19 
 
 3 
 y 1 
 
 "NO CAUSE 
 
 FOR WAR 
 
 11 
 
 by 
 Hon. CHARLES NAGEL 
 

 y^ 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 Delivered before the Germanistic Society at the 
 
 German House, Indianapolis, 
 
 March 24, 19 16 
 
 \uicor 
 
 HAY 27 »I6 
 
i 
 
 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
 
 I trust that it may be assumed that it would be impossible for 
 me to discuss any question in private or in public in this country from 
 any standpoint but that of an American citizen. (Applause.) 
 
 I have deemed it my right, and if you please, my duty, to do what 
 in my power lies to allay the dissension that has threatened our people 
 during the last year and a half. There has been too much of discord 
 for our own good. There have been too many men busy creating 
 prejudice, intolerance and ill-feeling. While I deem it necessary in 
 my efforts, inasmuch as one side has been very adequately stated 
 throughout, to dwell largely upon the other, in order that both sides 
 may be brought out, I shall not permit any influence to prevail upon 
 me to speak from any platform but that of the United States. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 I assume, of course, that when an invitation is extended by a 
 Germanistic Society at this time, the speaker is expected to address 
 himself to those questions which have agitated our republic and which 
 have suffered many misrepresentations, often unintentional, some- 
 times I fear purposely ; and I propose to do that tonight. 
 
 We cannot deny that there has been an effort to divide us, not 
 only in our sympathies but in our judgments ; and that there have 
 been efforts made to base upon that division of opinion and sympathy 
 consequences of great importance to our country. 
 
 To my mind the most threatening appearance has been the latest 
 one ; because up to this time it has been said that our country should 
 be neutral, and that we should not permit ourselves to be driven into 
 participation in a foreign war unless there be a grievance to which 
 the United States cannot afford to submit. Now we are told, and by 
 eminent men, I regret to say, that whether there be a grievance aimed 
 at us, or not, we should on general principles, in the interest of the 
 world's civilization, in order that certain countries may survive and 
 others be destroyed, embark upon a foreign war by taking sides with 
 one against the other. 
 
 That is a very grave responsibility to assume. At the risk of 
 tiring you, I propose in as dispassionate a fashion as I can command, 
 to review the different reasons that have been in the past assigned, 
 in order that we may deteimine for ourse'ves whether by any torture 
 of facts there can be found an excuse for a war by the United States 
 against a foreign country at this time. 
 
 We have been told over and over again that he who knows how 
 to weigh evidence can arrive at only one conclusion. I would reply 
 to the gentlemen who say these things that weighing evidence is one 
 thing, but taking testimony is another. In my judgment, the case has 
 
not been presented in this country exhaustively and completely, so as 
 to enable us to pass judgment impartially or dispassionately, if that 
 be our desire. 
 
 What was the reason originally assigned? Why were Vv^e asked to 
 lend our whole influence, if not as a party to the war, at least as a 
 friendly power to one side? The whole country was ringing with the 
 one charge of Prussianism, militarism. You remember the time. 
 There was no argument made. No one seemed to know what the 
 system was. Militarism was the charge which this country was asked 
 to accept. The situation has changed since then. We do not seem to 
 know it, but we are today imitating the very thing that we de- 
 nounced a year and a half ago. Then a man was denounced as 
 unpatriotic if he did not raise his voice against universal service, but 
 today he is denounced as unpatriotic unless he subscribes to universal 
 service. That is the situation. 
 
 Weighing evidence! We have no thought of where we stood a 
 year and a half ago. Militarism, as it is really practiced, is just the 
 same in France as it is in Germany. It is virtually the same in Switzer- 
 land, in principle. It is practically the same in a number of other 
 countries ; and it means patriotism in war and in peace alike. Service 
 at all times for the nation. And there is nothing which this country 
 stands in need of so much today as that spirit of common united 
 service for the United States. (Applause.) 
 
 Our difficulty has been that we have suffered from the monopoly 
 of language. We have had only one avenue of communication. I say 
 it with profound respect, because we admire the English language. 
 It is the language of our country. But I have felt for a long time that 
 instead of uniting the people who speak the same language, it were 
 better to have our people speak two or three languages, in order that 
 they might have more comprehensive and impartial information about 
 the history of the world. (Applause.) 
 
 The difficulty has been that we have not known what militarism 
 meant. It is no exaggeration to say — and I do not want to draw 
 comparisons that offend, because I have no feeling against any of the 
 foreign countries; I want to make a just statement — it is safe to say 
 that at the beginning of the war Great Britain had more professional 
 soldiers, in spite of her small army, than Germany had. Why? Be- 
 cause she had a great abundance of men who never served in her 
 army, and she had a very considerable number of men who never did 
 anything else. She had the professional army. Germany had no 
 professional army outside of the officers staff; but every citizen who 
 was able-bodied had to serve his country in time of peace two years, 
 in order that he might be trained; and he could not serve longer. 
 After that he had to serve in civil life ; to help build up the industrial 
 system of the country. That is the secret of her strength. Militarism 
 does not mean a professional army. It means a citizen army ; citizens 
 
ready at all times to serve, in peace as in war, whatever the call of 
 the nation may be. 
 
