a fearful evil, but by no means an _unavoidable evil_; that in
the intercourse of civilized nations the status of force should, and
may, be replaced by the status of law.

So one who joins the general Peace Association, or any of its
branches, does not have to start with any political programme; on the
contrary, _the advocacy of any such programme is excluded from the
debates of the meetings by the constitution_. In the community of
_purpose_ is to be found the reason why the hosts of the friends of
peace may be drawn from all ranks and all parties; hence it is, too,
that in the lists of members of the various peace societies the names
of Whigs and Tories, of socialists and aristocrats, of freethinkers
and church dignitaries, stand together.

If service in the army were not _in limine_ a bar to all participation
in public associations, even active soldiers might become members; for
they are not there to defend _war_, but to defend their country in
case war breaks out. They have just as much human right to desire the
disappearance of this calamity as the physician has to desire the
disappearance of epidemics. A universally known and honored person has
given to this view the following noble and courageous expression, in a
letter in which he offers his name for membership:

“... Although upon the breaking out of any war in which Germany was
involved (I am a colonel _à la suite_ in the Prussian army; I was
retired in 1875 as a semi-invalid) I should immediately present myself
for reinstatement in the army, yet I am in no sense fond of war; on
the contrary, I regard war as a terrible calamity, even for the
_victor_. I have taken part in two campaigns, not as one of a large
staff but with the troops, and have thus had enough—more than
enough—of opportunity to know from my own observation and experience
the whole unnamable wretchedness which every war brings in its train.
Joyfully, therefore, do I accept your invitation, and will most gladly
strive to further, to the extent of my powers, the large-hearted,
noble, and—may God grant it—also beneficent undertaking which you have
started.

“Elimar Herzog von Oldenburg.”

The first, the only purpose which we have in view is the intimation of
our own desire for peace and the creation of a sufficiently educated
public opinion.

The practical methods to be used in our activities for this purpose
consist in the dissemination of printed matter, circulars, and
declarations; the insertion of articles in the daily press, the
delivery of public addresses, the familiarization of people with the
literature of the subject, and, upon sufficient occasion, the
publication of pamphlets or books; the sending of delegates to
meetings and congresses; constant communication with the allied
societies, and unremitting care to keep up to date the knowledge of
the condition and progress of the general movement.

To the constituent assembly—to which all who have sent in their
adhesion, or shall send it in, will receive invitations; it will be
called together in the second half of this month—is reserved the
acceptance of the proposed constitution, the election of the permanent
board of management, and the appointment of the delegates which the
Austrian Peace Society now in process of formation wishes to send to
Rome.

Vienna, October 18, 1891

The preliminary committee:

B. Ritter von Carneri
Geh. Rat Graf Carl Coronini
Graf Rudolf Hoyos
Prof. Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing
Reichsratsabgeordneter Freiherr von Pirquet
P. K. Rosegger
Dr. Carl Ritter von Scherzer
A. G. Freiherr von Suttner
Bertha Baronin von Suttner-Kinsky
Fürst Alfred Wrede

A few days after the publication of this circular the definitive formation of the governmentally authorized _Österreichische Friedensgesellschaft_—Austrian Peace Society—took place in the Old Rathaus, with a membership of two thousand.

Enthusiastic addresses were made, and the delegates were appointed—six in number—who should represent the youngest peace union at the congress. The treasury of the society had already sufficient funds to enable it to pay traveling expenses.

Now we made our preparations for going to Rome. I also wrote to sundry distinguished personages at home and abroad, requesting letters of greeting and approval which I might lay before the congress.

Some of these, as well as of those that had already been sent spontaneously, I insert here; they belong to the history of the beginnings of the Austrian Peace Society:

Madame:

I was just reading your novel _Die Waffen nieder_, which Mr. Bulgakof
had sent me, when I received your letter. I greatly appreciate your
work, and the idea comes to me that the publication of your novel is a
happy augury.

