fighting in Tripoli, and that the Italians completely defeated their adversaries, who were led by Turks and Germans.

Q. What was the Jameson Raid?

A. The Jameson raid was led by Dr. (afterward Sir Starr) Jameson, in 1895-6. He was Administrator of Rhodesia at the time, and gathered a body of troops at Mafeking on the Transvaal border, his presence there being connected with a conspiracy which was being_hatched at Johannesburg to overthrow President Kruger. The conspirators, however, fell out among themselves over the question whether the State they proposed to set up was to be an independent one, or to be under the British flag.

Owing to this, and to the suspicions of the Dutch, the revolution did not culminate. Dr. Jameson, hoping to save the situation, decided to ride in to Johannesburg, with chosen companions, trusting that the conspirators, heartened by their arrival, would strike the blow they had contemplated. The Boers, however, received word of his coming, telegraphed to London, and the British Government immediately disowned Dr. Jameson.

A commando of some thousand men was hastily raised, and under the leadership of General Cronje, surprised and utterly defeated the raiders at Doornkop, some twelve miles from Johannesburg, on January 2, 1896. A few raiders were killed and the rest were taken prisoner.

Q.-Were the Jameson raiders punished?

the

A.-President Kruger liberated men, and handed the leaders over to Great Britain for punishment. He, however, arrested the revolutionary committee, and Mr. Phillips (later Sir Lionel Phillips), Mr. Farrar (later Sir George Farrar), Colonel Frank Rhodes (brother of Cecil Rhodes), and John Hays Hammond (the American mining engineer), were condemned to death. After some months' imprisonment, however, they were let off with a fine of £25,000 ($125,000) each. All the others of the committee were condemned to two years' imprisonment, and a fine of £2,000 each, but were liberated after one month's imprisonment, the fines all being paid.

Dr. Jameson was tried in London and was sent to prison for some months. Q. How many soldiers had the British in the South African war?

A.-230,000 in all; 5,774 were killed, 22,829 were wounded. The Boer losses

in killed were estimated at 4,000. At the disastrous battle of the Tugela, British losses were 1,100, while at Loos, Belgium, they were 60,000, but Loos was a victory, and the Tugela a defeat.

Q.-Who and what is the Rajah of Sarawak?

A. The first Rajah of Sarawak was Sir Charles Brooke, who obtained the territory from the Sultan of Brunei in 1842 in recompense for aiding to save his throne. His nephew succeeded in 1868, and the present ruler, known formerly as Rajah Mundi, is his son. He married a daughter of Viscount Esher of England.

Q-How was Africa parcelled out among the European nations before the war?

A. The great partition was completed in 1885 at Berlin, when the Congo Free State came into existence. Since then France got Morocco, Italy Tripoli; Great Britain has now completely acquired Egypt, and all the German possessions in West Africa have been taken by the Allies. In 1913 Africa was cut up as follows:

French
British
Egypt and Sudan

Total British

German

Belgian

Portuguese Italian Spanish Abyssinia Liberia

Square Miles.

4,100,000

2,100,000

1,600,000

3,700,000

900,000

900,000

800,000

600,000

80,000

350,000

40,000

Q.-When did the Mediterranean nations obtain Northern Africa?

over the

A.-When Turkish power Red Sea and Mediterranean Africa weakened. In 1830 France took Algeria, Then France (with England) established a dual control over Egypt. In 1881 France annexed Tunis. In 1882 England bombarded Alexandria to put down the revolt of Arabi Pasha, and then took control. In 1884 Italy sent an expedition to Occupy Dogali and Massawa, adjoining Abyssinia. The force was overwhelmed by Menelik of Abyssinia. A second expedition was sent with more success, and after five years of desultory_fighting, a peace was declared in 1889. The contin

ual change of cabinets kept the entire East African situation in a turmoil for ten years more before the Italian hold in the Red Sea country, known as Eritrea,

was secure.

Q-What possessions had Germany in the Pacific?

A. She had German New Guinea, which consists of Kaiser Wilhelm's Land, 70,000 square miles, situated on the island of New Guinea, immediately north of Papua; the Bismarck Archipelago, including Neu-Pommern (the headquarters of the Governor), the Caroline Islands, the Flew Islands, and the Marianne Islands, the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands. Some were acquired in 1885, others were purchased from Spain in 1899. The native population is some 360,000; there were 1,240 whites, of whom 790 were German.