 Now we are advocating — do we call it the German system? Why, 
 no, we call it the Swiss system. It sounds better, that is all. (Laugh- 
 ter.) I was in Switzerland after this war was declared, and I saw the 
 Swiss army mobilize. You cannot tell me that those men had not 
 drilled before they were called out. I was in France just before the 
 war. They are drilled like the Germans, excepting that they serve, in 
 time of peace, three years where the Germans serve two. That is the 
 only difference. Why grow excited about requirements of that kind, 
 when they are reduced to the simplest rules of a national system, to 
 meet any emergency that the country may have to meet? 
 
 Then take the invasion of Belgium. I am not here to discuss the 
 right and wrong of that question. We are not here to settle the 
 controversy between Great Britain and Germany ; and for that matter, 
 I do not see why we always dispute about Great Britain and Germany. 
 This war was started between Austria and Servia. We never speak 
 of it now in that sense. Russia entered next, and Germany and 
 France next ; and Great Britain last. But for reasons that will appear 
 as we proceed, it is called the war between Great Britain and Germany. 
 That is the pivotal point, and that is the misfortune of it ; that is the 
 tragedy of it. It should not have been. Belgium! In whose mouth 
 does it lie to complain of Germany's invasion of Belgium, right or 
 wrong? I will not discuss now the discoveries of the relation between 
 Belgium and other countries, made since the invasion. It is unneces- 
 sary. Why this eagerness to have us protest now? Why this in- 
 sistence to accept that as a ground for present war, as it has been 
 advanced by a number of prominent men? Have we always taken that 
 position? Let us reflect and see whether consistency would permit us 
 to either protest or to intervene on that account. 
 
 There was a war against the Boers at one time. Our sympathy 
 in this country was almost unanimously with the Boers. Did we 
 protest? Did we intervene? Was there anything particularly in- 
 spiring about that war? Was there not as much to protest in that 
 war as there was in Belgium, where Germany, at least, promised to 
 protect or restore everything in case they might go through for their 
 self preservation? The Boers were taken bodily, because their property 
 was wanted. I was not brought up in that school. I was brought up 
 to read Macaulay's Essay on the trial of Warren Hastings. We have 
 been deeply impressed by Edmund Burke's prosecution of Warren 
 Hastings. I look to Edmund Burke today as my political Bible, as 
 I look to Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln in this country. 
 I believe Burke was right in his prosecution of Warren Hastings, and 
 I see nothing in Cecil Rhodes to inake him more acceptable in public 
 life than Warren Hastings was. (Applause.) We did not protest, 
 did we? No. Did we protest when Finland was destroyed, and ker 
 liberty was taken from her by one stroke of the Czar's pen? That was 
 
as unconstitutional an act as was ever known in history. Finland, 
 with ninety or ninety-five per cent Lutheran, with her own schools 
 and her own literature, a fine strong race of the north, deprived of her 
 liberty without reason ! Did we protest? Why, no. Korea. We had 
 a treaty with Korea. Korea thought we would protest. I imagine we 
 thought we should. But we delayed long enough to let Japan take 
 possession ; and there were men in office then who might have pro- 
 tested for the protection of Korea, but did not ; and who are now 
 most prominent in challenging us for not protesting or intervening on 
 account of Belgium. 
 
 Take Persia. That comes near home. Persia had been by treaty 
 guaranteed her independent position. Russia and Great Britain were 
 parties to it. An American was invited by her to put her house in 
 order. He went ; and he was so successful that the protecting powers 
 became alarmed ; and thinking they might lose Persia, he was ousted. 
 The result was that one half of Persia was given to Russia and one 
 half of the rest was given to Great Britain. Persia, who was guaran- 
 teed her independent position, was divided up. Did we protest? We 
 did not. Why this sensitiveness now? What has come over our 
 dreams that we suddenly feel that we ought to intervene, and if 
 necessary, declare war because of a wrong to Belgium? Germany 
 can, at least, say that she offered to protect Belgium ; and the German 
 government can now say that it has discovered documents that would 
 have made it guilty of neglect to its own people if it had not gone 
 through Belgium. 
 
 I do not feel called upon to discuss the right and wrong of it, but 
 I want to trace the reason for this demand at this time for intervention 
 and for protest. How about the occupation of Greece by the allies? 
 How about the giving over of Dalmatia to Italy? Have we protested? 
 Not a suggestion of it. 
 
