Читать книгу The Red Cross in Peace and War - Barton Clara - Страница 32

Table of Contents

I am asked to say something upon the “Significance of the Red Cross in its Relation to Philanthropy.” I am not sure that I understand precisely what is desired.

If a morning paper should announce that three or four of the greatest political bosses or greatest railroad kings in the country had quietly met somewhere, and sat with closed doors till long after midnight, and then silently departed, people would ask, “What is the significance of that? What mischief have they been devising in secret?” In that sense of the word, significance—which is a very common one—the Red Cross has none that I ever heard of. It has no rich offices to bestow, no favorites to reward, no enemies to punish. It has no secrets to keep, no mystic word or sign. Its proceedings would, and do, make a valuable library, accessible to all men and all women from Norway to New Zealand.

I will not say that it is so simple and common in character that he who runs may read, but surely she who desires information can sit down, read and obtain it. The Red Cross has been quietly doing its work for thirty years and is now established in forty independent nations. No other institution on earth, not even Christianity, has a public recognition so nearly universal. None has ever adhered more closely to its one single purpose of alleviating human suffering. Has that any significance or any connection with philanthropy? Let us see.

An institution or reform movement that is not selfish, must originate in the recognition of some evil that is adding to the sum of human suffering, or diminishing the sum of happiness. I suppose it is a philanthropic movement to try to reverse the process. Christianity, temperance and sanitary regulations in general are examples. Great evils die hard; and all that has yet been done is to keep them within as narrow limits as possible. Of these great evils, war is one. War is in its very nature cruel—the very embodiment of cruelty in its effects—not necessarily in the hearts of the combatants. Baron Macaulay thought it not a mitigation but an aggravation of the evil, that men of tender culture and humane feelings, with no ill will, should stand up and kill each other. But men do not go to war to save life. They might save life by keeping the peace and staying at home. They go solely with intent to inflict so much pain, loss and disaster on the enemy that he will yield to their terms. All their powers to hurt are focused upon him.

In a moving army the elements of destruction, armed men and munitions of war, have the right of way; and the means of preserving and sustaining even their own lives are left to bring up the rear as they best can. Hence, when the shock and crash of battle is over, and troops are advancing or retreating and all roads are blocked, and the medical staff trying to force its way through with supplies, prompt and adequate relief can scarcely ever reach the wounded. The darkness of night comes down upon them like a funeral pall, as they lie in their blood, tortured with thirst and traumatic fever. The memory of such scenes set a kindly Swiss gentleman to thinking of ways and means for alleviating their horrors. In time, and by efforts whose history must be familiar to many of you, there resulted the Geneva Convention for the relief of the sick and wounded of armies. I shall not trace its history, as it seems to be more to the present purpose to explain briefly what it proposed to do, and how it proceeded to do it.

The convention found two prime evils to consider. First, the existence of war itself; second, the vast amount of needless cruelty it inflicted upon its victims. For the first of these, with the world full of standing armies, every boundary line of nations fixed and held by the sword, and the traditions of four thousand years behind its customs, the framers of the convention, however earnest and devoted, could scarcely hope to find an immediate, if indeed, a perceptible mitigation. Only time, prolonged effort, national economics, universal progress and the pressure of public opinion could ever hope to grapple with this monster evil of the ages.

But the second—if it were not possible to dispense with the needless cruelties heretofore inflicted upon the victims of war, thus relieving human misery to that extent, seemed to the framers of the convention a reasonable question to be considered. This is what it proposed to do. A few sentences will explain how it proceeded to do it.

A convention was called at Geneva, Switzerland, for the fourth of August, 1864, to be composed of delegates accredited by the heads of the governments of the world, who should discuss the practices of war and ascertain to what extent the restraints of the established military code in its dealing with the sick and wounded of armies were needful for the benefit of the service; and to what extent they were needless, of benefit to no one, causing only suffering, of no strength to the service, and might be done away with; and to what extent war-making powers could agree to enter into a legal compact to that end. The consideration, discussion and concessions of two weeks produced a proposed agreement which took the form of a compound treaty, viz: A treaty of one government with many governments—the first ever made—a compact known as the Treaty of Geneva, for the relief of the sick and wounded in war.

