by the tariff controversy we may fit the conclusions of the present study.

Paralleling the general free-trade argument is the statement that the "principle of relative cost should be the fundamental one in fixing upon the scale of local non-competitive rates' (page 180. See also pages 123-124, 132–133, 137 and 162). The familiar "infant industry" argument appears no less plainly: "It may temporarily be worth while, in order to build up a new industry, to accord a lower rating to a commodity actually more valuable or more expensive to handle than others" (page 179. See also page 178). Again: "At times it is neither water nor commercial competition which actually brings about the low rate at the basing point, but merely a consensus of opinion among carriers that the place will respond quickly enough to favors granted to make it worth while to try the experiment" (page 228). Not always, however, does this motive justify the differential of which it is the cause. There is shown a direct conflict between this principle, which tends to concentration at selected localities, and the desire for decentralization on grounds of general public policy (page 395. See also pages 199 and 241).

The established interests" argument is still more in evidence in the policy of "keeping everybody in business." To induce timid capital to locate on their lines, carriers must give "some guarantee of permanence" (pages 149 et seq.); and, having done so, they are "subsequently estopped from charging to the full limit of what the traffic will bear" (page 545). But this policy should stop short of creating industrial rigidity (pages 153-154 and 162). Latitude must always be allowed for meeting unavoidable competition; but the trunkline rate system, based on distance, is set as a standard towards which the basing-point system and others will naturally approach, as the rest of the country approaches the dense settlement of the trunk-line region. J. M. CLARK.

AMHERST COLLEGE.

RECORD OF POLITICAL EVENTS

[From November 6, 1912, to May 1, 1913]

1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THE BALKAN WAR-The offensive campaigns of the allies culminated during the month of November. The Greeks entered Salonica on November 9; Servian armies took Durazzo on the twelfth and completed the conquest of Macedonia by capturing Monastir on the eighteenth and Dibra on the twenty-eighth; and the Bulgarian army, after defeating the Turks at Tchorlu in the first week of November, went into winter quarters before the Tchataldja line of fortifications.—The Greek navy repeatedly engaged Turkish ships off the Dardanelles and continued to attack the Egean islands, investing Tenedos November 6, forcing the Turkish garrison of Mitylene to surrender on December 21, occupying Chios on January 3 and investing Samos March 15.-An armistice was signed at Tchataldja on December 3, by which Bulgaria, Servia, Montenegro and Turkey agreed to send delegates to a peace conference at London. During the armistice the armies were to retain their positions and the besieged fortresses were not to be reprovisioned. Greece refused to accede to this agreement while Janina remained in Turkish hands and continued her attacks on that city. At the first session of the Peace Conference in London on December 16 the Greeks insisted on a share in the deliberations. The Turks, after some delay and efforts to obtain a counter-concession, yielded on this point. The territorial demands which the allies submitted December 23, comprising the cession of all territory west of a line from Rodosto to Cape Malatra, of the Ægean islands and of Crete, were refused by the Turkish diplomats, and the conference was suspended by the allies on January 6. On the sixteenth, the Porte was advised by the powers to yield on the question of the surrender and cession of Adrianople. After receiving the assent of a Council of Notables on January 22, the Turkish government proposed to compromise on the division of Adrianople and the autonomy of the Ægean islands. This was insufficient to satisfy the allies, and on February 3 there was a general resumption of hostilities. The Bulgarians with Servian help pressed the attack on Adrianople; two forts were taken on March 9; and on the twenty-sixth the whole eastern line of defenses was carried and Shukri Pasha was compelled to surrender with some 30,000 men. A vigorous attack was then made on the Tchataldja line; the town of Tchataldja was taken, and Bulgarian detachments occupied Delepes, Injes, Subachu and Serbele. Meanwhile the Greeks had captured Janina, March 6; the siege of Scutari had been urgently prosecuted by Servian and Montenegrin troops; and Greek ships in the Adriatic were coöperating with the allied forces in northern Albania.-The mediation of the powers

was impeded by their clashing interests.