 Then we hear of atrocities. Now, I admit there must have 
 been atrocities. I believe there was occasion for great excitement. 
 I sympathize with the Belgian people. They did not know any 
 more than we do what cause there was for going through their 
 country. They did, in my opinion, what many people would have 
 done, and probably what we would have done under like circumstances. 
 They took the chance of fighting as civilians; but taking the chance 
 they, as we, must take the consequences. That is war. There were 
 no doubt atrocities on both sides. I was in Switzerland then, and I 
 read impartial papers in a neutral country. There were atrocities 
 committed upon German inhabitants in Belgium before the German 
 army ever got into the State. But, speaking of atrocities, why not 
 tell the whole story; and that is all I am interested in. Let us be 
 fair. If atrocities are to be the foundation of our attitude, let us read 
 the whole case. Were there no atrocities in Africa? Have you read of 
 the fate of the missionaries in that country and particularly in the 
 German colonies? Have they been published in the English language 
 
 —4— 
 
for you? Have you read of the fate of East Prussia? There is nothing 
 to parallel it, because there it was wanton, ruthless, unnecessary 
 destruction of property and life such as has not been visited upon any 
 people for centuries. Again, have you read about the treatment of 
 prisoners in Siberia? But has anything been made of it in this 
 country? You have to get the German reports or the German news- 
 papers to get the facts — even those facts that are reported by doctors 
 and nurses from our own country. That is the reason why I believe 
 in being able to read two languages. I sometimes read three, now, 
 to make sure I am right. I read papers in Switzerland ; I read Dutch 
 papers; I read German papers, English papers and American papers, 
 and in that fashion I believe that by degrees I can get a correct 
 picture. I say, in comparing atrocities, that it does not lie in the 
 mouth of the Belgians or of the allies to say that atrocities can be 
 made the foundation for a war on our part, or should be, because the 
 same things precisely can be laid at their door. That is war. Un- 
 happily, it is. And that is the reason why so many of us beheve in 
 peace, if it can possibly be maintained with self respect. 
 
 Let us look at the question from another viewpoint. I have often 
 wondered why we on this side should be more excited than neutral 
 nations on the other side of the Atlantic. Does it not occur to people 
 that all the nations are not at war? There is Sweden, Norway, 
 Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Spain and Greece. All are having 
 a difficult time. All but two are Teutonic nations, essentially; 
 and it is a safe proposition to say that the majority of the people of 
 those several countries sympathize with the German side. Is not that 
 persuasive? It is similar stock to that which is talking most in this 
 country, representing really the two stocks most in antagonism in 
 this country at this time. And still there you have these neutral 
 powers. They do not seern to feel that they are called upon to take 
 the side that we are asked to take among warring peoples. They hold 
 their neutral position. Read their papers. Get the expression of their 
 sentiment, and you will find that the stronger sentiment is not for the 
 side that we are asked to take, but for Germany, although none of 
 them favors war. This is not conclusive, but it is persuasive of the 
 fact that it is not necessary for us to rush into war. 
 
 These are all grievances that have arisen between the beUigerents 
 themselves, with respect to which we have been asked to take position, 
 but none of which should in my opinion be accepted as a sufficient 
 reason for our entering into a foreign war. Now, let us take the next 
 step. What occasion is there for friction between us and any of the 
 belligerents? After all, the situation between the belligerents on the 
 other side is quite unequal. Germany is making most of her fight, as 
 Austria is, on land. Officially speaking, we do not suffer by that sort 
 of warfare at all. We are not affected. Her strength is on the con- 
 tinent. That strength does not touch us either remotely or directly. 
 Great Britain's strength is at sea. The sea is supposed to be free, and 
 if we are affected by the foreign war at all by the denial of rights it is 
 
 — s— 
 
on the ocean. Who is the active force? What has Germany on the 
 ocean? Her ships are interned. Her navy has not done any more 
 than the British, and that is saying Uttle enough, for the present. The 
 most immediate effect upon our interests, so far as we are materially 
 touched, necessarily results from the Orders in Council issued by the 
 British Government. There is no escaping from that, is there? The 
 blockade, the mining of the North Sea, the extension of contraband 
 article orders, interference with the mails, the cutting of the cable — 
 every phase of it goes to the exercise of a sea power, and results in a 
 denial of substantial interests or material rights to us. Do I say that 
 is cause for war? I do not. I cannot agree that we should submit to 
 some of those orders. I would probably, if I were in a position to do 
 so, advocate some measure, not a war measure but a peace measure, to 
 meet some of those conditions ; but I am not concerned with that now. 
 I am only asking myself how are we to explain that at this time we 
 are again confronted with the vehement demand that we ought to 
 join the alHes in the war against the Central Powers, and what is the 
 reason for it? 
 
 I say wherever we have really suffered substantially, by having 
 our commerce interfered with and laid low — it has been done by the 
 orders of Great Britain. And nobody advocates war against Great 
 Britain, or France, or Italy, or Russia. We say we have rights that 
 we think are denied. The administration says they are denied, but we 
 are in favor of adjusting them as best we can. But on the other hand 
 it is insisted that we have grievances against Germany and Austria 
 that cannot be met without war measures. What does that mean? 
 
 There is not a question that has been raised between Germany 
 and the United States, with one exception, that has not been decided 
 by us against Germany and acquiesced in. Is not that so? The wire- 
 less decision, the cutting of the cable, and taking citizens from off our 
 decks illustrate this. Protests we have made, but no more. In the 
 last analysis the only question that has arisen between Germany and 
 us is whether our citizens shall have the right to travel on EngHsh 
 ships, either when those ships carry almost exclusively ammunition 
 from this country, or when those ships are armed for offensive or 
 defensive purposes. That is the sole question. I cannot settle it. No 
 one here has the right to settle it. But what I contend for is that if 
 that right is denied us, there is no cause for war. That is an indirect 
 result to our country. It is a result of a conflict between Germany and 
 Great Britain. That is the direct conflict. Germany has made it just 
 as plain as she can that she wants to avoid friction with us, and that 
 nothing but the necessity for retaUation against the starvation meas- 
 ures employed against her has induced her to resort to these measures. 
 
