Agricultural Mechanics Fundamentals

and Applications 7th Edition Herren

Test Bank
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/agricultural-mechanics-fundamentals-and-applications-7th-edition-herren-test-b
ank/
UNIT 8—LAYOUT TOOLS AND PROCEDURES

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. What is the first choice of material used for making cutting tools?
a. cloth c. steel
b. aluminum d. wood

ANS: C
steel

PTS: 1

2. When enlarging a pattern, a _____ of horizontal and vertical lines is drawn over the original pattern.
a. grid c. group
b. marker d. set

ANS: A
grid

PTS: 1

3. When squaring corners, a right triangle has a _____ degree angle.

a. 45 c. 10
b. 180 d. 90

ANS: D PTS: 1

4. What is the traditional unit of measurement for woodworking and metalworking in the United States?
a. meter c. millimeter
b. foot d. inch

ANS: D PTS: 1

5. The sliding T bevel is

a. used to test the accuracy of cuts c. a device used to lay out angles
b. also called the carpenter’s square d. all answers are correct

ANS: C PTS: 1

COMPLETION

1. ____________________ is the second choice of material for use in many layout tools.

ANS: Aluminum

PTS: 1

2. An object is considered ____________________ when it is vertically straight up and down.

 ANS: plumb

PTS: 1

3. Any stretching of a measuring device reduces its ____________________.

ANS: accuracy

PTS: 1

4. One table found on many framing squares helps to calculate the ____________________ feet in a
piece of lumber.

ANS: board

PTS: 1

5. The most modern layout tool is the ____________________.

ANS: computer

PTS: 1

6. A level that uses a strong beam of light is called a(n) ____________________ level.

ANS: laser

PTS: 1

MATCHING

Match the terms with their definitions.

a. layout h. caliper
b. gradations i. gauge
c. craftsperson j. miter
d. linear k. bevel
e. English system l. divider
f. metric system m. scriber
g. tape n. level

1. standard system of measurement in the United States

2. skilled worker
3. used to determine thickness, gap in space, diameter, or pressure of flow
4. to prepare a pattern for future operations
5. used to determine if an object has the same height at two or more points
6. sloping edge
7. an angle
8. flexible measuring device
9. lines or marks
 10. positioned along a line
11. measurement used for scientific work in the United States
12. used to make circles and curved lines—one steel leg and a pencil
13. used to make circles and curved lines—two steel legs
14. used to measure the diameter or thickness of an object

1. ANS: E PTS: 1
2. ANS: C PTS: 1
3. ANS: I PTS: 1
4. ANS: A PTS: 1
5. ANS: N PTS: 1
6. ANS: K PTS: 1
7. ANS: J PTS: 1
8. ANS: G PTS: 1
9. ANS: B PTS: 1
10. ANS: D PTS: 1
11. ANS: F PTS: 1
12. ANS: M PTS: 1
13. ANS: L PTS: 1
14. ANS: H PTS: 1

Match the following measuring devices to their descriptions.

a. tape d. calipers
b. folding rule e. gauges
c. scale

15. a rigid rule of 2 to 8 feet, folds for handling and storage

16. determine a gap or a space in the diameter of material
17. flexible measuring device that rolls into case
18. rigid steel or wooden measuring device
19. measure the thickness or diameter of object

15. ANS: B PTS: 1

16. ANS: E PTS: 1
17. ANS: A PTS: 1
18. ANS: C PTS: 1
19. ANS: D PTS: 1

SHORT ANSWER

1. Why is wood not often used to make tools?

ANS:
It breaks easily and does not wear well.

PTS: 1

2. What is a major disadvantage of using plastics in tool design?

 ANS:
tendency to melt

PTS: 1

3. What was the initial standardized measuring tool used by carpenters?

ANS:
folding rule

PTS: 1

4. What is a square used for?

ANS:
to guide the builder

PTS: 1

5. Why is it so important to take extra care when squaring corners on a large work area?

ANS:
The larger the area, the larger the error can be.

PTS: 1

6. How can you tell whether the four corners of a rectangle are square?

ANS:
Measure the distance diagonally from corners.

PTS: 1

7. What is the procedure used to enlarge a pattern?

ANS:
Create a grid, and re-create the new image in proportion to the old.