Its basis was neutrality. It made neutral all sick, wounded, or disabled soldiers at a field; all persons, as surgeons, nurses and attendants, who cared for them; all supplies of medicine or food for their use; all field and military hospitals with their equipments; all gifts from neutral nations for the use of the sick and wounded of any army; all houses near a battlefield that would receive and nurse wounded men: none of these should be subject to capture. It provided for the sending of wounded men to their homes, rather than to prison; that friend and foe should be nursed together and alike in all military hospitals; and, most of all, that the people who had always been forcibly restrained from approaching any field of action for purposes of relief, however needed (with the single exception of our Sanitary Commission, and that under great difficulties and often under protest) should not only be allowed this privilege, but should arm and equip themselves with relief of all kinds, with the right to enter the lines for the helpless; thus relieving not alone the wounded and dying, but the armies of their care.

It provided a universal sign by which all this relief, both of persons and material, should be designated and known. A Greek red cross on a field of white should tell any soldier of any country within the treaty that the wearer was his friend and could be trusted; and to any officer of any army that he was legitimately there and not subject to capture.

Some forty nations are in that treaty, and from every military hospital in every one of these nations floats the same flag; and every active soldier in all their armies knows that he can neither capture nor harm the shelter beneath it, though it be but a little “A” tent in the enemy’s lines, and every disabled man knows it is his rescue and his home.

It may be interesting to know the formula of this compact. It recognizes one head, the International Committee of Geneva, Switzerland, through which all communications are made. One national head in each country which receives such communications, transmitting them to its government. The ratifying power of the treaty is the Congress of Berne. The organization in each nation receives from its government its high moral sanction and recognition, but is in no way supported or materially aided by it. The Red Cross means not national aid for the needs of the people, but the people’s aid for the needs of the nation. The awakening patriotism of the last few years should, I think, make this feature more readily apprehended.

As the foreign nations furnish the only illustrations of the value and material aid of the Red Cross in war, let us glance at what it has accomplished.

The first important war after the birth of the Treaty of Geneva, was between Germany, Italy and Austria. Austria had not, at that time, entered the treaty, and yet its objects were understood and its spirit found a responsive chord in the hearts of the people. Over $400,000, beside a great amount of material, were collected by that country, and made use of for the relief of the combatants. Italy was fairly well organized and rendered excellent service, furnishing much substantial assistance. Germany, which was in the vanguard of the treaty nations, was thoroughly organized and equipped. She was the first to demonstrate the true idea of the Red Cross—people’s aid for national, for military, necessity. Great storehouses had been provided at central points, where vast supplies were collected. In an incredibly short time, between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 were raised for relief purposes, and large numbers of volunteers came to help the already organized corps of workers. Great trains of supplies were sent to the front. The wounded enemy was tenderly cared for, and everything was accomplished so well and so systematically, that it proved the incalculable value of organized, authorized, civil aid. French and Swiss Red Cross workers also rendered great assistance, this being the first instance of neutrals taking an active part.

In the Franco-Prussian War the German Red Cross performed even better service, it having learned many valuable lessons in the German-Austrian conflict, and through their efforts an infinite amount of good was accomplished and great suffering averted. Not only were the wounded and sick soldiers tenderly cared for, but the unprovided families of soldiers were also supplied. The French Red Cross at the breaking out of the war was poorly organized and penniless. Within one month, however, hospitals had been established, ambulances and a large amount of field supplies were at the front, with a considerable relief force to care for the sick and wounded. The French Association, not including the branches in the provinces, spent over $2,000,000 and assisted 110,000 wounded. Many neutral Red Cross nations assisted in rendering aid and relief in this great war. England alone sent a million and a half dollars, besides twelve hundred cases of stores. Eighty-five thousand sick, wounded and famishing French soldiers entered Switzerland, and were cared for by the Central Committee at Berne. The International Committee at Geneva, in one instance, asked for and obtained 2500 seriously wounded French soldiers, supplied their wants, and sent them to their own country.

In the great Russo-Turkish War, the Red Cross of Russia, splendidly equipped, with ample means and royal patronage, was, at the beginning of hostilities, greatly hampered by the jealousy of the military. The relief organizations were assigned places well in the rear; but ere many months had passed the military surgeons gladly accepted the Red Cross aid, and colossal work did it perform. Over $13,000,000 were raised, and all that was necessary spent in supplying relief. The neutral Red Cross countries furnished valuable assistance in this war also.

