NEUTRALITY 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY 
 
 WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT 
 
 ' BEFORE 
 
 THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF 
 NEW JERSEY 
 
 With Greeting by ALFRED ELMER MILLS. President 
 and Proceedings in the Celebration 
 
 AT WASHINGTON'S HEADQUARTERS 
 
 IN MORRISTOWN, N. J. 
 
 On February 22nd, 1915 
 
NEUTRALITY 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY 
 
 WILLIAM H. TAFT 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF 
 NEW JERSEY 
 
 With Greeting by ALFRED ELMER MILLS, President 
 and Proceedings in the Celebration 
 
 AT WASHINGTON'S HEADQUARTERS 
 
 IN MORRISTOWN, N. J. 
 
 On February 22nd, 1915 
 
^ 
 
 {s>\'^ 
 
 -To, 
 
 O, of 0^ 
 jCT li 19 5 
 
K 
 
 ADDRESSES 
 
 Before the Members of the 
 WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 At Headquarters, Morris rowN, New Jersey, 
 February 22, 1915. 
 
 Mr. Mills: 
 
 We will show our patriotic fervor by singing "Amer- 
 ica." 
 
 [Audience sings.] 
 
 My friends, welcome once more to the home of Wash- 
 ington, which has been a Mecca for patriotic Americans for 
 over one hundred and thirty-five years. 
 
 It is a pleasure to look upon this audience. You may 
 remember that your dearly beloved President, the late Mr. 
 Roberts, used to call you the most representative, demo- 
 cratic, aristocratic, intelligent and distinguished body of 
 men on earth. [Applause.] I would add to this eulogium, 
 except that I do not believe in flattery. [Laughter.] I can 
 see from an examination of your faces that Father Time has 
 used you well during the past twelve months ; much better 
 than he used a relative of mine whose little three-year old 
 grandson once said to her, "Grandma, who put those deep 
 lines in your face? ' " Why, my dear, it was an old gentle- 
 man named Father Time." " Well," said the youngster, "I 
 think he is a mean, horrid old man, and I would like to tell 
 
 him so " 11 1 1 
 
 Father Time is not such a bad friend, after all, thougli 
 owing to the hardships of the past year many of you, no 
 doubt, feel toward him the way a colored woman once felt 
 toward a friend of hers. She was taken to a hospital in a 
 
very dilapidated condition, with a broken jaw. The physi- 
 cian in charge did his best to find out what had caused the 
 trouble. Finally, after a gieat deal of persuasion, she ad- 
 mitted she had iDeen struck with an object. "Was it a hard 
 object or a soft object?" ' Tole'ble hard." "Was it a large 
 object or a small object?" "Tole'ble large." "Was it com- 
 ing rapidly, or slowly?" "Tole'ble fast." Then, her pati- 
 ence exhausted, she turned to the doctor and said, "Doctor, 
 to tell you the truth, I was only just naturally kicked in the 
 face by a gentleman friend." [Laughter.] 
 
 Since we were last gathered within these walls, two of 
 the most momentous events of the centuries have occurred, 
 almost simultaneously, — the commencement of the world's 
 greatest war, and the completion of the Isthmian canal. 
 
 Surely a strange contrast, — the superb ending of the 
 mightiest struggle ever waged between man and nature and 
 the beginning of the most terrible contest ever carried on 
 between man and man. 
 
 When we look across the broad Atlantic we forget our 
 own sorrows and our hearts are iilled with sympathy for the 
 desolate homes in the British Isles, in Germany, in little 
 Belgium, in sunny France, and in the other warring countries. 
 