 I think there is a good deal to be said for the position that a 
 passenger carrying ship that carries ammunition as cargo to the enemy 
 is to all intents and purposes an auxiliary. I don't know what we would 
 do. But I think if we had a Secretary of the Navy— in case we were 
 
 —6— 
 
at war with a foreign country — who permitted a passenger ship of the 
 enemy country to carry ammunition to her armies because some 
 neutral insisted upon travehng upon that ship; if we had that kind 
 of a Secretary of the Navy I think he would go out of office in twenty- 
 four hours. (Applause.) We would not stand for it — we would not 
 permit our enemy to carry ammunition to their soldiers protected by 
 a neutral who claimed to exercise the privilege of traveling on the 
 ship because it was called a passenger ship. It does not stand to 
 reason ; and it does not appeal to the common sense of the American 
 people. 
 
 Then we come to armed merchantmen, offensive or defensive. 
 Have we not contention enough in this country without adding a case 
 like that? How are we to determine what is offensive and what is 
 defensive? Are you going to take testimony every time to find out 
 who fired first? And is every submarine to take its risk to be sent 
 to the bottom to find out whether the enemy ship would shoot or 
 would not shoot when it has guns to shoot with? I have read a good 
 many western stories and I have read of all sorts of gun men, and I 
 know that the man who gets the drop usually gets his man. (Laugh- 
 ter.) That is the way fighting is done. That is the way both the British 
 and the Germans are built. They are good fighters, both of them. 
 They are not going to let a chance pass. Defensive means offensive 
 for all practical purposes, in my judgment. 
 
 But be that as it may, suppose we cannot agree about it. Suppose 
 Germany says that she cannot ask her men to take that chance, 
 especially in view of the fact that general orders have been given to 
 arm — in view of the fact that the Lord of the Admiralty in 1913 
 announced that every passenger ship was making provision for guns, 
 and that the Admiralty proposed to furnish them guns and ammuni- 
 tion to be used in time of war. That was his statement. That is the 
 record. Suppose in view of those facts Germany says that she cannot 
 ask her men to take that chance, and we say she should take it. That is 
 a difference of opinion. Disregard of our opinion does not mean an 
 offense against us. It lacks all intent, which is the test of any offense. 
 Her conduct is not intended for us. They beseech and ask us not to 
 run the risk. There is no cause for war in such a difference of opinion. I 
 am willing to go as far as Senator Sherman did when he said that we 
 have rights on the seas ; that our ships have a right to go anywhere ; 
 but if a battle is on our ship cannot go between the fighting men-of- 
 war without taking the chance of war, no matter what our rights at 
 sea may be. 
 
 In other words, we must take the war zone and the war conditions 
 into consideration when we insist upon our private rights. If I travel 
 on a train with soldiers in Germany, as I did, during the war, I must 
 take my chance with the soldiers ; and I cannot see why I should not 
 take the same chance when I travel on a belligerent's ship that runs 
 the risk of war according to the interpretation of the other belligerent. 
 
Is it possible that the people of the United States would really 
 justify a war against a foreign friendly power because of a difference 
 of opinion on a point of that kind, admitted to be novel, absolutely 
 without precedent, involving the application of old rules to new 
 instruments of war? It may be that we cannot adjust ourselves to 
 those conditions during the war but we can take that question up 
 like grown men when the final consideration of peace terms and of new 
 rules of international law comes up to be determined after the war 
 ends. That is the only point that I have been able to find upon which 
 we could pin the remotest excuse for a war controversy with Germany. 
 
 Let us look at the other questions. There have been a great many. 
 Germany had a wireless system. She had a cable. Great Britain had 
 many. The German cable was cut by her enemies. According to the 
 Declaration of London that was to be done only if the necessities of 
 war should call for it. It was done, and accepted as right. The 
 Declaration of London v/as a very significant document. It was said 
 that it was the last expression of the best standards of International 
 Law that had ever been made. At the opening of the war the United 
 States and Germany offered to abide by that Declaration ; but Great 
 Britain declined upon the ground that she had not formally ratified 
 it. Technically, that was justified. Germany had a wireless system. 
 What did we do? We said that we could not permit her to use that 
 wireless system without control. Did we apply the same rule to the 
 English cable? No, we did not. We said that the English cable could 
 not send messages to sea, and that the English cable was subject to be 
 cut, while the wireless could communicate in the open sea, and could 
 not be cut. Well, there is a distinction; but if one country, if one 
 belligerent has an advantage over another, is it necessary for us to 
 interfere to equalize conditions? It does not seem so to me. But does 
 it not stand to reason that messages may be sent from Great Britain 
 and repeated by wireless from this coast to the ocean? Do you not 
 think it is done? And do we control it, and can we control it? 
 