PTS: 1

8. What is the CAD program used for?

ANS:
to develop detailed drawings of the project

PTS: 1

9. Explain the function of layout tools.

ANS:
 Layout tools are used for guiding the worker when cutting, sawing, drilling, shaping, or fastening. A
pattern is prepared for future operations.

PTS: 1

10. Name three techniques used to make a pattern.

ANS:
Three techniques for making a pattern are tracing, drawing, or using carbon paper between picture and
a piece of heavy paper.

PTS: 1

11. How is a chalk line used?

ANS:
A chalk line is a cord with chalk applied to it. When the cord is stretched and snapped it leaves a thin
trail of chalk to mark straight lines.

PTS: 1

12. What is the U.S. Customary System?

ANS:
The U.S. Customary System is the standard system of measurement in the United States.

PTS: 1

13. Approximately how many tools are combined in a combination square? Describe each.

ANS:
There are about seven tools in a combination square. This square has two bubbles, one for leveling and
one for plumbing objects, a removable blade for a steel scale and depth gauge, an ordinary square for a
miter square, a scriber, and special heads that make the tool useful for finding the center of round
sects.

PTS: 1

14. Describe two instruments used to make circles and other curved lines.

ANS:
Dividers and scribers are used to make circles and other curved lines. The scriber has one steel leg and
a pencil for the other leg. The divider has two sharp legs.

PTS: 1

15. Discuss one advantage and one disadvantage to plastic measuring devices.

ANS:
One advantage of plastic measuring devices is that they are tough and lightweight. They can be
molded into any shape and are cheap to produce. A disadvantage of plastic measuring devices is their
tendency to melt if touched by a hot object or flame. Also, plastics can be damaged by solvents.

PTS: 1
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
active list of the army, having been brought by M. Cavaignac
before a Court-martial sitting with closed doors—his offence
not disclosed, but conceived to be his anti-patriotic
correspondence with a Mme. de Boulancy. A like fate has
befallen Colonel Du Paty de Clam from a similar Court-martial
instituted by M. Cavaignac's successor, his offence likewise
not disclosed, but presumed to be improper communication of
official secrets to Commandant Esterhazy. …

"However, notwithstanding the confession of Colonel Henry, M.

Cavaignac insisted that Captain Dreyfus was guilty, and
refused consent to revision. The Cabinet not acceding to this
view, M. Cavaignac resigns the Ministry of War, and is
succeeded by General Zurlinden, then military Governor of
Paris. General Zurlinden asks first to be allowed time to
study the dossier, and after a week's study and communication
with the War Office staff he also declares his opposition to
revision, retires from the Ministry of War, and resumes his
post of Governor of Paris. With him also retires one other
member of the Cabinet. Then the Minister of Justice takes the
first formal step in referring the matter to a legal
Commission, the technical question at issue appearing to be
whether the confession by Colonel Henry—a witness in the
case—of a forgery committed by him subsequently to the
conviction with a view to its confirmation might be considered
either as a new fact in the case or as equivalent to a
conviction for forgery, so as to justify an application to the
Cour de Cassation for revision. The Commission were divided in
opinion, and the matter would have fallen to the ground if the
Cabinet had not decided to take the matter into their own
hands and apply to the Court direct. This has now been done;
the Court is making preliminary inquiries, and will then
decide whether revision in some form may be allowed or a new
trial ordered.

"With regard to Colonel Picquart, his public challenge of the

documents put forward in the speech of the Minister of War was
followed three days afterwards by an order of the Cabinet
directing the Minister of War to set the Minister of Justice
in motion with a view that he should be criminally prosecuted
in a non-military Court for communication of secret
documents—the same offence as that for which he had been
punished by the Court-martial early in the year by removal
from the active list of the army—and M. Leblois was to be
prosecuted with him as an accomplice. On the 13th of July
Colonel Picquart is put into prison to await his trial, M.
Leblois being left at large. The prison was a civil prison,
where he was allowed to communicate with his legal advisor.
… On September 21 Colonel Picquart is taken from his prison to
the Court for his trial. The Government Prosecutor rises and
asks for an indefinite postponement on the ground that the
military authorities are about to bring him before a military
Court for forgery. … The military prosecution for forgery was
ordered, and on the strength of it the Correctional Court
acceded to the application for indefinite postponement of the
other case of which it was seised; the military authorities
claimed to take the prisoner out of the hands of the Civil
authorities, and the Correctional Court acquiesced. Then it
was that Colonel Picquart broke out—'This, perhaps, is the
last time my voice will be heard in public. It will be easy
for me to justify myself as to the petit-bleu. I shall perhaps
spend to-night in the Cherche-Midi (military) Prison, but I am
anxious to say if I find in my cell the noose of
Lemercier-Picard, or the razor of Henry, it will be an
assassination. I have no intention of committing suicide.' The
same or the next day Colonel Picquart was removed to the
Cherche-Midi Prison, there to await his Court-martial, which
is not expected yet for some weeks. He is not permitted to
communicate with his legal advisor or anyone else."