Q-How did Germany get pos

session in the Samoan group? A-She had two Samoan islands (Savaii and Upolo) ceded to her by the so-called tri-partite agreement by which the United States, Great Britain and Germany apportioned the Samoan group among themselves. This arrangement was initiated in Cleveland's first term, concluded in Harrison's term, and revised by arbitration in McKinley's term.

It has been said that Great Britain's acquiescence to Germany's participation was obtained as compensation for_the Kaiser's refusal to join France and Russia in an anti-British league during the Boer war.

Q-How did Germany get into China?

A-Kiau-Chau in China, was seized by the Germans in 1897 in retaliation for the murder of some German missionaries, but was leased from China for 99 years in 1899, about the time that Britain leased Wei-hai-wei on the same peninsula. Its area is about 200 square miles. 33,000 Chinese lived there, and 1,848 Germans, including the garrison of marines. It has a fine harbor.

Q-What other possessions had Germany?

A-Togo, in Upper Guinea, Africa, between the British Gold Coast on the west and the French Dahomey on the east. It is 33,700 square miles, and 300 Germans lived there. The Cameroons, between

British Nigeria and French Congo, are 191,130 square miles; 1,130 Germans lived there. German Southwest Africa lies between Portuguese West Africa and Cape Colony. Area, 322,450 square miles; 12,135 Germans lived there. German East Africa, 384,180 square miles, lies between British East Africa and Portuguese East Africa; has a population of 7,500,000 native and had 3,580 Germans. The German colonial possessions together had a total area of 1,000,000 square miles, and a population of 14,000,000. Of the whites, some 25,000 in all, 20,750 were Germans. This does not include the military forces, which numbered about 4,500 Germans and 3,825 natives.

Q.-Were the German colonies a good investment?

A.-They cost Germany in administration and special grants about $15,000,000 annually. Many Germans regard German colonial expansion in these tropical lands as mere waste of money. It was actually costing about $750 each year for every German living in the colonies.

Q.-What

part of Canada is French? Are they in sympathy with the war?

A.-2,000,000 out of 7,200,000 are French. It would seem that some are plainly opposed to the war, and that as a body the French Canadians are indifferent at least. Up to the time the Canadian draft law was passed, out of nearly 400,000 Canadian enlistments, only about 20,000 were French Canadians; and Sir Wilfred Laurier, a French Canadian, and formerly the Premier of the Dominion, led the opposition party and made his political issue opposition to the conscription bill.

Q-Has Italy annexed the Turk

ish islands which she occupied in her war with Turkey in 1911-12?

A. Yes. As soon as she declared war against Turkey, in June, 1915, she formally annexed them. This appears to have been her only act of aggression against the Turks. According to the term of the Treaty of Ouchy, 1912, Italy undertook to evacuate these islands and to pay Turkey no less than $400,000 annually as compensation for the loss of revenue from Tripoli. As it turns out, it was a good thing she did find it impossible to carry out her treaty obligations before the present war broke out. Under

Italian rule these islands will presumably be far more prosperous than under Turkish, but the Greeks, of course, are very resentful of Italy's possessing herself of what they regard as their natural heritage.

Q. What does "the Kamerun" mean?

A.-The "Kamerun" is the German name for "Cameroon"-a German protectorate in West Africa, bounded west by the Atlantic, northwest by British Nigeria, north by Lake Chad, east and south by French Congo and the Spanish Muni

River settlement. The region was acquired through a treaty, negotiated by Gustav Nachtigal, on July 15, 1884. Germany gradually extended its influence to the interior. In 1905 and 1906, collisions took place between the French and German troops. An accurate survey resulted in a new boundary convention in 1908, whereby natural features of the land were adopted as boundary lines. The name "Cameroon" means "crab river," given to an estuary where many crustacea were found. The name was later given to the neighboring mountains and extended in its German form to the entire region.

Q-Were the rights of any neutrals respected by the belligerents?

A.-They were not. Both sides professed scrupulous regard for the rights of nations not in the war, but each side at once placed its own belligerent interests before everything else.

Q-What was the first trespass

against neutral rights?

A-The practical abrogation of the Declaration of London, which had provided very excellent safeguards for neutral commercial rights on the sea.

Q-Was the "Declaration" an established part of international law?

A-It had not been ratified by some of the nations, but it had been signed by almost all, and, before the war began, it had been considered as the established code by which belligerents and neutrals were to be guided.

Q-What was the first result of

the abrogation?

A-A sweeping definition of the meaning of "contraband," which was enlarged bit by bit till it included practically every article of important sea-commerce.

Q-How could belligerents declare neutral shipments contraband?

A-They could not in international law. Neutral nations had the absolute_unquestioned right to import anything from artillery to wheat for their own use.

