Evening Republican, Volume 19, Number 165, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 July 1915 — UTMOST MISERY GRIPS MASS OF THE ROUMANIANS [ARTICLE]

UTMOST MISERY GRIPS MASS OF THE ROUMANIANS

Four-Fifths of the People of Balkan Country Are Doomed to Beggary. NATION RUN FOR THE RICH Uprising of 1907, In Which 12,000 Peasants Were Slaughtered, Ac- . complished Little—Political Rights Only Nominal —War Interrupts Reforms. By RAYMOND E. SWING. Correspondent of the Chicago News. Bucharest, Roumania. Roumania was the scene in 1907 of a peasant insurrection, details of whose extent and suppression may never be known. Hundreds of dwellings were burned by the peasants, many middlemen and landowners were killed, and it is estimated that 12,000 peasants were slaughtered In the struggle to reestablish order. The governing classes of Roumania were willing that the world should believe that the peasants’ rebellion was against the Jewish middlemen, but, though Jews were attacked in the uprising, the outrages in districts where no Jews lived were as frequent as in the regions where they were numerous. The revolution was not racial, it was economic. It was a revolt against degradation and starvation. Eight years have elapsed since the revolution, and as there is a considerable discussion just now of Roumania’s right to rule over Roumanians residing in other countries, it is pertinent to Inquire into the causes of the revolt and into the changes the revolt brought about Four-Fifths “Doomed to Beggary.” It was the liberal minister, Vasile Lascar, who, in the days of the revolution, announced to the chamber that four-fifths of the Roumanian peasantry “suffer chronic hunger and are condemned to beggary.” Other information concerning Roumanian conditions is drawn also from Roumanian sources, chiefly from articles written in 1907 by M. Branestianu, editor of Adeverul, and brought up to data in personal conversation with that able and democratic journalist. According to statistics given by M. Branestianu, in 1905 the arable land of Roumania was so divided that 920,939 peasants owned 46 per cent, while 5,000 landowners had 54 per cent. Of the 5,000 landowners, 2,071 owned nearly a million peasants. The system was almost feudal. Gift*'of Land Fall to Aid. The government has tried to remedy this situation by giving away crown'lands, and though a million hectares (a hectare is about two and a half acres) were distributed, it developed that the peasants themselves were in such a state of degradation that barely half administered what land they owned, while still close to half a million remained with no whatsoever. The problem was not one to be settled by redistribution alone. The real aim was to find some solution by which conditions of labor could be so improved that the peasant would receive a living wage and be < so raised from helplessness that he could do something when he at last had land at his disposal. The middleman system prevailing in Moldavia, the northern province of Roumania, was the cause of bitter complaint from the peasantry. The capitalist owning the land leased to the middleman, the latter dealt with the peasantry. Sweatshop Applied to Farming. Now in the last 20 years the area of cultivated land in Roumania had steadily increased, as had the prices obtained for farm products. The capitalist increased the rates which the middleman paid him, and the middleman in turn had to wring the Increase from tbs peasants. The same middle-.