G. Lushington,
The Dreyfus Case
(London Times, October 13, 1898).
{232}

Late in October (1898) the Court of Cassation decided that it

found ground for proceeding to a supplementary investigation
in the case of Captain Dreyfus, but not for the suspension
meantime of the punishment be was undergoing. On the 15th of
November it decided that the prisoner should be informed by
telegraph of the pending revision proceedings, in order that
he might prepare his defense. The Court was now endeavoring to
secure possession of the secret documents (known as the
"Dreyfus dossier") on which the conviction of the accused was
said to have been really founded. For some time the war office
seemed determined to withhold them; but at length, late in
December, the dossier was turned over, under pledges of strict
secrecy as to the documents contained. Showing still further a
disposition to check the doings of the military authorities,
the Court of Cassation, in December, ordered a suspension of
proceedings in the military court against Colonel Picquart,
and demanded all documents in his case for examination by
itself.

Attacks were now made on the Court which had thus ventured to
interfere with the secret doings of the army chiefs. Suddenly,
on the 8th of January (1899), the president of the civil
section of the Court, M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire, resigned his
office and denounced his recent colleagues as being in a
conspiracy to acquit Dreyfus and dishonor the army. This, of
course, was calculated to stimulate anti-Dreyfus excitement
and furnish ground for challenging the final decision of the
Court, if it should be favorable to a new trial for the
imprisoned Captain. It also delayed proceedings in the case,
leading to the enactment of a law requiring all cases of
revision to be tried by the united sections of the Court of
Cassation. This act took the Dreyfus case from the 16 judges
of the criminal section and committed it to the whole 48
judges of the Court.
Major Esterhazy had taken refuge in England. On the 2d of June
he went to the office of the London "Chronicle" and made the
following confession for publication: "The chiefs of the army
have disgracefully abandoned me. My cup is full, and I shall
speak out. Yes, it was I who wrote the bordereau. I wrote it
upon orders received from Sandherr. They (the chiefs of the
general staff) will lie, as they know how to lie; but I have
them fast. I have proofs that they knew the whole thing and
share the responsibility with me, and I will produce the
proofs." Immediately it was said that he had been bribed by
the friends of Dreyfus to take the crime upon himself.

On the day following this confession, the decision of the

Court of Cassation was announced. Meantime, the newspaper
"Figaro" had, by some means, been able to obtain and publish
the testimony which the Court had taken with closed doors, and
had thus revealed the flimsiness and the contradictoriness of
the grounds on which the officers of the Army Staff based
their strenuous assertions that they had positive knowledge of
the guilt of Dreyfus. This had great influence in preparing
the public mind for the decision of the Court when announced.
On grounds relating to the bordereau, to the document which
contained the expression "ce canaille de D.," and to the
alleged confession of Dreyfus,—leaving aside all other
questions of evidence,—the judgment as delivered declared that
"the court quashes and annuls the judgment of condemnation
pronounced on December 22, 1894, against Alfred Dreyfus by the
first court-martial of the Military Government of Paris, and
remits the accused to the court-martial of Rennes, named by
special deliberation in council chamber, to be tried on the
following question:—Is Dreyfus guilty of having in 1894
instigated machinations or held dealings with a foreign power
or one of its agents in order to incite it to commit
hostilities or undertake war against France by furnishing it
with the notes and documents enumerated in the bordereau? and
orders the prescribed judgment to be printed and transcribed
on the registers of the first court-martial of the Military
Government of Paris in the margin of the decision annulled."
Captain Dreyfus was taken immediately from his prison on
Devil's Island and brought by a French cruiser to France,
landing at Quiberon on the 1st of July and being taken to
Rennes, where arrangements for the new military trial were
being made.