The abolition of slavery was preceded by the famous book of a woman,
Mrs. Beecher Stowe; God grant that the abolition of war may follow
upon yours. I do not believe that arbitration is an efficient means of
abolishing war. I am just about finishing a treatise on this subject,
in which I discuss the only means which in my opinion can render wars
impossible. Nevertheless, all efforts dictated by a sincere love for
humanity will bear fruit; and the congress at Rome, I am certain, will
contribute much, just as that at London last year did, to popularize
the idea of the flagrant contradiction in which Europe finds itself
between the military status of the nations and the Christian and
humanitarian principles which they profess.

Receive, Madame, the assurance of my sentiments of genuine esteem and
sympathy.

(Signed) Léon Tolstoy[33]

October 10/22, 1891

Berlin, October 20, 1891

Highly honored Lady:

Receive my sincere thanks for giving me too an occasion for announcing
my whole-hearted indorsement of the lofty and magnificent work in
which you are taking such a prominent part both in word and deed. I
joyfully and unreservedly declare myself in accord with the objects of
the International Peace and Arbitration Association. That these
objects are attainable, that some day they will be attained, is my
firm and heartfelt faith, just as I believe in the progress of
humanity. And I could think of nothing that could occupy a human life
more greatly and worthily than to cöoperate in bringing about this
realization,—than to fight for assured peace. If in this battle you
can make use of my assistance, highly honored lady, then command me
utterly; your call will always find me willing and prepared. I shall
never cease to exert myself in public and in private to have war
recognized more and more widely as what it is,—as the saddest and most
shameful relapse into barbarism, the most terrible crime against the
genius of humanity.

Accept the expression of the hearty respect with which I shall always
be

Your wholly devoted
Ludwig Fulda

Paris, October 30, 1891

... You will not doubt that I am with you at heart, and that I have
the warmest sympathy and approval for your efforts to disseminate
ideas of peace, of reconciliation, of civilized forms of law, even in
the relations of nation to nation.

Of course I know, as well as the doubter and scoffer who seems to
himself so wise, that the Peace and Arbitration League can scarcely
count on practical results at this moment or in the immediate future.
But as a writer I believe in the might of the word, and its function
in changing traditional views and spreading new and better ones. If I
did not believe in this, I should long ago have broken my pen. So let
us write and speak unweariedly against the horror of war. _Semper
aliquid haeret_, and gradually we shall convert the governments and
nations from barbarians to men!

Dr. Max Nordau

Munich, October 29, 1891

... My most respectful greeting to all friends of peace! Only the
brute in man can desire war. So let all the inciters and promoters of
war be treated as brutes and put out of the decent society of
civilized men. And, moreover, let any one who in the press eggs on war
and speaks in favor of wholesale murder be brought before the courts
as a common bravo and assassin.

... The last word in this fearful question of blood, to which the
flower of the country is sacrificed, does not rest with the men at
all, but with the mothers.

Dr. M. G. Conrad

Neuilly-Paris, October 12, 1891

... I rejoice in that happy event, the newly formed Peace Society.
This is a fresh encouragement to our endeavors, a new reason to hope
for good results. To be sure there are still many prejudices to meet,
and perhaps also enmities to overcome; but that is only one more
reason for recognizing the necessity of having our efforts supported
by an imposing number of representatives of all nations. It is time,
it is high time, that genuinely universal demonstrations should—by
encouraging the timid—call forth an uprising of the conscience of
mankind, and that society should stand on its guard against the ruin,
the misery, the crime, by which it is threatened.

Frédéric Passy
Député de la Seine, membre de l’Institut et président de la
Société française de la paix et de l’arbitrage

Paris, October 30, 1891

I trust my telegram of greeting to the Austrian Peace Union reached
the meeting in time.

Our League, founded at Geneva in the year 1867 under the chairmanship
of Garibaldi and Victor Hugo, was the first peace society, I think,
that elected a woman to its committee. This will show you, gracious
lady, how deeply we wish you well in your noble initiative. With all
our hearts we extend to the newly founded society our sympathy and
devotion.

