LAND & WATER 
December 26, 1917 
followed. At IcugUi the matter could not be put oft auy longer, 
and when the present Chancellor was appointed, one of the 
conditions to which he submitted was to introduce a demo- 
cratic franchise in Prussia. He has delivered the giods and 
the Bill is being discussed in the Diet. But the Conser\-atives 
have declared war to the death against the measure. They wil 
save the Crown from itself. If the Bill became law, it would 
mean the end of " Prussian Tradition " and the break-up 
of the German Empire. 
In view of these opinions, it is of interest to know what 
the SociaUsts think of it all. Their sentiments wxnc voiced ni 
a speech by Hcrr Strobel ; one or two extracts will sufficienth' 
indicate the tenor of his remarks and §i\-e a glimpso of the 
populai- feeling in Germany 1 
Peace would come quickly if only Russia and Germany 
were so shaped that they might take their place among civilized 
nations. 
What brought this terrible calamity (the war) upon the 
country ? The thoughtlessness of the Government and the 
parties which did not skrink from the incredible ultimatum 
to Serbia. 
T am not inciting to Revolution ; Revolution will come of its 
own accord when the time for it is ripe. But you will make 
it ripe if you continue the war much longer. Who among you 
would have beUeved that we should carry oii the submarine 
war for a whole year without any tangible success? 
The German people does not want to be a pariah ; it desires 
to make its peace with the world as a free people, determining 
its own destiny. 
M Caillaux— II 
By J. Goudurier de Chassaigne 
Last iBcek the ivrUer of this brief sketch of M. Caillaux 
political career described personal interviews he had, tvith 
him at the time of the Aa^iir crisis in iqii. He then re- 
viexved M. Caillaux' public career, taking it up to 19^2 
ichen, being Minister of !■ inane e, he retired on M.Waldeck 
Rousseau resigning the Premiership on account of ill-health. 
fk LTHOUGH jr. Caillaux retired in 1902 and was out 
/^ of office until October, 1906 he was not inactive in 
Z_3^ the Chamber of Deputies. He had by that time 
J^ JLbecomc one of the stalwarts of the Radical- 
Socialist party, and a master in the art of intrigue against 
the different Ministries and the leading politicians who still 
barred his way. It was in 1906, as Minister of Finance in 
the Clemenceau Cabinet, that he appears to have finally re- 
nounced the dearest traditions of the jModerate Republicans, 
when he successfully piloted through the Chamber of Deputies 
the Income Tax Bill, which had become one of the cries of the 
Radical-Socialist party. But as it appeared from correspon- 
dence subsequently published by M. Calmette in the Figaro, 
M. Caillaux was only playing for the gallery wlien defending 
that financial measure before both Houses. Through his 
clever manoeuvTes, he managed, however, to get that Bill 
rejected by the Senate. On that occasion, as on many 
others, his double dealing had only one object, to help him to 
get on at any price. 
But I have no desire to recount all the disclosures that were 
made by the editor of Le Figaro, my faithful friend and chief, 
M. Gaston Calmette, at the end of 1913, and during the first 
months of 191.1. Suffice it to say that M. Calmette was on 
the eve of publishing documentary evidence relating to the 
notorious swindler Rochette, and extremely compromising 
^ to M. Caillaux, when he was shot by Mme. Caillaux, who, 
di(ftiot shrink from a criminalaction to save, as she imagined, 
her husband's reputation and future. 
By the strange irony of fate, however, she did her husband 
more harm than any of his enemies could ever have done. 
From that day M. Caillaux slipped as it were in the blood of 
his victim, and fell into the mire, possibly never to rise again. 
It was then, with the object of saving Iiis wife from the 
consequences of her crime, that he entered into a compact 
with the ex-convict Vigo-Almereyda. He gave over £3,000 
to the Bonnet Rouge, Vigo's weekly organ, which, on the 
strength of this support, became a daily paper. I need not 
enlarge here on the campaign M. Caillaux and his worthv 
friends started in the press and in political circles to influence 
the Courts of Justice. I confess that for the first time in my 
life I was ashamed of being a Frenchman when I heard that 
a judge and a jury had been found in Paris to connive at the 
miscarriage of justice which resulted in the acquittal of the 
woman who had, in cold blood, murdered Gaston Cahnette. 