The moral support which Russian sentiment gave to the Greek-Christian Slavic Balkan states brought Russia into sharp conflict with the Austro-Hungarian "expansion to Salonica" policy. After the resumption of hostilities between the Turks and the allies, the attention of the powers was directed to the settlement of the conflicting claims to Albania. In deference to the strenuous representations of AustriaHungary, they agreed to incorporate Scutari in an autonomous Albanian state and to forbid the acquisition by Servia of an Adriatic port, although Servia was to be given commercial access to the Adriatic over a neutral railway. In return, the Triple Entente secured for Servia and Montenegro the debatable territories of Ipek, Prizrend, Dibra and Djakova. The northern and eastern frontiers of the proposed autonomous Albanian state were formally agreed upon, March 26. The immediate result of this agreement was the relaxation of Austro-Russian tension and the simultaneous withdrawal in March of 36,000 Russian and 30,000 Austrian troops from the Galician frontier. With the consent of the Porte, renewed offers of mediation were made on March 1. Two weeks later the allies were willing to accept the good offices of the powers on condition that Adrianople and Scutari be surrendered, that the western boundary of Turkey be the Rodosto-Malatra line, that Crete and the Ægean islands be ceded and that an indemnity be paid by Turkey. The powers, unwilling to give Bulgaria a foothold on the Dardanelles, insisted on the line from Enos to Midia by way of the Maritza and Ergene rivers; and, as German interests opposed the union of the Ægean islands with Greece, the powers offered to establish later the status of those islands. On April 1, the Porte was ready to accept a direct line from Enos to Midia, and the allies were finally induced to agree to mediation, reserving the right to discuss with the powers the claim for $300,000,000 indemnity, the disposition of the Turkish national debt, the status of the Ægean islands and the delimitation of the boundaries in Thrace and in Albania. On April 19 an armistice was signed at Bulair by all the belligerents except Montenegro. The decision of the powers to incorporate Scutari in Albania only incited King Nicholas to redouble his efforts to capture that city. An international fleet under the command of an English admiral attempted to punish this defiance by blockading the coast from Antivari to San Giovanni di Medua on April 10. Unintimidated, the Montenegrins continued the siege and captured Scutari on April 23. Austria-Hungary at once assumed a belligerent attitude and it was feared that further refusal of the Montenegrins to give up Scutari would precipitate an invasion. In 1903 Rumania had declared that an alteration of the status quo in the Balkan region could not be tolerated. When the present struggle became clearly a war of conquest, Rumania demanded from Bulgaria, as the price of her neutrality, a slice of Silistrian territory. The critical situation which developed in February was ended by the decision of both countries, at Russia's suggestion, to refer the dispute to an ambassadorial conference at St. Petersburg.

GENERAL EUROPEAN RELATIONS.—The Balkan troubles and the conflict of Russian and Austro-Hungarian sympathies and interests (see supra) caused friction between the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. Germany and Italy came to the support of Austria-Hungary and made public, early in December, the renewal for twelve years of the Triple Alli ance, which would have expired in 1914. The Triple Entente replied with renewed demonstrations of the cordial relations existing between its members: M. Poincaré was decorated by the tsar in February, and the distinguished diplomat and naval enthusiast, M. Delcassé, was appointed French ambassador at St. Petersburg. After a visit of Prince Hohenlohe to Russia, the strain was somewhat relieved by the Austro-Russian agreement for simultaneous reduction of their armies to the normal peace footing on March 12; but the two nations still watched each other jealously. In this situation, Germany felt obliged to increase its armament and to strengthen the fortresses on the French frontier. The French government responded with a three-year military service bill (see infra, p. 377). The animosity between France and Germany was further increased by a series of minor incidents, such as the accidental landing of German airships in French territory and petty demonstrations in France against German tourists.—Anglo-German relations were not improved by Mr. Churchill's statement that the dominion-contributed ships (with the exception of the New Zealand) were to be added to the 16-to-10 naval superiority of Great Britain over Germany which he had recently announced and to which the German government had tacitly agreed. Consequently, Mr. Churchill's proposal on March 26 for a one-year interruption of naval construction found little favor in German circles. An attempt to allay the fever of militarism, against which not even the small states of Belgium and Holland with their practically assured neutrality are immune, was evidenced in the peace demonstrations of Socialist mass-meetings in European capitals and in the one-day strike against war in France, as well as in the unanimous motion of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Council at the Hague that Great Britain should take the initiative in proposing limitation of armaments.