The new court-martial trial began at Rennes on the 7th of

August. When it had proceeded for a week, and had reached what
appeared to be a critical point—the opening of a
cross-examination of General Mercier by the counsel for
Dreyfus—M. Labori, the leading counsel for the defense, was
shot as he walked the street, by a would-be assassin who
escaped. Fortunately, the wound he received only disabled him
for some days, and deprived the accused of his presence and
his powerful service in the court at a highly important time.
The trial, which lasted beyond a month, was a keen
disappointment in every respect. It probed none of the
sinister secrets that are surely hidden somewhere in the black
depths of the extraordinary case. In the judgment of all
unimpassioned watchers of its proceeding, it disclosed no
proof of guilt in Dreyfus. On the other hand, it gave no
opportunity for his innocence to be distinctly shown.
Apparently, there was no way in which the negative of his
non-guiltiness could be proved except by testimony from the
foreign agents with whom he was accused of having treasonable
dealings: but that testimony was barred out by the court,
though the German and Italian governments gave permission to
the counsel for Dreyfus to have it taken by commission.
Outside of France, at least, the public verdict may be said to
have been unanimous, that the whole case against Captain
Dreyfus, as set forth by the heads of the French army, in
plain combination against him, was foul with forgeries, lies,
contradictions and puerilities, and that nothing to justify
his condemnation had been shown. But the military court, on
the 9th of September, by a vote of five judges against two,
brought in a verdict of Guilty, with "extenuating
 circumstances" (as though any circumstances could extenuate
the guilt of an actual crime like that of which Dreyfus was
accused), and sentenced him to imprisonment in a fortress for
ten years, from which term the years of his past imprisonment
would be taken out.
{233}
Mr. G. W. Steevens, the English newspaper correspondent, who
attended the trial and has written the best account of it,
makes the following comment on the verdict, which sums up all
that needs to be said: "In a way, the most remarkable feature
about the verdict of Rennes was the proportion of the votes.
When it had been over a few hours, and numb brains had relaxed
to thought again, it struck somebody that on the very first
day the very first motion had been carried by five to two. The
next and next and all of them had been carried by five to two.
Now Dreyfus was condemned by five to two. The idea—the
staggering idea—dropped like a stone into the mind, and spread
in widening circles till it filled it with conviction.
Everyone of the judges had made up his mind before a single
word of evidence had been heard. The twenty-seven days, the
hundred-and-something witnesses, the baskets of documents, the
seas of sweat and tears—they were all utterly wasted. … The
verdict was, naturally, received with a howl of indignation,
and to endeavour to extenuate the stupid prejudice—that at
least, if not cowardly dishonesty—of the five who voted
against the evidence is not likely to be popular with
civilized readers. Yet it may be said of them in
extenuation—if it is any extenuation—that they only did as
almost any other five Frenchmen would have done in their
place. Frenchmen are hypnotized by the case of Dreyfus, as
some people are hypnotized by religion; in its presence they
lose all mental power and moral sense." The army chiefs had
had their way; the stain of their condemnation had been kept
upon Dreyfus; but the government of France was magnanimous
enough to punish him no more. His sentence was remitted by the
President, and he was set free, a broken man.
FRANCE: A. D. 1898.
State of the French Protectorate of Tunis.

See (in this volume)

TUNIS: A. D. 1881-1898.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April).

Lease of Kwangchow Wan from China.
Railway and other concessions exacted.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April-December).

In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May).

Demands on China consequent on the murder of a missionary.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MAY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May-November).

General Elections.
Fall of the Ministry of M. Meline.
Brief Ministry of M. Brisson, struggling with
the Dreyfus question.
Coalition Cabinet of M. Dupuy.

General elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held

throughout France on Sunday, May 8, with a second balloting on
Sunday, May 22, in constituencies where the first had resulted
in no choice. Of the 584 seats to be filled, the Progressive
Republicans secured only 225, so that the Ministry of M.
Méline could count with no certainty on the support of a
majority in the Chamber. It was brought to a downfall in the
following month by a motion made by M. Bourgeois, in the
following words: "The Chamber determines to support only a
Ministry relying exclusively on a Republican majority." This
was carried by a majority of about fifty votes, and on the
next day the Ministry resigned. It was succeeded by a Radical
cabinet, under M. Henri Brisson, after several unsuccessful
attempts to form a Conservative government. By announcing that
it would not attempt to carry out a Radical programme in some
important particulars, the Brisson Ministry secured enough
support to maintain its ground for a time; but there were
fatal differences in its ranks on the burning Dreyfus
question, as well as on other points. M. Cavaignac, Minister
of War, was bitterly opposed to a revision of the Dreyfus
ease, which the Premier and M. Bourgeois (now Minister of
Public Instruction) were understood to favor. M. Cavaignac
soon placed himself in an extremely embarrassing position by
reading to the Chamber certain documents which he put forward
as absolute proofs of the guilt of Dreyfus, but of which one
was shown presently to have been forged, while another had no
relation to the case. He accordingly resigned (September 4),
and General Zurlinden took his place. But Zurlinden, too,
resigned a few days later, when a determination to revise the
trial of Dreyfus was reached. The government was then exposed
to a new outburst of fury in the anti-Dreyfus factions, and
all the enemies of the Republic became active in new
intrigues. The Orleanists bestirred themselves with fresh
hopes, and the old Boulangist conspirators revived their
so-called Patriotic League, with M. Déroulède at its head. At
the same time dangerous labor disturbances occurred in Paris,
threatening a complete paralysis of railway communications as
well as of the industries of the capital. The Ministry faced
its many difficulties with much resolution; but it failed of
support in the Chamber, when that body met in October, and it
resigned. A coalition cabinet was then formed, with M. Charles
Dupuy in the presidency of the council, and M. de Freycinet as
 Minister of War.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (June).

The Sugar Conference at Brussels.

See (in this volume)

SUGAR BOUNTIES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (September-November).

The Nile question with England.
Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.

See (in this volume)

EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899.
Demands upon China for attacks on Missions in Szechuan.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899 (JUNE-JANUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899.
Demand on China for extension of settlement at Shanghai.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June).

Convention with England defining possessions in West
and North Africa.
The great Empire in the Sudan and Sahara.

See (in this volume)

NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (February-June).

Death of President Faure.
 Election of President Loubet.
Revolutionary attempts of "Nationalist" agitators.
The Ministry of M. Waldeck-Rousseau.

Felix Faure, President of the French Republic, died suddenly

on the 16th of February,—a victim, it is believed, of the
excitements and anxieties of the Dreyfus affair. The situation
thus produced was so sobering in its effect that the
Republican factions were generally drawn together for the
moment, and acted promptly in filling the vacant executive.
{234}
The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies were convened in joint
session, as a National Assembly, at Versailles, on the 18th,
and Emile Loubet, then President of the Senate, was chosen to
the presidency of the Republic on its first ballot, by 483
votes, against 279 for M. Meline, and 45 for M. Cavaignac. At
the funeral of the late President Faure, which occurred on the
23d, the pestilential Déroulède and his fellow
mischief-makers, with their so-called "League of Patriots,"
"League de Patrie Française," and party of "Nationalists,"
attempted to excite the troops to revolt, but without success.
Déroulède and others were arrested for this treasonable
attempt. During some months the enemies of the Republic were
active and violent in hostility to President Loubet, and the
cabinet which he inherited from his predecessor was believed
to lack loyalty to him. On the 4th of June, while attending
the steeple-chase races at Auteuil, he was grossly insulted,
and even struck with a cane, by a party of young royalists,
the leader of whom, Count Christiani, who struck the shameful
blow, was sentenced afterwards to imprisonment for four years.
The Ministry of the day was considered to be responsible for
these disorders, and, on the 12th of June, a resolution was
passed in the Chamber to the effect that it would support only
a government that was determined to defend republican
institutions with energy and preserve public order. Thereupon
the Ministry of M. Dupuy resigned, and a new cabinet was
formed with much difficulty by M. Waldeck-Rousseau. It
 included a radical Socialist, M. Millerand, who became
Minister of Commerce, and a resolute and honest soldier, the
Marquis de Gallifet, as Minister of War. The latter promptly
cleared the way for more independent action in the government,
by removing several troublesome generals from important
commands. The new Ministry assumed the name of the "Government
of Republican Defense," and offered a front to the enemies of
the Republic which plainly checked their attacks. M. Déroulède
and some of his fellow conspirators were brought to trial
before the Court of Assizes, and acquitted.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May).

New Convention with Siam.

See (in this volume)

SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May-July).

Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume)

PEACE CONFERENCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (July).

Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (December).

Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial
policy in China.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1900 (August-January).