 This war, no matter how caused, is a sericus setback to 
 the world's civilization, and almost makes us forget the 
 United States has just achieved the greatest engineering 
 triumph of all time. The completion of the Panama canal 
 has been called the most important geographical event since 
 the discovery of Australia over three hundred years ago, 
 and it is almost certainly the last geographical event of the 
 first magnitude that will ever ocsur. This triumph of peace 
 will add immeasurably to the proiperity, strength and im- 
 portance of our country, and will, I believe, bring nearer 
 that day so intensely longed for by the peoples of the 
 world, when as described by Tennyson 
 
 "The war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags 
 were furl'd 
 
 In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world," 
 
There is a man whom we all love, who for many years 
 worked hard and effectively to bring this great enterprise to 
 a successful consummation, and who is particularly endeared 
 to us, because, when he required a Justice for the highest 
 court ill the land, he looked down upon little Jersey and 
 selected one of our own members for that position. [Ap- 
 plause.] Though a Yale man himself he chose a Princeton 
 man. [Apphiuse.] I hope that some day a Princeton pres- 
 ident may reciprocate and choose a Yale man. [Applause.] 
 Just six years ago this afternoon, at the request of your 
 chairman, Dr. Pierson, jon arose and wished long life and 
 a successful administration to this same man then about to 
 be inaugurated president of the United States. That man 
 has made good. [Applause.] He is with us today. |The 
 audience at this poiiit arose and gave three enthusiastic 
 cheers for l\Ir. Taft.] We will now hear from Mr. Taft, who 
 will talk to us on "Neutralitv." 
 
neutrality; 
 
 An Addeess by Hon. William H. Taft at Washington's 
 
 Headquartkes in Moeeistown, New Jersey, 
 
 Febeuaey 22nd, 1915. 
 
 Mr. Taft : 
 
 I am very delighted to have this cordial reception, 
 Mr. Chairman. I have been in Jerse}^ under less pleasant 
 circumstances. I had a gentle intimation from the gentle- 
 men who have charge of this function that there is a time 
 limit put upon speakers. Now, there is nothing that helps 
 with a long distance speaker, like the Secretary of State, or 
 myself [laughter], to meet the requirement— tlie time re- 
 quirement — as a commitment to paper of what you have to 
 say. It is like a sentence, the one who has to serve it is 
 willing to make it short. [Laughter.] Therefore I am go- 
 ing to ask you to bear with me while I risk the monotony of 
 a written address. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Washington Association of New 
 Jeesey : 
 
 Washington's life and service related to many phases 
 and problems in our national life, and his views, set forth 
 in his correspondence, in his messages, and expressed in 
 his executive acts, are broad and comprehensive. No issue 
 or problem of national importance presses on a birthday of 
 his, the solution of which may not be greatly aided by a 
 recurrence to principles which he practised and sought to 
 inculcate in his fellow countrymen. 
 
 Washington, the person, in spite of all he has written 
 and all that we know about him, is difficult to get at. Bob 
 Ingersoll's comparison between him and Lincoln, in which 
 he referred to George Washington as a steel engraving, has 
 something in it, because of his reserve and the difficulty of 
 getting at the real man. Therefore when I run across an 
 
incident that brings me close to him I rejoice, for there is 
 no one who has a profouncler respect for him as a man, a 
 patriot and a statesman. After Mr. Knox and I had nego- 
 tiated some general arbitration treaties and had sought to 
 have them ratified by the Senate, and had received them 
 back mutilated and mangled beyond recognition with 
 amendments of all sorts of most objectionable character, I 
 felt heartsick, because I really hoped they might do good. 
 This was not because we needed general arbitration treaties 
 between us and England and between us and France, for 
 we will never get into war with either of those countries, 
 but I was anxious to furnish a model of a treaty of arbitra- 
 tion that might suggest itself as a good treaty for other 
 countries, and thought ultimately we would get so many of 
 these treaties between the various countries that we might 
 ultimately secure a league of nations, upon which foundation 
 we might establish an arbitral court. But it was not to be. 
 It is to be, but it was not to be with that Senate and thut 
 President. In the administration of George Washington 
 through General Knox, another Knox, you will (observe, an 
 earlier Knrtx, who was Secretary of War, and f imiliar with 
 Indian affairs, a treaty was made with the Indians and he and 
 President Washington went to the Senate, as was the custom 
 in those days, to confer personally with the senators and 
 secure their advice and consent to the treaty. W^hen they 
 sat down. President Washington, like some of his successors, 
 found that those senators knew a good deal more about the 
 subject matter of that treaty than either the president or 
 the expert cabinet officer whom he brought with him, and 
 before they got through the consideration of the treaty it 
 didn't look any more like the original treaty than — what 
 shall I say? — I dcm't want to inject politics here, — than the 
 present banking act does like the original bill. The conse- 
 quence was that, when they left, Washington was quite 
 impatient. He is said to have looked stern, which is an 
 indication that he might sometimes have looked otherwise, 
 though we have no reason to think so from his portraits. 
 As the Father of our country step]ied out from the Senate 
 