AFRICAN RELATIONS.—The long diplomatic duel between Spain and France over the Moroccan question (see last RECORD, p. 732) was finally decided in favor of the latter country by the signature on November 26 of a Franco-Spanish treaty of 29 articles. The boundaries of the zones of the two signatory powers were to be delimited by a mixed commission (which was appointed in April); it was agreed, however, that Spain should abandon important districts in the north and in the south, with the meagre compensation of Mt. Ghani (seven miles from Alcazar). The eastern boundary of the southern Spanish zone was to be approximately the eleventh meridian west of Paris. The dimensions of the Ifni enclave were fixed at 25 km. by 44 km. The details of the troublesome question of the status of Tangier were left unsettled, but it was decided in principle to place that city under a special international régime.—In the region south of

Morocco, the Northwest Adrar district, a French expeditionary force encountered stubborn native opposition.-The Liberian government found itself involved in difficulties with the German government by reason of insults offered by natives to German merchants and officers. The presence of the German gunboat "Panther," reinforced later by another gunboat and a cruiser, secured apologies from the Liberian government; but in March the little state retaliated by offering to an English firm a concession to exploit 12,000 square miles of the most valuable land in the republic.-News from Cairo in April that £8,000,000 had already been subscribed for the construction of a railway connecting Derna, Tripoli, with the Egyptian Maronit line seemed to indicate the drawing together of the British protectorate and the new Italian dependency. The same friendly disposition dictated agreements between Italy and her other North African neighbors. In November France and Italy agreed to guarantee each other most-favorednation treatment in Morocco and in Libya.

ASIATIC RELATIONS.—The delay of negotiations for the conclusion of the six-power loan (see last RECORD, p. 733) kept the Chinese government in continued financial difficulties, which were only temporarily relieved in February by an advance of $3,750,000 by London bankers. On March 18 the new administration in the United States withdrew its support from the international banking group (see intra, p. 355). The remaining five powers concluded on April 26 a loan of $125,000,000.-In anticipation of the opening of the Chinese National Assembly on April 8, the United States, on April 2, invited the other powers to join in recognizing the Republic of China. On May 1 the American chargé d'affaires at Pekin presented from President Wilson "a greeting of welcome to the new China."' -The Russo-Mongolian treaty of November 7, whereby Russia agreed to support the autonomy of outer Mongolia, aroused considerable anti-Russian war-spirit in China. The massing of several thousand soldiers at Tsitsikar gave rise to rumors that the rebellious khutukhta of Mongolia would be coerced, but the troops were destined merely to combat roving bands of outlaws in inner Mongolia.-The Chinese attempt to regain control of Tibet was a failure. The few Chinese troops still operating in Tibet were repeatedly worsted. After replying on December 23 in an unsatisfactory manner to the British note of August 17 (see last RECORD, p. 733), the Chinese government sent Went Sung Yao to London to defend Chinese intentions with regard to Tibet.-Meanwhile the khutukhta of Mongolia and the dalai lama of Tibet had formed an alliance on January 21 for mutual protection, for the defense of Buddhism and for the furtherance of trade relations. Persistent rumors that Russia and Great Britain were conniving to alienate the two western provinces from China took surprising form in the semiofficial announcement by the Peking Daily News of a secret Anglo-Russian treaty for mutual support in the English exploitation of Tibetan mines and in the Russian construction of branch lines of the Urga railway. Dr. Sun Yat-sen led a vigorous campaign for determined resistance to foreign ag