Arrest and trial of revolutionary conspirators.

In August, 1899, the government, having obtained good evidence

that treasonable plans for the overthrow of the Republic had
been under organization for several months, in the various
royalist, anti-Semitic, and so-called "Patriotic" leagues,
caused the arrest of a number of the leaders implicated, the
irrepressible Paul Déroulède being conspicuous among them. The
president of the Anti-Semitic League, M. Guérin, with a number
of his associates, barricaded themselves at the headquarters of
the League and defied arrest, evidently expecting a mob rising
in Paris if they were attacked. Serious rioting did occur on
the 20th of August; but the government prudently allowed
Guérin and his party to hold their citadel until the ending of
the excitements of the Dreyfus trial; then, on the showing of
a serious determination to take it by force, they gave
themselves up. The trial of the conspirators was begun in
September, before the Senate, sitting as a high court of
Justice, and continued at intervals until the following
January. Déroulède conducted himself with characteristic
insolence, and received two sentences of imprisonment, one for
three months and the other for two years, on account of
outrageous attacks on the Senate and on the President of the
Republic. These were additional to a final sentence to ten
years of banishment for his treasonable plotting, which he
shared with one fellow conspirator. Guérin was condemned to
ten years imprisonment in a fortified place. The remainder of
the accused were discharged with the exception of one who had
escaped arrest, and who was convicted in his absence. The
trial, wrote the Paris correspondent of the "London Times,"
"showed how strange a thing was this motley conspiracy between
men who had but one common bond of sympathy, namely, the
desire to upset the Republic,—men from whom the Bonapartist,
another variety of anti-Republican conspirators, had held
aloof. The latter fancied themselves sufficiently represented
in the conspiracy by the plebiscitary party [of Déroulède]
whose accession to office would have been tantamount to the
 success of Imperialism. … The condemnation of these
conspirators of varied aspirations proved that the Nationalist
party was a mere conglomeration of ambitions which would end
in every form of violence if ever the conspirators were called
upon to share the booty. The harm that they have already done,
even before they have made themselves masters of France, shows
that the danger which they constitute to their country is
infinitely greater than the danger with which it was menaced
by Boulangism, for then at least at the moment of victory all
the ambitions would have been concentrated round a single
will, however mediocre that will, and General Boulanger would
at all events have been a rallying flag for the conspirators
visible all over France. The Nationalism condemned by the
Court in its various personifications has not even a head
around which at the moment of action the accomplices could be
grouped. It is confusion worse confounded. If it succeeded in
its aims it could only avoid at home the consequences of its
incoherent policy by some desperate enterprise abroad. The
judgment of the High Court, by restoring tranquillity in the
streets, preserved France from the dangers towards which she
was hastening, and which were increased, consciously or
unconsciously, by auxiliaries at the head of the executive
office. But owing to the verdict of the High Court France had
time to pull herself together, to breathe more easily, and to
take the necessary resolutions to secure tranquillity. The
approach of the Exhibition imposed upon everyone a kind of
truce, and M. Déroulède himself, with an imprudence of which
he is still feeling the consequences, declared that he would
return to France when once the Exhibition was over."

{235}

In a speech which he made subsequently, at San Sebastian, his

place of exile, Déroulède declared that the "coup d'état"
prepared by his party of revolutionists for the 23d of
February, 1899, on the occasion of the funeral of President
Faure (see above), was frustrated because he refused, at the
 last moment, to permit it to be used in the interest of the
Duke of Orleans. "The following day," he said, "between midday
and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, a mysterious hand had upset all
the preparations made, the position of the troops, their
dislocation, their order and the officers commanding them, and
the same evening Marcel Habert and myself were arrested." The
intimation of his speech seemed to be that the hand in the
government which changed the position of the troops and upset
the revolutionary plot would not have done so if the royalists
had been taken into it.

Soon after the conclusion of the conspiracy trials, the

superior and eleven monks of the Order of the Assumptionist
Fathers, who had appeared to be mixed up in the plot, were
brought to account as an illegal association, and their
society was dissolved.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1901.
The Newfoundland French Shore question.

See (in this volume)

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Military and naval expenditure.

See (in this volume)

WAR BUDGETS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Naval strength.

See (in this volume)

NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January).

