35 Sparks, 203-7; Johnson. America's Foreign Relations, II: 307-8; Hart, Monroe Doctrine, 169; Johnson, Four Centuries of the Panama Canal, 73–80.

36 Sparks, 212-13; W. E. Curtis, The United States and Foreign Powers, 113; Congressional Record, 46th Congress, 1st Session, 2312; 46th Congress, 2nd Session, 12-14, 779, 1392.

37 Richardson, Messages, VII: 585-6; Hart, Monroe Doctrine, 170-71; Sparks, 216–18; Johnson, Panama Canal, 81-84; Johnson, Foreign Relations, II: 308.

38 Hart, op. cit., 172-4; Johnson, Panama Canal, 87-93.

39 North American Review, CXXXII: 107–116. Feb., 1881; Sparks, 211-12; Johnson, Panama Canal, 80, 85–6.

40 Nation, XXIX: 70-71; XXX: 90-91. Official French disavowal, Hart, Monroe Doctrine, 342.

41 North American Review, 130, 499–511. May, 1880.

42 Pittsburgh Post, Mar. 9, Mar. 11, 1880.

43 Philadelphia Times, Mar. 1, citing New York Tribune; Philadelphia Times, Feb. 1, 1881; Philadelphia North American, Mar. 10, 1880; Feb. 9, 1881.

44 Johnson, Panama, 80-81, 84-85; Sparks, 208-10; Pittsburgh Post, Mar. 19, 1881; Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, 73–75.

45 Nation, XXIX: 70-71; Coolidge, United States as a World Power, 272-4; Hart, Monroe Doctrine, 171-2; A. B. Menocal, "Intrigues at the Paris Canal Congress," North American Review, CXXIX: 288-293.

46 Geo. C. Hurlbut, "The Panama Canal from Within," Forum, IV: 279.

47 Nation, XLV: 367; XLIII: 91-2; XLIX: 385. See also Stuart F. Weld, Popular Science Monthly, XXXI: 323; Atlantic, LXIII: 348; Popular Science Monthly, XXXII: 447; Johnson, Panama, 95–97.

48 Richardson, Messages, VIII: 106–7, 171, 202, 331, 609; IX: 82–3, 110; Fish, American Diplomacy, 388-9, 470-71; Moore, International Law Digest, VIII: 474-635; Johnson, America's Foreign Relations, II: 129-30; E. C. Stowell and H. C. Munro, International Cases, 1: 292; Royal Cortissoz, Life of Whitelaw Reid, II: 125-6, 130-31, 136-39, 145–51, 168.

49 La Silhouette, reproduced Review of Reviews, July, 1898; Cortissoz, Reid, II: Ch. XIII; Latané, America as a World Power, 63; Keim, 218-220; Fish, American Diplomacy, 426; Elbert J. Benton, International Law and Diplomacy of the SpanishAmerican War, 215; Paul L. Haworth, The United States in our Own Times, 239; Johnson, America's Foreign Relations, II: 254-6, 262; Brooks Adams, "The Spanish War and the Equilibrium of the World," Forum, XXV: 641–651.

50 Nation, Apr. 28, 1898, 315; Outlook, May 28, 1898; New York Sun, cited in Philadelphia Ledger, May 22; New York Tribune, in Philadelphia Ledger, Apr. 4; Ledger, Apr. 26, May 11; Peck, Twenty Years of the Republic, 545–554; L. M. Sears, "French Opinion of the Spanish-American War," Hispanic American Historical Review, Feb., 1927, 25-44.

51 Review of Reviews, XVIII: 21. July, 1898; Mme. de Hegermann-Lindencrone, The Sunny Side of Diplomatic Life, 262; Century, LVI: 776-80, and editorial comment; Independent, July 21, 1898.

52 Philadelphia Ledger, May 14, 16, 18; Cortissoz, Reid, cited above; Coolidge, 188; Latané, 65, 67; Peck, 581; Fish, 494; Johnson, Foreign Relations, II: 262-4; Richardson, Messages, X: 143-4.