chamber, lie turned to Kuox aud througli those stern lips of 
 his he said, "Knox, I'll be damned if I come here a^ain." 
 [Laughter.j Now, I am not in favor of profanity as a general 
 thing, but those words of his, now more than a century old, 
 make me feel nearer to Washington than I ever did before. 
 It revealed in him sensations I fully understand. 
 
 I do not intend today to dwell on the indispensable 
 character of the service that Washington rendered to the 
 country in winning independence and in the framing and 
 ratification of the Constitutiou. Under the inspiration of 
 these historic surroundings where Washington lived many 
 trying days and weeks and mouths of the Revolutionary 
 struggle, you have familiarized yourselves with his life. In 
 this presence, it would be work of supererogation for anyone, 
 though much more a student of his career than I am, to 
 review it. 
 
 After independence was won and the Constitution was 
 adopted, there still remained to this country a fateful period 
 in which the ship of state was to be launched, national 
 sovereignty was to be enforced and that independence, which 
 had been nominally granted and secured, was to be in fact 
 established among the nations of the world. 
 
 I pass by the achievement of national organization 
 under the guidance of Washington, assisted b}^ the genius 
 of Hamilton and Madison, before Jefi'erson entered the 
 Cabinet. I do not discuss the birth of national credit under 
 the financial measures pressed upon Congress by Hamilton 
 and secured ultimately through the co-operation of Jefi'erson.' 
 This 183rd anniversary of Washington's birth, in view of 
 the present critical condition in our international relations, 
 should bring to our minds the third great achievement of 
 his presidential term, the maintenance of a policy of neu- 
 trality through a general European war. He insisted upon 
 it as necessary before he became president ; he maintained 
 it throughout his official life as president against mighty odds 
 and under conditions that tried his soul, and in his farewell 
 address, he restated it and reinforced it as a legacy to the 
 American people. 
 
 8 
 
He bepjan his first administration at tlie time of the 
 outbreak of the French Ilevoliition. The progress of that 
 great popular uprising, with all its excesses and the wars 
 that grew out of it, was reflected iu American politics of that 
 day in a way that makes the currents iu our popular opinion 
 today due to the existing European war seem negligible. 
 France had been our friend, when we needed a friend, in 
 the llevolutiouary War. The French people were engaged 
 in destroying the divine right of kings, and substituting 
 therefore popular rule. They were encountering monarchical 
 intervention to restore the old system. Nothing was better 
 calculated to awakan the patriobic and friendlj- sympathy of 
 this country, in whose memory the struggles of the Revolu- 
 tion were still fresh. The appeals which the French 
 Republic, through the ministers which it had sent here, 
 Genet, Fauchet and Adet, fell upon grateful and responsive 
 hearts and aroused an anxiet}' to help this struggle of ouj. 
 friend for liberty in Europe. Moreover, our obligations to 
 France under ihe Treaty of 1778 seemed to require us to 
 favor her as a belligerent iu her war with England. The 
 intriguing and plotting of the French ministers to use the 
 United States as a basis of operations against England 
 greatly complicated the problem which Washington had to 
 face in avoiding an English war. Moreover, the utter 
 fatuousness of much of the English policy iu seizing 
 American merchantmen without warning and in stirring up 
 Indian outrages against our western settlers roused American 
 feeling against that country to the highest pitch. 
 