Elections to the Senate.
 Elections to the French Senate, on the 28th of January,
returned 61 Republicans, 6 Liberal Republicans, 18 Radicals, 7
Socialists, 4 Monarchists, and 3 Nationalists. "The Radicals
are as they were. The Socialists have just gained an entrance
to the Senate, and to this they were entitled by the large and
solid Socialist vote throughout France. The great mass of
solid and sensible Republicans have not only held their
ground, but have increased and solidified their position. The
reactionaries, whether avowed Monarchists, or supporters of
the Déroulède movement, have made one or two merely formal
gains, but have really fallen back, from the point of view of
their pretensions, and the long list of candidates they put
forward. On the whole, we may fairly say that the solid, sober
Republican vote of France has proved that it is in the ascendant.
Once more, in a deeper sense than he meant, the verdict of M.
Thiers has, for the moment at any rate, been verified,—that
France is really at bottom Left Centre. That is to say, the
nation is for progress, but for progress divested of vague
revolutionary pretensions, of mere a priori dogmas as to what
Republican progress involves. In the main the nation seems to
have supported the Government in repelling the aggressive
attacks of unbridled Clericalism, and in rejecting the
pretensions of the Army to dictate French politics. On the
other hand, the mass of the French electors do not desire a
crusade against the Roman Catholic Church, and they do not
care for an indiscriminate attack on the French Army."

The Spectator (London),

February 3, 1900.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January-March).

The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (April-November).
The Paris Exposition.

The Paris Exposition of 1900, which exceeded all previous

"world's fairs" in extent and in the multitude of its
visitors, was formally opened on the 14th of April, but with
unfinished preparations, and closed on the 12th of November.
The reported attendance during the whole period of the
Exposition was 48,130,301, being very nearly double the
attendance at the Exposition of 1889. The total receipts of
money were 114,456,213 francs, and total expenditures
116,500,000 francs, leaving a deficit of 2,044,787 francs. But
France and Paris are thought to have profited greatly,
notwithstanding. Forty countries besides France took part in
the preparations and were officially represented. The number
of exhibitors was 75,531; the awards distributed were 42,790
in number. The buildings erected for the Exposition numbered
more than 200, including 36 official pavilions erected by
foreign governments. The ground occupied extended on each side
of the Seine for a distance of nearly two miles, comprising,
besides the quays on each side of the river, the Champ de
Mars, the Esplanade des Invalides, the Trocadero Gardens, and
part of the Champs Elysées.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (June-December).

Co-operation with the Powers in China.

See (in this volume)

CHINA.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (August).

Annexation of the Austral Islands.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRAL ISLANDS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (September).

 The centenary of the Proclamation of the French Republic.
A gigantic banquet.

On the 22d of September, the centenary of the proclamation of

the French Republic was celebrated in Paris by a gigantic
banquet given by President Loubet, accompanied by his
Ministers, to the assembled Mayors of France, gathered from
near and far. Some 23,000 guests sat down to the déjeuner, for
which a temporary structure had been prepared in the Tuileries
Gardens. It was a triumphant demonstration of the culinary
resources of Paris; but it had more important objects. It was
a political demonstration, organized by the President of the
Republic, in concert with the Cabinet of M. Waldeck-Rousseau,
as a check to certain schemes of the Paris Nationalists,
against the government. It brought the municipal
representatives of the provinces to the capital to show the
array of their feeling for the Republic against that of the
noisy demagogues of the capital. It was a striking success.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (October).

Proposal of terms for negotiation
with the Chinese government.

See (in this volume)

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December).

The Amnesty Bill.