53 Francis Regal to the writer, July 3, 1922; Fish, 403, 454-60; Coolidge, 189-93. 54 Review of Reviews, XIX: 149; Ib. XXXVI: Ib. XXXVII: 279; America,

July 23, 1911; North American Review, CXCV: 1, Jan., 1912; Latané, 249, 251; Fish, 475; Johnson, America's Foreign Relations, II: 377-9.

55 New York Evening Mail, cited in Literary Digest, Nov. 12, 1904.

56 Coolidge, United States as a World Power, 188–9.

57 F. W. Seward, Recollections of a War-Time Statesman and Diplomat, 449-52; W. M. Evarts, Arguments and Speeches, Sherman Evarts, ed., III: 403-10; Modern Eloquence, T. B. Reed, ed., II: 457-62.

58 Richardson, Messages, VII: 427; Public Opinion, II: 52. Oct. 30, 1886; Report of Jos. W. Drexel, Chairman of Executive Committee, to Bayard, Secretary of State, Apr. 27, 1886, in Foreign Relations Committee Reports, IV: 57–63.

59 Charles de Kay, "The Bartholdi Statue," Scribner's, June, 1877.

80 Richardson, Messages, VII: 237; Public Opinion, II: 52; Drexel Report, cited above.

61 Modern Eloquence, III: 89; Pittsburgh Post, June 20, 1885; E. Benjamin Andrews, History of Our Own Times, 523–527.

62 Foreign Relations Committee Report, IV: 57; Andrews, op. cit., 527.

63 Public Opinion, II: 69. Nov. 6, 1886.

64 Richardson, VIII: 498.

65 Cortissoz, Reid, II: 130-31.

66 Foreign Relations, 1900, 456, 468, 471, (Rochambeau monument, Vendôme).

67 Fish, 467, 494-5; World's Work, IV: 2257 (1902); Literary Digest, June 21, 1902, 732-5, 847.

68 Elihu Root, Miscellaneous Addresses. James Brown Scott and Robert Bacon, eds., 146. Courtesy of Harvard University Press.

09 Root, Miscellaneous Addresses, 141-2, Courtesy of Harvard University Press; Jules Jusserand, With Americans of Past and Present Days, 309–316.

70 April 24, 1906.

71 Jusserand, 315-6; America, Aug. 27, 1910; Outlook, Oct. 1, 1910; America, Apr. 18, 1911.

72 New York Sun, Apr. 27, 1912; Literary Digest, May 11, 1912; America, May 4, 1912; Outlook, May 8; New York Herald, May I, May 4; Deseret Evening News, May 2.

CHAPTER 8

Signs and Portents

the actual relations between two countries consisted solely in those

I of governed to a or degree by

the existence or non-existence of possible causes of conflict, this study might well have been concluded with the summary of official relations, in the last chapter. But for a clear understanding of the disposition of Americans toward France during this period it will be necessary to consider also some less tangible but equally potent factors.

The current of opinion in any country is determined largely by the trend of thought in intellectual circles. In the early years of American history French educational systems exercised a great influence upon our schools and French intellectual achievement was highly respected. In the last forty years of the nineteenth century German influence in this field had to a very great degree become predominant and the Germans were generally spoken of as the originators and leaders in science and learning.2 This tendency could not be wholly justified by the genuine and undoubted progress made by Germany since the Franco-Prussian War. Other European nations had been progressing too, and each could present undeniable evidence of achievement. The explanation is largely to be found in the fact that practically everyone who was trained abroad during this time studied in Germany, under professors who believed and enthusiastically maintained that in all intellectual matters Germany's place in the sun was an accomplished fact, and that no other nation could hope to compete. The returned students, leaders in American intellectual circles, consciously or unconsciously spread this propaganda.

The flow of students to German universities is in its turn to be explained in part by the fact that in American academic circles advanced degrees had become important factors in success, and the German schools placed by far the fewest restrictions and difficulties in the way of foreign students who wished to obtain such degrees. In France in particular the regulations until within the last few years were practically prohibitive, inasmuch as to be eligible for a higher degree one should hold the lower one from a French institution. Degrees from standard American colleges and uni

versities were not acceptable. Americans naturally did not care to spend years of foreign study without being able to show for them something tangible and something which would advance them professionally in their own country.