 In the teeth of marked British insolence, Washington 
 sent Jay to England to make the treaty which bore his 
 name. The flamboyant blundering and partisanship of 
 Monroe as minister to France, while the treaty was being 
 negotiated in England, leading to his recall, and the apparent 
 desertion of Washington by Federalists as well as Republi- 
 cans when he signed the treaty, and the subsequent change 
 of public opinion when the foreign French intrigue against 
 the treaty became known, and when, in spite of its many 
 defects, the benefits of the treaty were seen by the country 
 
constitute a train of events in tlie successful maintenance of 
 neutrality which proves it to be more completely and ex- 
 clusively Washington's own, and more fully due to liis 
 personal foresight, his personal courage and his personal 
 influence than any other achievement of his career. 
 
 In the Revolutionary war, of course, he was the leader, 
 but there were many others who shared with him the 
 responsibility. In the framing of the Constitution, in the 
 organization of our government, and in our financial policy, 
 Hamilton and Madison and others played a large part. 
 Washington sat as an arbitrator in many of these issues 
 which were presented to him in the opposing arguments of 
 his aS30ciates. As Jefferson said : "Daring the administra- 
 tion of our first President, his Cabinet of four members were 
 equally divided by as marked an opposition of principle as 
 monarchism and republicanism could" bring into conflict 
 Had that Cabinet been a [French] directory, like positive 
 and negative quantities in algebra, the opposing wi Is would 
 have balanced each other and produced a state of absolute 
 inaction. But the President heard with calmness the opinion 
 and reasoQs of each, decided the course to be pursued, and 
 kept the government steadily in it, unaffected by the agita- 
 tion. The public knew well the dissensions of the Cabinet, 
 but never had an uneasy thought on their account, because 
 they knew also they had provided a regulating power which 
 would keep the machine in steady movement." 
 
 But the policy of Neutrality was Washino;ton's alone. 
 He initiated it. He enforced it. He bequeathed it to his 
 countrymen. Before he had been chosen President, he 
 wrote as follows : 
 
 ''I hope the United States of America will be able to 
 keep disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and 
 wars ; and that before long they will, by the adoption of a 
 good national government, have become respectable in the 
 eves of the world. * * * It should be the policy of the 
 United States to administer to their wants without being 
 engaged in their quarrels." 
 
 A year after he went into the presidency he wrote to 
 10 
 
Lafayette that we were ''GradQall}^ recovering from tlie 
 distresses in which the war left us, patiently advancing in 
 our task of civil government, unentangled in the crooked 
 politics of Europe." 
 
 In March, 1793, Washington said : "All our late accounts 
 from Europe hold up the expectation of a general war in 
 that quarter. For the sake of humanity, I hope that such 
 an event will not take place. But if it should, I trust that 
 we shall have too just a sense of our own interest to originate 
 any cause that may involve us in it." 
 
 Again on March 12, 1793, he wrote to Jefferson: "War 
 having actually commenced between France and Great 
 Britain, it behooves the government of this country to use 
 every means in its power to prevent the citizens thereof from 
 embroiling us vv'ith either of these powers, by endeavoring 
 to maintain a strict neutrality. I therefore require that you 
 will give the subject mature consideration, that such 
 measures as shall be deemed most likely to effect this 
 desirable purpose may be adopted without delay." 
 
 On the 2d of April, 1793, he issued a proclamation of 
 of neutrality. It must be realized too that this proclamation 
 of neutrality was very difficult to reconcile with the engage- 
 ments of the United States under the treaty of France made 
 during the Revolutionary war, and it was possible only to 
 escape them on the plea that the}' were not binding on the 
 United States in the case of an offensive war such as France 
 was waging against England. Finally, after his course of 
 neutrality had been vindicated and he came to lay his office 
 down, he appealed to the American people not to depart 
 from it. He said, in his farewell address : 
 
 "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign 
 nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have 
 wdtli them as little political connection as possible. So far 
 as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled 
 with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. 
 
 "Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us 
 have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be 
 engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are 
 11 
 
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must 
 be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in 
 the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary 
 combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. 
 
 "Our detached and distant situation invites and enables 
 us to pursue a different course. 
 
 "Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? 
 Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by 
 interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, 
 entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European 
 ambition, rivalthip, interest, humor, or caprice?" 
 