 But in any event, I am less interested in the correctness of the 
 decision than I am in the statement that when the question arose we 
 did not hesitate but we decided it ; and we decided it against Germany, 
 and she has submitted. There is no cause for war there. What else 
 have we? 
 
 There was a rule of international law made in the Trent case 
 that citizens of a belligerent country should not be taken from a 
 neutral ship. We tried to do it. I suppose that was the worst humilia- 
 tion that the Lincoln administration ever suffered. Apologies had to 
 be made to Great Britain to correct that mistake. The rule of law 
 was made by Great Britain's demand and by our acquiescence. What 
 is the law now? Citizens have been taken from neutral ships right 
 along, German citizens and Austrian citizens. We do not complain 
 of that. They have to submit. Is not that so? Many of us think 
 that it was a degradation of international law. Many think it was 
 
 —8— 
 
a humiliation to the United States to permit such a principle to be 
 established, after the humiliation to which Abraham Lincoln was 
 subjected. But it has been done; Germany has remonstrated, and we 
 do not complain. 
 
 What other questions have arisen? The munition question. I 
 do not dispute the right of citizens of the United States to continue 
 to manufacture ammunition for sale to belligerents. In my judgment 
 that is the international law, and was at the time the war broke out. I 
 also believe that there is authority for saying that when a poUcy of 
 that kind is once adopted at the beginning of a war a neutral power 
 is perhaps not entirely safe in changing its rule of conduct without 
 special reason during that war. It might subject us to criticism if we 
 did. But the question was decided, was it not, and against Germany ; 
 and we certainly have no complaint. We more than decided it. We 
 not only persisted in making ammunition and selling it, but we in- 
 creased our manufacture of ammunition a thousand times; until the 
 export trade of this country consists largely of instruments of destruc- 
 tion. Our greatest profits are made in that business. We have begun 
 to believe that it is a sacred business ; that there is something mysteri- 
 ously sanctified about the ammunition business. 
 
 Now, in point of fact, it is a contraband business, and interna- 
 tional law denounces it. Ammunition is at the mercy of the belUgerent 
 in every ship that carries it. It is entitled to no protection outside of 
 our country where it constitutes to all intent and purpose the protected 
 ammunition camp of one of the belligerents. That is what it comes 
 to. If we had the right to manufacture, as I think we had, and perhaps 
 a duty to continue, does it follow that it was proper, and a fair 
 interpretation of international law to increase our output in the 
 manner in which we did ; and to change our legitimate industries into 
 the manufacture of a denounced traffic? It is said that in our Civil 
 War Secretary Seward protested against just such conduct. It seems 
 to me that it was stretching the rule of international law to increase 
 our manufacture at that rate. Again, Germany has remonstrated ; but 
 we certainly can not complain of her because the decision is against 
 her; and we base our decision on the fact that international law 
 authorizes the business and that having commenced we ought to con- 
 tinue. 
 
 We now come to the foreign loans. There we reversed our posi- 
 tion. We said in the beginning of the war that it would be improper 
 for our citizens to extend loans to the foreign countries at war. That 
 was Secretary Bryan's public statement. vVe did not abide by it. I 
 never knew how the change was made; but the Allies made appHca- 
 tion and they received a loan from our country which is unparalleled 
 in the history of warfare. Could not Germany complain of it and say 
 that we changed our position after the war started; that she had a 
 rio^ht to rely on the declaration of a neutral; and that without the 
 money assistance that we gave she would have won this war before 
 
now? Has the question ever been answered? I have heard none. 
 But again we have no complaint against Germany. We might well 
 extend the same consideration to her, and permit her to insist, now 
 and then, upon her own interpretation, because she has yielded in 
 almost every question that has arisen. 
 
 Again, has not she a right to say that she believed that we would 
 insist upon our rights as a neutral to transact business with her, a 
 friendly power? Is not the indirect effect of the British Orders in 
 Council upon our trade with Germany infinitely more important and 
 far reaching than the circumstance that a few passengers are not 
 permitted to travel on an armed ship? We all know what it comes to. 
 We do not have to go beyond the protest of our own Government. 
 It is all in documentary form. We know what it costs us. It is not 
 only the loss of this ship and that, here and there, but it is the 
 systematic derangement of our business that is hurting us. 
 
 While munitions are manufactured on this side to keep our indus- 
 tries busy, Great Britain is keeping her industrial men engaged in 
 her legitimate business so that she will be in shape when the war is 
 over. Where will we be? That is the question. We are neglecting 
 the greatest opportunity ever offered us. And Germany has a right to 
 say that she was entitled to believe that she could get from us every- 
 thing on the contraband list; that she had a right to believe that an 
 order to starve her civilians would never be submitted to by us. We 
 did not have to depend upon our interpretation of international law ; 
 but we could rely absolutely upon the English interpretation. In the 
 Japanese war Lansdowne decided when Japan took possession of a 
 cargo of rice that that cargo could not be held unless it was affirma- 
 tively shown that it was intended for the army ; that so long as it was 
 intended for civilians no belligerent had a right to interfere with it. 
 He went further and said that if a Prize Court should decide that that 
 rice could be held the decision would not stand unless it appeared that 
 it was made in conformity with the recognized rules of international 
 law. That is Ekiglish. In the Boer war Salisbury made the same 
 declaration; and Secretary Hay made precisely the same announce- 
 ment. In every instance it was insisted that a cargo could not be 
 taken unless it appeared affirmatively that it was destined for the army 
 and not for civilians. But now we have yielded so far that we can 
 not send even milk to the babies in Germany. It is true they may 
 become soldiers some day, if they live; but there is no immediate 
 danger. We can not even send rubber to protect the hands of our 
 own trained nurses over there. That is pretty serious. And yet we 
 complain of Germany. Has not she a right to say if we submit to that 
 we are yielding an undisputed privilege, and our conduct is unneutral? 
 