In making the restrictions the French had in mind the fact that their educational institutions were practically a part of their civil service system, since they fitted their graduates to hold state offices, and it was desired that government officials should be trained from the beginning under French auspices. The value of attracting foreign students was not realized and foreigners came to feel that it was difficult, almost impossible, to obtain academic recognition in a French institution. It was therefore entirely natural that Americans should flock to German universities, where they were welcomed and honored, and that they should carry away with them a feeling of gratitude and loyalty, should condemn the rigidity of the French regulations, and conclude that the country was not so far advanced intellectually as Germany.

Moreover, this meant that French works, in the original or in translation, were not assigned for study in American universities, nor cited so frequently as they should have been; French scholars and scientists of high rank were not adequately known, and French researches not justly considered. And the thinking and writing of American professional men in all fields reflected this inequality."

A change, however, was on the way. In spite of the strong ties which bound them to German leadership, American investigators could not allow their field of thought to be held permanently within such narrow limits. Instead they wished to develop along international lines, searching for the best wherever it was to be found, and according without bias or prejudice due honor to good work no matter where or by whom it was produced. Achievement, rather than nationality, was to become the accepted

test.

An American lawyer, Mr. Harry J. Furber, made an investigation in 1895 of the Sorbonne, the Collège de France, the École des hautes études, and of other schools in Paris. He found in the art schools more Americans than in any other European center, but the number in general cultural courses or in the various fields of science was extremely small, and in view of the quality of training offered, he thought this regrettable. The reason seemed to lie in the hampering governmental regulations above mentioned. He promptly took up the matter with the French authorities, through M. Poincaré who was then minister of public instruction. Several prominent Frenchmen became interested and undertook to coöperate. In America a group of leading educators joined in the movement. Among them were

Presidents Angell of the University of Michigan, Dwight of Yale, Eliot of Harvard, Gilman of Johns Hopkins, G. Stanley Hall of Clark, and Schurman of Cornell; also Carroll D. Wright, W. T. Harris, United States Commissioner of Education, S. P. Langley of the Smithsonian Institution, Andrew D. White, Simon Newcomb, and Seth Low. Their purpose was declared to be "to facilitate closer educational affiliation” between French and American schools. As a result the vexatious French regulations were changed.*

Interest, in the United States, was at once much stimulated. It is worth while in this connection to compare the brief and superficial account of French schools of history and politics written in 1887 by Andrew D. White with the thorough, thoughtful, and in the main favorable study of the same subject offered in 1897 by Charles Homer Haskins." American observers criticised the close government supervision of the schools and their linking with politics. This was thought to interfere with the development of individual initiative and likely to react unfavorably upon national progress. They found the organization of the educational system unnecessarily complex, and characterized to some degree by a lack of coördination between related subjects. The unrivalled material, especially the manuscript collections, in the French libraries was not well catalogued nor readily enough accessible. Some doubted whether life in Paris could be morally healthy for the immature student. The French schools seemed lacking in the qualities of human sympathy and comradeship and in the love for an alma mater which characterize American ones, but this was attributed to the fact that learning, with the French, "is not an accomplishment, but an honorable and arduous profession." But, said Barrett Wendell,

"Could our graduate students who propose to devote their lives to learning come more frequently under the influence of the combined industry and intelligence of modern scholarship in France, the American universities of years to come might be at once more solid and more stimulating in their atmosphere than now seems quite likely."

And Frederic E. Farrington, in his study of the French secondary school system (1910), declared that the progress made in France since the FrancoPrussian War was "quite without a parallel within the same length of time in the educational history of the world."

The qualities most praised were the seriousness, precision, and devotion of French scholars and students, the "directness, simplicity, and clarity" with which they presented their results, either in lectures or in written work; their steadily increasing accuracy and thoroughness, combined with a very just sense of proportion and a "certain originality and freshness