Charles Lemonnier
Président de la Ligue de la paix et de la liberté à Genève

Berlin, November 12, 1891

Your name is mentioned among the promoters of a movement which is to
lead humanity “upward,” Christianity toward its fulfillment.

I regard it as my duty to approach you respectfully and to beg you to
regard me as one of those who join in the loftiest efforts with all
their might. Every fiber of my being belongs to the “upbuilding of a
kingdom of God on earth,” to the “coming of Christianity.” This
comprehends all the efforts of good men. I am all on fire with
idealism, and yet I am no fancymonger. You have to do with “a man
among men.” Undismayed, but also unbefooled, I shall go on in the
paths that are marked out for me. The more comprehensive our action
is, the more effective; the more resolute, the more beneficent; the
more simultaneous along the whole line, the more thorough the success.

“Now, then, something must come.” I live in the firm conviction (to me
the word “belief” would not be enough for this) that we stand before
the gate that at once parts us from and admits us to the age of
completion. To grasp the latch with a vigorous hand seems to me the
duty of all those to whom God has granted the ability to do so.

M. v. Egidy, Oberstleutnant a. D.

Kilchberg near Zürich

... From the inmost conviction I declare myself in accord with the
aims of every peace union, in obedient veneration of our sublime
Master from Nazareth. Here his disciple, our dear Leo Tolstoi, is
incontrovertibly in the right.

Only I believe that we of our profession can accomplish even more for
the good and great cause through our slowly but certainly infiltrating
books than through associated activities—of this you yourself have
given a shining example—though of course the latter also have their
value.

Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

(Without date)

I do not believe there can be a thinking and feeling man who does not
inwardly belong to the League of Peace; and if our states were
“Christian” not merely on paper but in the deep meaning of the word,
there would be no need of a League of Peace.

Friedrich Spielhagen

Jena, October 31, 1891

Gracious and honored Lady:

I hope that these lines, with the assurance that I thoroughly approve
the aims of the International Peace and Arbitration Association and am
ready and willing to become a member, will reach you while you are
still in Vienna.

Although I believe with Heraclitus that battle is the father of all
things, yet I hope and wish with all my heart that the better stock of
competition for the higher blessings of civilization may displace the
savage and cruel conflict of races and the bloody warfare between
nations, which at present still, as in the Middle Ages, brings the
greatest wretchedness to the “highly civilized” nations of the present
day.

May the Peace Congress in Rome on the ninth of November be attended by
the best results!

With especially high respect, your devoted
Ernst Haeckel

XXX
UNION FOR RESISTANCE TO ANTI-SEMITISM
A. G. von Suttner, Count Hoyos, Baron Leitenberger, and Professor
Nothnagel found the Union · Article in the _Neue Freie Presse_

Before I write of the congress in Rome I want to go back a bit. In the spring of 1891—consequently before the founding of the Interparliamentary Group and the Peace Association in Vienna—my husband had also brought into existence an association of which I wish to tell.

We were still in the Caucasus when, at the beginning of the eighties, we were informed of the Anti-Semitic movement started in Prussia, and propagated by Court Chaplain Stöcker. This phenomenon, I need hardly say, aroused lively disgust in us. We set forth the arguments against this reversion to the Middle Ages in various articles written for the Vienna papers on which we were regular collaborators, but the articles were returned to us on the ground that in Austria there was no Anti-Semitism, and if any of it should spread from Prussia to us the only proper attitude toward it would be contemptuous silence. Later events showed that this attitude was not the proper one. Wrong must be withstood if it is recognized as such; there is no other way. In such cases silence, though professing to express contempt, is itself contemptible. Not only must the victims react against it, it is also for those who are not personally concerned to antagonize a wrong wherever they see it. Their silence is complicity, and generally springs from the same motives as the silence of the victims,—that is, from timidity. Only not to come into any collision, only not to subject one’s self to annoyances,—that is the motive at bottom, even if it does outwardly bear itself as genteel reserve.