 And now come distinguished men who say that, although we 
 deliberately declared at the beginning of the war that we would be 
 neutral, we should abandon that policy and declare war just because 
 we want to. It is a very mysterious power that is moving these men. 
 
A few weeks ago a distinguished citizen in the east prepared a letter 
 to this effect that went all over the country; and now we find as we 
 talk with our friends, that that idea is more prevalent than we had 
 supposed. Never mind about the reason, they say, we have not suc- 
 ceeded in finding one, or making one, but we must drive ahead and 
 get in on one side of this war. That is the position, and that is the 
 position against which I protest. That is the reason that I have 
 wearied you with this long discussion, to ascertain where we can 
 find the excuse for our entering into the war at this time. 
 
 What does it mean? Does anybody here believe that it would 
 make a difference in the result of that war if we entered it now? I 
 am not a judge of conditions of that kind, but I can not figure out how 
 it would affect the result. We can not do more, as Englishmen and 
 Americans have said, than we are doing. The best we can do is to 
 furnish credit and ammunition, and keep our men making ammuni- 
 tion, which is a temporary job, and let the men in England work at 
 their legitimate trades, which is a permanent job. That is the best 
 we can do for them. There are a great many men, no doubt, in 
 Germany, who think, that for the purposes of this war, they would be 
 better off if we did join, because then the war would become ruthless 
 and the end would come. But they have wiser men, who with us in 
 this country think that that is the smallest consequence of our entering 
 into such a struggle. It is the hereafter that they and we think about, 
 the relation between us afterwards. 
 
 We have always stood, and I fail to see why we do not now stand, 
 for the freedom of the seas, for the principle that private property at 
 sea should be as safe as private property on land during war. (Ap- 
 plause.) That is the position that we took at the second Hague 
 conference and it was carried by twenty-one to eleven, one not voting 
 and eleven being absent. But because Great Britain and France and 
 Russia and Japan and others stood together, and we had no great 
 power to back us but Germany, it was dropped. 
 
 People talk about peace, about enforcing peace by military or 
 economic coercion. Why not take the simple and direct course and 
 say the inducement for this kind of warfare shall be taken from them 
 and private property shall be secure at sea? When that is done, the 
 employment of most of your navies is gone. There is no more excuse 
 for them, because modern warfare is commercial warfare. The warfare 
 of your great navies is against the commerce of the enemy, and not 
 against his battle ships. When we have secured all private property, 
 the ocean will present an entirely different proposition ; because there 
 will be no fighting until battle ships get together, and there will be 
 no discussion about ships being armed, offensive or defensive. 
 
 So I ask myself why this coercion? Why this constant demand 
 that we must get into this war? Does it mean anything for this war? 
 In my judgment it does not. I do not know, but I have a right to 
 reflect. It appears to me that the attempt is made to get us into this 
 
 — II — 
 
struggle not so much for the effect it will have on the war itself, as for 
 the influence it will have upon conditions after the war. You know 
 what the plan is. It has been broadly stated that Great Britain and 
 France and Italy and Russia and Japan, when the war is over, are 
 going to make commercial treaties to the exclusion of Germany and 
 Austria. There is only one way for us to get into those treaties, and 
 that is to have us in the war at the end of the struggle. They can not 
 get a treaty like that through in this country unless we have an 
 excited population. If we are not in that struggle we will not be a 
 party to that treaty ; and if we are not a party the slate is broken. 
 That is all there is to this situation. (Applause.) 
 
 And remembering the enormous war loans placed in this country, 
 does it not suggest itself that holders of these securities may be inter- 
 ested to insure the integrity of their bonds at any cost; and may be 
 willing, even at the price of neutrality and public good faith, to involve 
 us in a foreign war? 
 
 There is politics in war. Have you ever read "How Diplomats 
 Make War"? It is an interesting volume. I do not know who wrote 
 it, but I know the author has a fine collection of extracts from so-called 
 diplomatic negotiations. If you will not read that read Russell's book, 
 "Justice In War Time," and get his explanation about the taking of 
 Persia, and about the Boer war. He is an Englishman, who compares 
 these experiences of these countries with the taking of Belgium, and 
 he is unable to find essential distinctions between the two. Other 
 Englishmen have similarly commented upon the surrender of Dalmatia 
 to Italy. 
 