In the recent war between Japan and China, you undoubtedly read of the wonderful work performed by the Japanese Red Cross. This society followed the precedent of Germany, in tenderly caring for the wounded enemy, even though fighting against a nation not in the treaty. Japan had a cruel, merciless enemy to fight, and yet her soldiers were instructed to have respect even for a dead enemy.

It is needless to give further illustrations; history records the wonderful achievements of this greatest of relief organizations, though it cannot record the untold suffering which has been averted by it.

Is the Red Cross a humanitarian organization? What is the significance of the Red Cross? I leave these two questions for you to answer.

But war, although the most tragic, is not the only evil that assails humanity. War has occurred in the United States four times in one hundred and twenty years. Four times its men have armed and marched, and its women waited and wept. That is on an average of one war every thirty years. It is now a little over thirty years since the last hostile gun was fired; we fondly hope it may be many years before there is another. A machine, even a human machine, called into active service only once in thirty years is liable to get out of working order; hence to keep it in condition for use, no less than for the possible good it might do, the American Society of the Red Cross asked to have included in its charter the privilege of rendering such aid as it could in great public calamities, as fires, floods, cyclones, famines and pestilence.

In a time of profound peace that has been the only possible field of activity. It is not for me to say whether that field has been successfully cultivated, but a few of the facts will determine whether the innovation upon the treaty will commend itself to your judgment, as it has to those of the older societies of Europe.

Naturally it required not only diplomacy but arguments to obtain a privilege never before officially considered in the unbroken customs of an international treaty. They must be submitted to a foreign congress. The same argument pertained fifteen years ago that pertains to-day, namely, that in all our vast territory, subject to incalculable disasters, with all our charitable, humane and benevolent associations, there was not one which had for its object and duty to hold itself in preparation and training to meet and relieve the woes of these overmastering disasters. All would gladly aid, but there were none to lead. Everybody’s business was nobody’s business, and the stricken victims perished.

We asked that under the Red Cross Constitution of the United States its national organization should be permitted to act in the capacity of Red Cross relief agents, treating a national disaster like a field of battle, proceed to it at once with experienced help, equipped with all the needful supplies and means to commence relief, overlook and learn the needs of the field, make immediate statements of the true condition and wants to the people of the country, who, knowing the presence of the Red Cross there, could, if desirable, make it the medium of their contributions for relief either in money or material. To relieve the necessities in every way possible, keep the people at large in possession of reliable information, hold the field until relief has been given, and retire when all needed aid has been rendered. This privilege was graciously granted by the ratifying Congress at Berne, and is known as the “American amendment” of the Red Cross. Nations since that date, on becoming signatory to the treaty, have included that amendment in their charters.

This is the principle upon which we have acted. The affording of relief to the victims of great disasters anywhere in the United States, is what the National Red Cross has proceeded to do, and it has confined itself strictly to its privileges, acting only in disasters so great as to be national. It never asks aid; never makes an appeal; it simply makes statements of the real condition of the sufferers, leaving the people free to exercise their own humanity through any medium they may prefer.

In the thirteen years of relief work by the Red Cross in the United States, every dollar and every pound that has been received and distributed by it, has been the free-will offering of the people, given for humanity without solicitation, and dispensed without reward. It has received nothing from the government. No fund has been created for it. No contributions have been made except those to be distributed as relief at its fields. Its officers serve without pay. There is not, nor ever was, a salaried officer in it, and even its headquarters meets its own costs. Among the various appropriations made by Congress for relief of calamities in the past years, as in great river floods, not a dollar so appropriated has ever been applied through the Red Cross, although working on the same field. I name these facts, not by way of complaint, or even comment, but to correct popular errors of belief, which I know you would prefer to have corrected. True to its method, this is simply a statement of the real condition of things, and left to the choice of the people—the Red Cross itself is theirs, created for them, and it is peculiarly their privilege to deal with it as they will.

