The first waves of excitement caused by the successive war declarations among various European countries have now subsided at least to an extent which makes it possible to look at this historical event with certain calm, to weigh the causes and effects of this gigantic struggle, and to determine with a measure of objectivity the present relationship of Bohemian in general and the countries they predominantly inhabit--Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia--to Austria. Our deliberations have to be enlarged to include Slovakia in the northern part of Hungary, because we consider, with ample justification, the Slovaks as a branch of the Bohemian-Slavonic people.

The solution to these problems is closely related to the question of the future of Austria-Hungary itself, because the possibility of its existence, both in a political and economic respect, would be most doubtful from the moment 2when--no matter for what reasons and under what circumstances--the Bohemian-Slavonic countries would become separated from it. Austria itself is very well aware of this fact, and therefore it is easily understood why the Austro-Hungarian government was so anxious to have news about the utmost loyalty of Bohemian countries available at this time, even for the price of distortion of truth and actual happenings.

The Austro-Hungarian government knows that it would have no right to exist without these "pearls of the realm," even though it would like to have the general public outside of Austria-Hungary believe that there is no Bohemian question, as such, concerned.

This, of course, is wrong. The history of the Austro-Hungarian parliamentarism from its beginning to this day proves definitely that the so-called Bohemian question is, in fact, the vital question of Austria-Hungary, and that on this question the monarchy stands, and with it, it falls.

3

It will, however, remain a historical fact that hardly any of the successive Austrian governments, although all of them felt the importance of this problem, were ever ready to admit it, and all of them--the probability of any exceptions is doubtful--have been arranging their actions against the interests of the almost, eleven-million-strong Bohemian-Slavonic nation even in cases where it could be proved that their actions were in disagreement with laws which they themselves have passed and approved. Ever since the year 1848, which marks the beginning of active Bohemian political life, until this day, it has been evident that the successive governments of Austria have been standing on the principle of absolutism, scantily disguised by the pretense of constitutionalism, while the Bohemian nation has always preeminently followed two principal aims: National existence and liberty.

All Bohemian efforts have been directed toward the acquisition of conditions necessary for its untrammeled national development which was to be created by the establishment, that is re-establishment, of an independent Bohemian state, consisting of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia.

4

This independent state was to be joined with the rest of the Monarchy by certain ties, represented by features it would have in common with the Monarchy's other parts, and would form with them either a real union, a union in fact, or a union based on the community of a personal union with the ruler.

At the same time, however, all thinking Bohemian statesmen have always tried to make sure that this liberty would also find expression in all phases of home rule, assuring equal rights to all citizens of the state who would have the fullest measure of civic liberty, liberty of press, of word, and conscience, as well as complete democracy in public institutions, schools, etc., guaranteed by the constitution.

On the occasion of the accession to the throne of the present Emperor Francis Joseph I, the Bohemians already put forth an effort toward the establishment of such principles in Austria, because they never forgot their glorious past, which is so nobly distinguished by the nation's struggle for democracy and national freedom--the principles personified in the exalted conception of 5John Huss.

Upon the accession of the present emperor, it was the eminent historian, Frantisek Palacky, who outlined a political program for his nation, in which he proclaimed that an individual, as well as a nation, should strive for the "loftiest qualities of humanism". In order to achieve them, it is necessary, said Palacky, that a nation be free and independent, able to make free decisions in regard to its future, that is, that it must not be under foreign rule. If Austria is to fulfill her mission, she must introduce an absolute equality of rights for all her nations. She must not be centralistic; she must not try to Germanize her Slavic peoples. She must be federalistic, that is, a union of independent, free peoples. These principles are dictated by national, historical, and geographic reasons.

Palacky wanted to see state rights or home rule established in the Bohemian Crown lands and to be assured that the same liberties and equal rights would be granted to the Germans in the Bohemian state. But if Austria should fulfill 6her mission, Palacky said: "We have existed before Austria, and we shall exist after it," because he knew that the Bohemian nation could not rely on anybody else but itself.

The numerically small Bohemian nation, knowing that it cannot achieve anything by physical strength, has strived to maintain its position by education and work and thus assure its own future. Karel Havlicek, the greatest Bohemian publicist and a staunch defender of democracy and progress, completed this program March 23, 1849, when he said: "It is impossible to be in any other relation but in opposition to a government which is not fulfilling its mission; but we have to hold fast to Austria, which is a support to our existence. For sooner or later, it is bound to fulfill the mission given to it by providence--that is, to become a federation of independent nations of Central Europe. But whatever we do, let us base our actions on the principle of real democracy, which has always been the moving spirit of our national union."

7

Of course, Havlicek--as well as Palacky--had in mind an Austria which is just to its nations, because otherwise the Bohemian nation would have to try to assure its own existence outside of Austria.

These have been the leading ideas on Bohemian politics during the last seventy years. But they have never been understood by the changing Austrian governments. Instead of proper and just government institutions, the Austrians have been creating institutions that were in direct opposition to the spirit and feelings of the Bohemian nation--not only reactionary and absolutistic, but openly or covertly anti-Bohemian.

Austrian statesmen have failed to understand Austria's natural mission among the many nations of Central Europe. This explains the complete dissatisfaction of all the nations grouped by force in present-day Austria, all save the Germans who, forming only one third of the population, rule the Monarchy by filling all important offices of the Monarchy by their own nationals, to the detriment of the other Slavic two thirds of population.

8

There present wielders of ruling power and tyrannical force; these representatives of covert, but unyielding and undemocratic absolutism that stifles all life in Austria are, in the first place, responsible for events brought about recently by the Austrian government in servile compliance with the dictate--not of its nations' sympathies and consideration of their, and consequently its very own, benefit, but--of a voice from Berlin.

These facts give a rough explanation of the present fundamental disagreement between the Austrian government and Austria's own nations, particularly its Slavic nations, whose natural characteristics, so keenly recognized by English and American writers (such as [gap] Luetzow, Monroe), are extreme love of peace and equally great love of liberty, freedom of education, and undisturbed work.