With the object of making it impossible for the enemies of the

Republic to find such opportunity for a revival of the
dangerous Dreyfus controversy as any new trial of its issues
would give them, the French government, in December,
accomplished the passage of an amnesty bill, which purges
everybody connected with the affair, so far as legal
proceedings are concerned. The measure was strenuously opposed
by the friends of Dreyfus, Picquart and Zola, none of whom are
 willing to be left unvindicated by law, nor willing to be
barred from future proceedings against some of the army staff.
It was also fought by the mischievous factions which wish to
keep the Dreyfus quarrel alive for purposes of disorderly
excitement.
{236}
The policy of the measure, from the governmental standpoint,
was thus described at the time it was pending: The Cabinet
"felt that this affair had done great injury to France, that
it was a dangerous weapon in the hands of all the conspirators
against the Republic, that no Court-martial would agree to
acquit Dreyfus, even though convinced of his innocence, and
that, in view of the futility of any attempt to secure an
acquittal, it was necessary to avoid danger to the Republic by
reopening the affair. France had already suffered irreparable
mischief from it. … The affair has falsified the judgment and
opinion of the army, so that it has no longer a clear notion
of its duty at home. In external affairs it is still always
ready to march to the defence of the country, but as to its
duties at home it is in a state of deplorable confusion. …
Considering that the Dreyfus affair has so armed the
adversaries of the Government that it cannot be sure of the
army in internal matters, the Cabinet, it is evident, could
not allow that affair to remain open and produce anarchy. On
the other hand, there was a prosecution pending against M.
Zola, who, it was clearly proved to all, was right in his
famous letter 'J'accuse.' There was a prosecution against
Colonel Picquart, who had sacrificed a brilliant future in the
defence of truth against falsehood. There was likewise a
prosecution against M. Joseph Reinach, who had accused Henry
of having been a traitor or the accomplice of a traitor. I do
not know how far Dr. Reinach had proofs of his allegations,
but these three prosecutions were so closely connected with
the Dreyfus case that, if they had been allowed to go on, that
affair, which was so dangerous to tranquillity, security, and
order, would be reopened. Now the Government will not at any
cost allow the affair to be reopened. The whole Amnesty Bill
 hinges on this question. The Government agrees to amnesty
everybody except the persons condemned by the High Court, and
who continue to defy it. … It insists on these three
prosecutions being struck off the rolls of the Tribunals. This
is the whole question. Nothing else in the eyes of the
Government is essential, but it will not allow the further
serious mischief which would result from the reopening of the
affair. The Bill will not stop the civil proceedings against
MM. Zola, Picquart, and Reinach, but such proceedings do not
cause the same excitement as criminal prosecutions. If the
latter are stopped, the dangers occasioned by the confusion in
the spirit of the army will disappear, and it may then be
hoped that the excitement will calm down."

M. Zola protested vigorously against the Amnesty Bill, and, on

its passage, wrote an open letter to the President in which he
said: "I shall not cease repeating that the affair cannot
cease as long as France does not know and repair the
injustice. I said that the fourth act was played at Rennes and
that there would have to be a fifth act. Anxiety remains in my
heart. The people of France always forget that the Kaiser is
in possession of the truth, which he may throw in our face
when the hour strikes. Perhaps he has already chosen his time.
This would be the horrible fifth act which I have always
dreaded. The French Government should not for one hour accept
such a terrible contingency."

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December).

Award in the arbitration of French Guiana boundary
dispute with Brazil.

See (in this volume)

BRAZIL: A. D. 1900.

FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
The Bill on Associations.
A measure to place the Religious Orders under strict
regulations of law, and to limit their possession of property.

In a speech delivered at Toulouse on the 28th of October,

1900, the French Prime Minister, M. Waldeck-Rousseau,
announced the intention of the government to bring forward, at
the next session of the Chambers, a measure of critical
importance and remarkable boldness, being no less than the
project of a law (called in general terms a "Bill on
Associations ) for the stringent regulation and restriction of
the religious orders in France,—especially for the restriction
of their acquisition and ownership of property. Forecasting
the measure in that speech, he said: "The question is the
rendering free, and subject only to the common law, all the
associations which are in themselves lawful as regards the
safety of the State. Another object of the same Bill is to
cope with the peril which arises from the continuous
development in a Democratic society of an organism which,
according to a famous definition, the merit of which is due to
our old Parliaments, 'tends to introduce into the State under
the specious veil of a religions institution a political
corporation the object of which is to arrive first at complete
independence and then at the usurpation of all authority.' I
am filled with no sectarian spirit, but merely with the spirit
which dominated as well the policy of the Revolution as the
entire historical policy of France. The fundamental statute
determining the relations between the churches and the State
should be exactly applied so long as it has not been altered,
and we have always interpreted its spirit with the broadest
tolerance. But as things are now going, what will remain of
this pact of reciprocal guarantees? It had been exclusively
confined to the secular clergy owing hierarchic obedience to
their superiors and to the State and to questions of worship,
the preparation for ecclesiastical functions and preaching in
the churches. And, now, lo and behold, we find religious
orders teaching in the seminaries, the pulpit usurped by the
missions, and the Church more and more menaced by the chapel.
The dispersed but not suppressed religious communities cover