 As I say, there is a great deal of politics and a great deal of com- 
 merce in this war; and we are not to stay out of it because we are 
 needed at the end of it, inasmuch as we are the one great neutral 
 power. But as a people composed of the representatives of all these 
 nations, there is no more unwise thing we could do than to permit 
 ourselves to be drawn into such a combination. (Applause.) 
 
 People forget. This is one nation made up as no people in the 
 world ever has been. It is true among the civilized nations there are 
 no pure races. They are all more or less mixed ; but ours is the only 
 great nation that is avowedly, deliberately and by policy, composed 
 of the representatives of all the civilized races of the world. That is 
 the plan upon which this nation is built. Shall we deliberately pursue 
 a course that will bring the sympathies and the traditions and the 
 recollections of the different memberships of our people into endless 
 conflict with each other? Would it be statesmanlike to do anything 
 like that? 
 
 A distinguished man has said that we omitted a great opportunity 
 when we did not protest on account of Belgium. I say that we 
 omitted a great opportunity when the President of the United States 
 did not call upon the people of the United States to remain impartial 
 
 — 12 — 
 
and neutral. We omitted a great opportunity when he did not say 
 that we had declared this government to be neutral, that the people 
 are the Government and that they should be neutral too. That would 
 have been the wise course. It would have been well if it had been 
 carried further and we had made our Red Cross contributions all over 
 this Union to one recognized authority, the American Red Cross, and 
 had trusted it to make honorable and equitable distributions among 
 all the nations of the world that suffer. Instead of which we have had 
 as many Red Cross collections in this country as we have warring 
 nations in the world, and we have fought each other across the charity 
 table. That is regrettable. 
 
 There has been too little done to pull us together. If we want to 
 discuss preparedness in this country, as I want to, for I believe in 
 preparedness, let us have it — military, yes; commercial, yes; and 
 human above all. (Applause.) When we discuss preparedness we 
 talk as though we could buy it with an appropriation. You cannot 
 buy happiness and you cannot buy security. You have to earn them 
 both ; and you cannot do it in a minute. If we want to succeed with 
 our military preparedness we have got to pull ourselves together and 
 evolve a national policy for the development of our industrial interests 
 as well. We have got to have an Alexander Hamilton national theory 
 and system, if we want to compete with foreign countries who know 
 how to pull together; (Applause.) and if we are ever to be unfortu- 
 nate enough to be at war with a foreign country, our guns and armies 
 and ships will amount to nothing, unless we have an industrial organ- 
 ization so evolved and equipped that it will support not only the army 
 but the civilians as well. 
 
 The war has taught us that much. We might well learn where 
 we can be taught. There is no sense in playing the ostrich about it, 
 or indulging our prejudices. When they ask me why it is that Ger- 
 many is showing such strength I say it is because she has an industrial 
 and social system. We talk about her army because we have not 
 understood. Her army is nothing but the point of the arrow and the 
 shaft that drives it is her industrial and social system. (Applause.) 
 
 Why should v/e not learn from her. How is it that Germany 
 knows how to protect the individual without weakening him? She is 
 the only nation that does. She knows how to protect the individual 
 man, woman and child without weakening them. As soon as we begin 
 to protect anybody, somehow or other we have somebody who is 
 leaning on us. (Laughter.) That presents a great problem. It is 
 the great modern problem. How to take care of the weak and 
 strengthen them instead of making them weaker. 
 
 If we want to have preparedness we have to do that thing, and 
 we have to organize industrially. We are trying now to reorganize 
 the San Francisco Railroad, and we have to consult commissions of 
 how many states? I think three or four, in order to get leave. Could 
 we v/ait on them if we had war? We would say the railroad is a 
 
 —13— 
 
national proposition, and that railroad will be built according to 
 Alexander Hamilton's idea of government. When we have business 
 that is larger than one of the states it must be governed by the 
 national law and not by the state. That is indisputable. Those are the 
 things we have to learn, if we want to consider preparedness. 
 
 To return to our own condition here, I am of the opinion that 
 there has been extravagance on both sides. There have been many 
 ungracious things done on either side, and the result has been most 
 unfortunate. I do not believe that men and women of German ex- 
 traction should take their satisfaction in boasting about the achieve- 
 ments of their Fatherland so much as they should seek to introduce in 
 our country the methods and the system by which their Fatherland 
 became great, in so far as these are adapted to our country. 
 
 This is our country, and there can be no such thing as a dual 
 allegiance of our citizens. Whatever my country has decided, that 
 must be my decision. I may think it wrong. It may mean brother 
 against brother; as it has been in our country when we had to fight 
 it out ; although now we live together. It has been so in other coun- 
 tries. The Jew is fighting under every flag that is raised in the war 
 and is fighting well; and he has no hope or expectancy beyond the 
 faint dream that somehow, somewhere his scattered race may be 
 benefited. 
 
 So when people have called me German-American in politics, I 
 have said no, I am not. If we wish to have German-American social 
 life here; if we want to perpetuate sweet customs of the Fatherland, 
 why yes, I think they are a contribution to this country. If you want 
 to sing the songs that my father sang when a student in the university, 
 why yes; I have heard them sung on the plains of Texas and I can 
 recall them now. Call me a German-American if you want to tell 
 where I hail from, what stock I am; but when it comes to political 
 organizations I deny that there is propriety in race distinctions in this 
 country because we are all Americans and only that. 
 