Q-Why, then, did new definitions

affect neutrals?

A-Because the sweeping definition of "contraband" was followed by an equally sweeping claim that all goods that were contraband when destined directly for an enemy, were equally contraband when destined for a neutral port under circumstances that created the suspicion that they were for ultimate enemy use.

Q.-Was this the only infraction of neutral rights?

A.-No. Almost simultaneously the belligerents claimed the right to visit, search and seize all ships, under any flag, in any part of the seas around Europe.

Q.-Is that not a legal use of rights of blockade?

A.-No. Blockade had been clearly defined, and the definition clearly established both by international agreements and by international observance. Legal blockade was sharply limited to actual investment by naval forces of specific coasts and ports.

Q. Did the neutrals object?

A. They did. But, with the exception of the United States, they were powerless to do more than object, and they felt constrained to do their objecting most diplomatically and cautiously.

Q.-Did the United States object? A. The United States objected most strongly, declaring certain methods of the belligerents in "imposing a contraband nature on cargoes bound for neutral ports are without justification"; and in regard to blockade, that it was "illegal and indefensible." (American Note to Great Britain, October 21, 1915.)

Q.-Was the remonstrance successful?

A.-No. The belligerents were courteous but uncompromising. Instead of relaxing their hold, they increased it till they controlled the sea-borne commerce everywhere, even in oceans and ports far from the scene of war.

Q.-Did it really injure the United States?

A.-It did from the viewpoint of national dignity and rights, but not from the commercial and financial viewpoint. While individuals suffered severely, the national commerce, as a whole, grew enormously in value, because of the vast purchases by the belligerents who controlled the sea. Individuals, of course, whose business had depended largely on imports to, or exports from, blockaded

countries, suffered heavily. Some were ruined. It is estimated that the claims for damage by individuals total all of half a billion.

Q. How did the weak neutrals fare?

A.-Badly. Their entire ocean trade, both incoming and outgoing, became subject to the good pleasure of the belliger

ents.

Q. Did the small neutrals not profit by commerce with the blockaded powers?

A. They did; and this fact greatly involved the whole subject. Legally, they had the full right to buy anything they chose in foreign countries and to sell it again to whom they chose, belligerent or not.

Q.-But the legal right was not recognized? A.-Emphatically

not, in practice, though it was not absolutely and wholly denied officially. To deny the whole right bluntly and squarely would have laid the basis for possible huge claims of damages after the war, not to mention the possible immediate effect on the national pride of the small nations.

Q.-Just how did the belligerents enforce control of neutral trade?

A. By a very shrewd method, under which associations of merchants in the small neutral countries were formed, such as the often-named Overseas Trust of Holland. These associations, acting as wholly private individuals or corporations, gave satisfactory guarantees that imports assigned to them would not pass on to the enemy.

Q.-Could nobody else buy and sell

as he pleased?

A.-Technically and ostensibly, yes. Actually, no. The belligerents saw to it that no goods should enter the neutral countries adjoining their enemies, except goods for the associations whom they could trust.

the small neutral nations were enabled to ignore the actual matter as being a purely private concern of their citizens, while diplomatically and officially they continued to maintain their assertion of full neutral rights and their refusal to permit any abrogation of them.

Q.-Did all the little neutrals permit it?

A.-Holland, Denmark and Norway did. Sweden refused, and demanded full rights without compromise, but she had to yield bit by bit.

Q.-Was American neutrality the kind known as "benevolent neutrality?"

A. Following the official proclamation of the nation's neutrality in formal diplomatic manner (August 4, 1914), President Wilson issued an appeal to the American people (August 19, 1914), in which he said that "the United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name."

Q-How did this differ from benevolent neutrality?

A. The essence of "benevolent" neutrality is that it is neutrality in name only.

Q. What is the test of strict neutrality?

A. A nation neutral in fact as well as in name rigidly applies all rulings and laws equally to both belligerents. It gives them exactly the same rights and denies them exactly the same privileges. It refuses officially to encourage or discourage one as against the other. It refrains officially from suggesting that the one is justified or guilty as against the other.

Q. What is the course of a nation observing benevolent neutrality?

A.-It stretches points in favor of the favored party and strains interpretations against the non-favored party. It gives aid and comfort to the favored party to the utmost degree possible without laying itself open to proof that it has committed viclations of the technical laws of neutrality.

sovereignty?

A. It was in actuality, but in the form in which it was done, the governments of

nized as legal?

A. Only by the beneficiaries. The non-favored nation never recognizes the