The following list of calamities with the approximate value of material furnished, as well as money, will give you some appreciation of the services rendered in the cause of humanity by the American National Red Cross. Limit of time and space forbids even an attempt at description of its various fields. I can only name the most important, with estimated values distributed on each:

Michigan Forest Fires, 1881, material and money	$ 80,000
Mississippi Floods, 1882, money and seeds	8,000
Mississippi Floods, 1883, material and seeds	18,500
Mississippi Cyclone, 1883, money	1,000
Balkan War, 1883, money	500
Ohio and Mississippi Floods, 1884, feed for stock and people, clothing, tools, house furnishings	175,000
Texas Famine, 1885, appropriations and contributions on statements made upon personal investigation	120,000
Charleston Earthquake, 1886, money	500
Mt Vernon, Ill., Cyclone, 1888, money and supplies	85,000
Florida Yellow Fever, 1888, physicians and nurse	15,000
Johnstown Disaster, 1889, money and all kinds of material, buildings and furnishings	250,000
Russian Famine, 1891-92, mainly food	125,000
Pomeroy, Iowa, Cyclone, 1893, money and nurses	2,700
South Carolina Islands, 1893-94, money and all kinds of supplies and materials, tools, seeds, lumber, etc.	65,000
	$946,200

Only about one-eighth of the above estimates represent cash; the balance represents material.

In each of these emergencies something has been added to the sum of human happiness, something subtracted from the sum of human woe; the naked have been clothed, the hungry fed, new homes have sprung up from the desolated ruins, crops revived, and activities and business relations resumed. In a neighboring State and its adjacent islands scarcely two hundred miles distant from this, could to-day be found several thousand human beings, living in their homes, enjoying their family lives, following their ordinary avocations, cultivating the ground, who, if asked, would unhesitatingly tell you that but for the help of the Red Cross, they would two years ago have been under the ground they now cultivate.

If the alleviation of human miseries, the saving of life, and the bringing of helplessness and dependence back to methods of self-sustenance and independence are counted among the philanthropic movements of the day, then to us, who have seen so much and worked so long and so hard among it, it would seem that the Red Cross movement has some “significance” in connection with philanthropy.

There remains but one question more. To whom is this movement due? Who instituted it? In what minds did it originate? I wish I could say it was all woman’s work; but the truth compels the fact that this great, humane idea originated with men; the movement was instituted by them. They thought it out, and they wrought it out, and it was only meet and proper that they should, for the terrible evil that made it necessary was theirs as well. Women as a rule are not war-makers. For centuries the caprices of men have plunged the world in strife, covered the earth’s surface with armies, and enriched its soil with the best blood that ever flowed in human veins. It is only right that at length, in the cycle of ages, something should touch man’s heart and set him humbly down to find out some way of mending as much of his mischief as he could. Perhaps he “builded better than he knew,” for in that one effort he touched the spring that sooner or later will mend it all. No grander or truer prophecy has ever been made than uttered in that first convention: “The Red Cross shall teach war to make war upon itself.” It is the most practical and effective peace-maker and civilizer in the known world. It reaches where nothing else can. If proof of this be wanting, study the action of Japan in its late war.

But is man doing this work alone? No—gladly, no! Scarcely had he made his first move, when the jeweled hands of royal woman glistened beside him, and right royally have they borne their part. Glance at the galaxy—the great leader and exemplar of them all, Empress Augusta of Germany, her illustrious daughter, the Grand Duchess of Baden, Eugenia, Empress Frederick, Victoria and Princess Louise of England, Margherita of Italy, Natalia of Servia and the entire Court of Russia, and to-day the present Empress of Germany, and the hard-working Empress of Japan, with her faithful, weary court, even now busy in the hospitals of convalescing Chinese. The various auxiliary societies of women of all the principal Red Cross nations are a pride and a glory to humanity.

These nations have all two important features in their movement, which, thus far, have not been accorded to us. Their governments have instituted laws protecting the insignia and name of the Red Cross from misuse and abuse as trademarks by unscrupulous venders, and appropriation by false societies for dishonest purposes. This lack, and this alone, has thus far rendered general organization in the United States impracticable and unsafe. For seven years the most strenuous efforts at protection have failed; the loss has been to the people in general.

The second advantage of other nations is that citizens, the men of wealth in those countries, have created a Red Cross fund for its use, varying in amounts from a hundred thousand to several millions of dollars. Russia, I believe, has a fund of some three millions. It seems never to have occurred to our wealth-burdened men that possibly a little satisfaction might be gained, some good accomplished, and some credit done the nation by a step in that direction. It will dawn upon them some day, not, perhaps, in mine, but in some of yours, and then, ladies, you can well join hands with them, and discern more clearly than now the “significance of the Red Cross as related to philanthropy.”