Four days after that stain fell upon its fair name, the German 
storm burst upon my country, and in 24 hours the real France, 
the France of the people, proved to the world that it was 
worthy of its ancestors and of its glorious and patriotic 
tradition. 
With regard to M. Caillaux 's poHtical opinions, he had, of 
:our.se. the right, as long as he remained in private life, to 
differ from the majority of his compatriots, and to pretend 
that in his estimation France had more to gain by becoming 
the humble ser\'ant of Germany than by grasping the loyal 
hand extended to her by England. M. Caillaux, alas ! was 
not alone of this opinion ; he had with him the motley crowd 
af naturalised Germans, like his friend Ullman, and the inter- 
national financiers like Rochette, Bolo, with their jackals 
Vigo, Landau, Paix-Seailles, Lcymarie and Malvy. 
The moment M. Caillaux became the head of 'the French 
Government, liis duty was to carry on loyally the policy of 
l::ntente Cordiale with England, which for eight years had 
been the pivot of our diplomacy. W'hat did he do' instead ? 
The following story, the accuracy of whicli I can guarantee, 
throws a sinister light on his conduct towards England during 
the Agadir crisis : . . , 
When France and England were negotiating in perfect agree- 
ment to limit the insolent pretentions of the German Govern- 
ment, Herr \'on Kuhlmann paid a visit to a certain high 
person in the British Foreign Office, and said to him : " We are 
lieading towards disaster. W'ill you not help me in keeping 
the peace of Europe ? " 
" With all my heart," replied the English diplomat. 
" Well, then," replied Kiihlmann, '' why are you inore 
French than the French themselves ? " 
" Not to my knowledge," answered the Englishman. 
" But you know that the French Government is prepared to 
make much more important concessions than you will consent 
to officially ? " 
" Not in the least," insisted the British diplomat, rather 
surprised. 
" Well, then, I cannot understand, it," said von Kiihlmann, 
" for you have never deceived me. However, if England 
continues to adhere to its intractable attitude, it will be im- 
possible for me to believe that you are not trying to influence 
the French Government secretly in your own interests." 
A year later Kiihlmann said "to the same diplomatist : " I 
owe you an apology. I ought never to have doubted your 
word, and I know that you were not aw'arc of the secret 
negotiations of M. Caillaux." 
Poor Gaston Calmette realised long before 1914 that 
Caillaux and his gang of denationalised scoundrels were en- 
dangering the very life of France. He did his utmost to 
warn the country in time, and died in the attempt. 
But what already constituted before August 1914 more than 
a possibility of grave danger, became on the day that war 
started an actual menace to the safety of the State. M. 
Caillaux, as a mere citizen, had the right to be an Anglophobe 
up to August 1914 ; since then, his attitude towards England 
is a real act of treason. And to-day the case of Caillaux and 
hi3 accomplices has ceased to have anything to do with 
politics in the true sense of the word, though at this moment he 
and his partisans are trying their utmost to confuse the 
issues before the bar of public opinion. They hope to drown 
the definite accusation of treason in a general debate on the 
theories of world-politics dear to M. Caillaux. The position 
is, however, clear. France is now called upon to judge a 
man accused of acts of treason which fall under different 
articles of both the civil and the military penal codes. In 
such cases a court martial is the form of justice now applicable 
to all French citizens. Xo exception can be made because 
M. Caillaux once enjoyed the honour of being Premier and 
still belongs to a representative assembly. 
Moreover, the prosecution of M. Caillaux by the military 
Governor of Paris has the unanimous approbation of M. 
Clemenceau's Cabinet. Nor has the accused any more right 
to select his judges than his Parliamentary colleagues have to 
interfere with the normal course of justice. Unlike M.' 
Malvy, M. Caillaux has not appealed in time to the Chamber, 
of Deputies to bring him before the High Court. All that 
assembly could legally do is either to suspend his Parliamentary 
immunity, or to refuse to do so. They have suspended his 
immunity. 
But it is hardly possible to imagine the outcome of such a 
situation of unparalleled gravity for the State. Any 
attempt on the part of the Radical-Socialists to rescue their 
leader from the legal consequences of his actions would in- 
evitably recoil on themselves. Nor does that party, which 
has been identified with so much that is deplorable in the 
political Ufe of France, occupy the position it did in the 
council of the nation. To-day it is a moribund survival of an 
age which is dead, and has nothing in common with the new 
France, the France of Verdun, tlie France of to-morrow-. 