 This is not a mere distinctive phrase, because, I warn you, there 
 is a treacherous ease of transition from the state of real patriotism to 
 a divided allegiance. This has been made manifest by sympathies on 
 both sides. It is a dangerous thing; and it is for that reason that I 
 have refused during this controversy to recognize race distinction 
 politically. I have felt the keenness of some of the criticisms from 
 both sides; but I have refused to identify myself by voice or speech 
 with any political organization, no matter what its platform, that 
 rested on a race distinction. But considering a question in its relation 
 to the policy of my country I am willing to take the criticism. I think 
 this is the safe course. 
 
 That does not mean that I am to be tested in point of loyalty to 
 my country by my willingness to forget that my people were immi- 
 grants from Germany. That is putting a strain on my loyalty to 
 
 —14— 
 
which I can not submit. If I were able to do that I ought to be 
 denied my citizenship because I would not be worthy of it. 
 
 Have I no right to admire any other nation? Why test it by my 
 German descent? I like the Irish; (Applause.) and always have; 
 and I am more and more impressed with their history. I admire the 
 French. I think the country people of France are a wonderfully frugal 
 and sweet people. Have I no right to be interested in the great 
 achievements of Cavour in Italy? We might learn many things from 
 him. Have I no right to respect Holland, the purest Germanic stock 
 there is; with all her history and her great names to show? Why am 
 I to be tested out in my fealty to my country by my willingness to 
 surrender any belief in any nation but one? That is not fair. This is 
 not another England. This is the United States. (Applause.) 
 
 England was a free country, politically speaking, long before the 
 countries on the continent were. She was in a large measure the 
 cradle of liberty for a century or more. To her shores fled oppressed 
 men of the countries on the continent to continue their battles for 
 freedom. That is true. But notwithstanding my father and my 
 mother might have stopped in England when they left Germany, they 
 did not. It was an easier trip than to sail to New Orleans and drive 
 in an ox team to the interior of Texas back in the 40's. But they came 
 to this country because they believed that it had institutions that 
 meant hope for people who treasured liberty. (Applause.) This is the 
 United States. I respect the English people. I can not understand 
 this antagonism of feeling against them, any more than I can the 
 prejudice against Germany. I look to English books for instruction 
 and guidance today. I always did. I have pictures of Englishmen in 
 my study, Burke, Pitt and Erskine hang on my walls with Washington, 
 Hamilton and Marshall — a fine galaxy of names. Do I take them 
 down? Why, no. But I also have the picture of my great grand- 
 father on my wall. He was a Lutheran clergyman in a little church 
 up in northern Prussia. Do you want me to take that picture down 
 to prove my allegiance? That is asking too much. But that is what 
 this demand means. 
 
 We are here to make a composite people, one people. That means 
 toleration for each other and respect. That means adopting every- 
 thing that is good and rejecting everything that is bad so far as we 
 may; because the triumph of the republic rests on the possibility of 
 applying all the virtues and eliminating all the vices of the people 
 who come to our country. That is our hope. (Applause.) 
 
 We are not to be so many distinct peoples in this country. We 
 are to be one nation. We have borrowed from most of them. The 
 dream of liberty we got from France. True it is vague, and remains 
 vague to this day in many respects ; but without a dream to inspire 
 the best scheme of government is worthless. The form we got from 
 England, immediately ; but in the last analysis we can trace the funda- 
 mental dominating institutions back to the old Germanic tribes in the 
 
days when they went into battle singing religious hymns as they do 
 today, and when, as Tacitus said, they respected their women. (Ap- 
 plause.) And modern Germany has made her contributions to science 
 and music, and above all, to the capacity to work and to serve. 
 
 Am I to forget the fact that my people came from that section of 
 Germany in which the Germanic tribes were at home in those early 
 days? I need not be ashamed. I have sometimes asked some of my 
 friends of English descent where they really think they come from. 
 A good many of them come from that same section, and we are 
 quarreling over no worthy subject. We are so indebted to each other 
 that we can not keep the accounts. For illustration, I am only waking 
 up to the fact that Germany is indebted to the teachings of Irishmen 
 who came over there as missionaries centuries ago to bring wisdom and 
 learning. Our indebtedness is so interwoven that we can not separate 
 it. And so it should be. They have all contributed. But in the last 
 analysis we will all be American — a new type; something that has 
 never been seen in this world — a composition of the best that could 
 be gathered, physically, morally and intellectually, able to cope with 
 the new problems of free government which are very far from being 
 solved. To my mind we have that type in a measure now. We can 
 not resist it. When I watch the people, more especially when I see 
 our boys in blue going down the avenue on horseback or on foot, I 
 look upon them and feel that the forehead, the eye, the nose, and the 
 chin, and the whole poise is unlike anything else in the world. We 
 have a type now — an American type of our own. (Great applause.) 
 
 -i6— 
 
v^wnortt 
 
 iin mil mil Nil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 
 
 020 914 098 e