After we came home the Anti-Semitic movement in Vienna had taken on especially brutal forms. In the year 1891 it had even gone as far as violence. The indignation which my husband felt boiled over.

“Something must be done!” was his decision.

And he sat down and wrote a constitution and a plan of action and an appeal. And now what he had to do was to find some prominent men who would go hand in hand with him. That same evening—we were just then in Vienna—he went to look up Count Hoyos in his residence on the Kolowratring. “The gentleman is not in,” said the servant; “he is downstairs in the club.” My husband immediately betook himself to the lower floor, where the clubrooms were situated, and sent for the count, who was sitting at a whist table.

“What is it, dear Suttner, anything very urgent?”

“Yes, justice for the persecuted—”

“Out with it!”

Count Hoyos took hold of the matter enthusiastically, and proposed to invite his whist partner, Baron Leitenberger, the well-known Liberal manufacturer, to join the provisory committee. So he also was called out, and a few moments later the formation of the league was a settled thing among these three. The next day Professor Nothnagel, so highly regarded both as a man and as a savant, came in with them; and a short time afterwards the constituting assembly met, with these four men at the speakers’ table. After the appeal had been printed in the papers, several hundred, including personages prominent in Viennese society and politics, had joined. On the day after the first meeting the _Neue Freie Presse_ published the following article, which will give the best explanation of the author’s ideas and purposes:

THE UNION FOR RESISTANCE TO ANTI-SEMITISM

BY A. GUNDACCAR VON SUTTNER

Vienna, July 21

Yesterday our Union came into existence as a legally recognized
society, to begin action against that hostile movement which is aimed
directly against a portion of our fellow-citizens. This is the object
stated in section 2 of the constitution: in plain terms, to combat the
Anti-Semitic movement, and to do this by public lectures, the
dissemination of informatory literature, discussions, and, if
necessary, the founding of an organ to represent the Union.

Politics is excluded: primarily because our Union is not political,
and in the next place because the matter in question is social in the
strict sense of the word and has nothing to do with the conduct of
state business. The proof of this lies in the fact that we reckon
among our members persons of every shade of belief, that we welcome
without exception every one who is in full enjoyment of his civic
rights.

A certain order of opponents who are never at a loss for false and
mendacious allegations have already made the attempt to represent our
Union as one that purposes to take the field against Christianity in
favor of the Jews. Hostile attacks of this kind carry their own
condemnation. As a proof of the falsity of their assertions stands the
fact that we already number among our members priests of the two chief
Christian denominations, and that we announce the distinct expectation
of gradually enlisting all those who are first and foremost called to
preach the word of peace, of love to our neighbors, of humanity.

In a time when men are founding societies to protect dumb animals from
cruelty—and that with absolute justification—it is, I think, only
logical that we should at last take a stand also against cruelty to
our fellow-men, all the more as the attacks have not been confined to
assaults upon honor, but have taken the form of acts of violence which
have given our Jewish fellow-citizens every reason to fear for the
safety of their existence. I will mention only those suburban heroes
who smashed the windows of Jewish women and shouted threats of murder
at them; those soldiers who struck down an old man on the street; that
schoolboy who thrust a knife into the eye of one of his Semitic
comrades. These are individual cases out of many; a single one would
have been enough to stir all right-thinking men to a great cry of
indignation.

The party against which we are arraying ourselves seems to have
contemplated nothing less than to decree for Austria a sort of moral
state of siege, and thereby to bring a pressure to bear on the
timorous souls of whom there are more than enough, whereby many of
these will allow themselves to be enrolled in order not to call down
upon their heads the wrath of that association, which is always ready
with the appellative _Judenknecht_. Special laws directed against the
Jews, like those that have reached such a magnificent development in
Russia, would naturally not have been long in making their appearance,
and ultimately, as a logical consequence, special laws against all who
do not think as do those gentlemen of the persecuting party.