man who employed the peasant on the capitalist’s lands, forcing him to great toil at small wages, also bought his •products at small prices. It was a sweatshop system applied to farming. The capitalist frequently netted 100 to 120 per cent while the peasant barely sustained life. In good seasons the peasant could raise enough food to keep himself during the winter months, but in bad seasons his plight was pitiful, for then it was that he went to the capitalist for assistance, selling his services at low wages for the coming summer in return for the means of livelihood for the winter. Other System Not Much Fairer. In Wallachia, the southern province, the system was different, but not much fairer. There the peasant paid his rent by working the land of the capitalist. Here is a typical instance: The peasant has six hectares to care for. Of these two hectares are for the capitalist and he gets everything which comes therefrom, and the capitalist’s hectares are, of course, the best land. On two hectares the peasant donates partial service, undertaking the mowing, harvesting and hauling. The peasant gets a maximum of four decaliters (1,136 bushels) of grain from these two hectares, the capitalist gets the rest. In addition, the peasant pledges himself to four days’ teaming, four days’ labor and nine days’ hauling. The peasant, therefore, has to produce the remaining two hectares. The peasant is required to do the capitalist’s work before doing his own. His land being poorer than the capitalist’s, it often happens that he gets only half the profit from his two hectares, which the capitalist makes from his two. And the whole system so works out that the peasant pays In rent from 150 to 200 lei (S3O to S4O) for what costs the capitalist 20 to 30 lei ($4 to $6). Mud Houses for 600,000. The living conditions of the peasantry were appalling. Two hundred and fifty thousand peasants were living In 50,000 holes In the ground, dwellings unfit to be called by any other name. Of 1,000,000 dwellings only 76,000 were of brick, 298,000 were of wood, the rest of mud. Most of these were of one room, where the whole family lived, even with domestic animals. Under these conditions mortality was high, especially infant mortality, which was more than 40 per cent The chief food was polenta, a cornmeal mush, and many peasants had only one meal a day, being unable to spend more than two to three cents per capita daily for food. Epidemics were frequent, especially of pellagra, which resulted from the exclusive consumption of corn. Despite compulsory education, schools were scarce in many regions and many children who otherwise might have attended school were kept at home by their parents, who needed the extra hands In earning the meager family living. M. Branestianu estimated the illiteracy of that time at 84 per cent. To crown It all, the peasants had

practically no political rights. They had nominal representation in the chamber of 36 out of 150 members, though constituting four-fifths of the population. These members were not elected directly, but 50 peasants voted for an elector, who, with his colleagues and with the state-named teachers and priests, chose the members of parliament. Such a system resulted tn much corruption and in the preponderant control of elections by the government, which often put up candidates in districts where these candidates were utterly unknown and elected them through its superiority of power. The land owners controlled, and the government was only a change from faction to faction of land owners, with the peasant left out of any consideration which was not charitably bestowed upon him. Little Change Since Revolution. Such was the Roumanian peasantry in and preceding 1907. What is it today? What did the revolution accomplish? For what did 12,000 peasants lay down their lives? The revolution did much to attract the attention of intelligent Roumanians to the conditions. Two reforms were soon afterward instituted. A system of communal pasture lands was introduced, and these had a beneficial effect in increasing the ownership of live stock among small peasants, which under the former system was impossible. A law passed by which districts were established in which land owners, middlemen and peasants fixed the minimum wage for farm labor. The law has not been in force long enough to show whether it will be a success. The conditions of labor are practically as before. The housing is without Improvement The unequal distribution of land is much as ever. Illiteracy is still very high, probably about 80 per cent, though convincing statistics are lacking. The holding of elementary schools for army recruits is still necessary, but these schools are rapidly reducing illiteracy among young men. The political system of 1907 is still existent and the peasant still lias no proportional voice in his own affairs and no real chance of speaking through the small representation that is allowed him. Roumania is governed by and for the rich, even today. Reforms Interrupted by War. But one still has no right to impugn Roumanla’s good will in this matter. The war interrupted reforms, as it has Interrupted much else. The weighty machinery which amends the Roumanian constitution had been set in motion last year and a constitutional convention had been called, which was to consider and draft an amendment permitting the government to confiscate and partition large estates. This needed legislation it has been necessary to postpone. Reform of the electoral system also was intended. The present liberal government is pledged to carry out these reforms and can be counted upon to do it best when the war is over. But even these reforms did not include the giving of rights to the Jew, who was destined to remain without franchise and the permission to own land. Whether the participation of Roumania in the war on behalf of Roumanians in Transylvania would be justifiable is an unfair question at this time. States/no more than individuals, can put “the house in order” always at the time and in the way they like. It may be that the self-consciousness which the nationalist movement has given to Roumania will spur her on to a worthy solution of internal problems. Perhaps Roumania will emerge from the war, whether she actively participates or not, a stronger, finer, more sober state, facing her duties with a deeper sense of obligation.