Well, to-day, by good fortune, it appears that there are still
Austrians who will not submit to such a reign of terror, and who
answer such demands with the cry, “Browbeating won’t work.”

In the bosom of the opposing party, on the other hand, the reign of
terror has broken out; every one who there believes himself called to
be a leader takes the proverb “Bend or break” to heart; every one
collects his troops around him and forms a detachment which snarls at
every other. Skirmishes also have already been fought, with fists and
words, and the lawsuits growing out of them show us clearly and
distinctly what is going on behind the scenes of that stage. This
ought to open the eyes of many an objective observer who has supposed
that he was falling in with the demands of the times if he joined that
troop.

Originally, when Herr Stöcker was still having his day, Anti-Semitism
attempted to put itself on the ground of Christianity, and of
threatened Christianity at that, and to conjure up a religious
question. This plan was a lamentable failure, for there were enough
honorable religious teachers who opposed it. Then the attempt was made
to lay emphasis on race differences and to make these the basis of
up-to-date persecution. Here also the results were meager, and so they
ultimately hit upon the method of rousing human passion, of heating up
the hatred and envy of all those, bringing all those to the
burning-point, who had little or nothing to lose but hoped to gain
much. Of course the matter could not be allowed to pass as mere
commercial or competitive jealousy; a scientific whitewash had to be
applied to the whole thing, and so they got footing on the social
question: accumulated capital is the destroyer of the little man; the
Jew has accumulated capital in his hands, therefore the Jew is the
destroyer of the little man. That there are among the Jews themselves
whole masses of little men who have scarcely a crust to nibble was
entirely lost from sight—such a thing simply does not count with
logicians of that stamp; they have in sight only the Christian little
man and the Jewish big man.

It is a recognized fact that you can fool the heedless masses with
certain catchwords as much as you please. It is the children’s game,
_Schneider, leih’ mir die Scher_ (“Puss in the Corner”), arranged for
the use of grown-up people: the one who tries to find a place knows
perfectly well that the place to which the other directs him is not
empty, but he runs toward it obediently, and meanwhile the wily fox
swaps his place for a better and snaps his finger laughingly at the
one dispossessed. This is the game played by those men who sin at the
phrase “social question”: “The Jew has an empty place”—and the dupe
makes for the Jew. Since he knows incidentally that his “friends” are
not well disposed toward the Jew, he means at least to get this much
advantage from the game, that he will vent his temper on the man; he
can do this without any expenditure of great courage and without
peril, for he has behind him a superior power which springs to his
aid—if the aid costs nothing more than a few fisticuffs.

As far as this dragging in of the social question is concerned, these
florid speakers only commit the trifling error of adopting for their
science absolutely faulty premises, so that their whole edifice is
shaky at its foundation. No social reformer, no economist of the
present time will look for the evil in accumulated capital as such.
The man who should keep his millions locked up in his strong box in
the form of packages of bank notes—for so the common throng imagines
it—would ultimately perish of starvation, for it is a law of nature
that what is not renewed is at last used up. Accumulated capital,
then, is not in itself the cause but only the result. The evil has its
roots elsewhere; and if once these roots are radically extirpated,
then capital will of necessity circulate in such a way as to pass
through all hands.

A few representatives of the people have already indicated the
solution of the social enigma—if I am not mistaken, Dr. Menger
recently. It is not our affair, however, to go into this in detail
here, for our aim is simply to bring out the fact that the
Anti-Semitic movement on the basis of social science stands on feet of
clay, and that the men who to bolster their cause trespass on this
ground have only an utterly superficial acquaintance with the
question, most of them none at all. But the average man allows himself
to be persuaded easily, for he has learned a deal at school—but not
logical thinking. Now if he sees that another is (or rather seems to
be) doing this business for him, then so much the better; then he
gladly lets the other take the trouble and believes that he has done
his part when he joins in the hue and cry.