 It seems to me that this is a good text from which to 
 preach a sermon and draw a lesson on this Washington's 
 birthday when most of the great powers of Europe are again 
 at war. We have among our citizens many who look back 
 to the country of one or another of the belligerents as their 
 native land. The natural result has followed that the 
 bitterness of the contest is reflected in the conflicting sym- 
 pathies of our people. The nevrspapers of no other country 
 have been as full of details of the war and of the circumstances 
 leading to it, as our own press. This has stimulated public 
 interest and created partisans who attack President W ilson 
 because he has been faithfully following the example set, 
 and the admonitions given, by our first president. No better 
 evidence of this could be had than that, from time to time, 
 first oneside and then the other critic S3S the Administration 
 for its partiality, its lame acquiescence, or its unfair protests. 
 So extreme have some of these partisans become that they 
 propose to organize a political party and take political 
 action, to be based on issues arisiug out of the present war- 
 to ignore altogether the questions germane to American 
 domestic politics, and to visit all candidates in future 
 elections who do not subscribe to their factional inter- 
 national views with political punishment. I am far from 
 saying that an unwise or an unpatriotic course in our foreign 
 relations may not justify criticism of an administration and 
 may not require its condemnation at the appropriate election, 
 but in such a case the reasons must be found in injury to 
 12 
 
the interests of the United States, and not in the merits of 
 the issues being fought out b}' European nations in an 
 European arena. [Applause.] 
 
 I was asked in Canada recently whether the war would 
 affect our politics, so as to divide parties on European lines. 
 I answered unhesitatingly in the negative. I said that to 
 inject European issues into American politics had uniformly 
 meant the defeat of those who attempted it. There is no 
 better proof of this than the revulsion of feeling against the 
 Kepublican party in the latter part of Washington's second 
 term, when the people suspected it of making the cause of 
 the French Revolution more important than the safety and 
 prosperity of the United States. The country rallied to 
 Washington's support and his maintenance of American 
 interests only a short time after he had signed the most 
 unpopular treaty ever negotiated in our history. 
 
 Legislation is pressed to forbid -the sale of arms and 
 ammunition by our merchants in trade to belligerents. It 
 happens that one party to the war is fully prepared with 
 ammunition and arms. It happens that the other party 
 is not. It happens that the party which is prepared 
 with ammunition and arms is excluded from the seas by 
 the navies of their opponents. It happens therefore 
 that the only sale of ammunition and arms that can take 
 place is to one side. Therefore, it is said that as the side to 
 which we are selling arms and ammunition is more or less 
 dependent on our sales, we should place an embargo on that 
 trade, force that side to peace, and bring the war to an end. 
 It has always been a rule of international law that neutral 
 countries may sell arms and ammunition to either belligerent 
 but that such articles are absolute contraband and liable to 
 confiscation on board a neutral vessel. We have proceeded 
 on this assumption and our manufacturers have sold arms 
 and ammunition to those belligerents who would buy. We 
 do not discriminate between the belligerents in the matter 
 of furnishing war material. It is only that the fortune of 
 war and the circumstances, over which we have no control, 
 drevent one side from purchasing in our markets which are 
 13 
 
open to all who can reach them. Nor is it possible to see 
 why the doing of that which neutrals in all wars have been 
 permitted to do should be made unneutral by such circum- 
 stances. The change of the well-established rule, however- 
 where such a change would inure only to the benefit of one 
 of the parties, might well be regarded as unneutral, as 
 has been pointed out by the President. Neutrality leagues, 
 therefore, that are organized to press legislation in the nature 
 of an embargo on the sale of arms and ammunition do not 
 seem to be rightly named. 
 
 But my chief objection to giving up the lawful and usual 
 course of a neutral to sell arms and ammunition to belliger- 
 ents is based on the highest national interest. We are a 
 country which is never likely to be fully prepared for war. 
 We must have the means of preparing as rapidly as possible 
 after war is imminent and inevitable. We would be most 
 foolish to adopt a policy of refusing to sell arms and 
 ammunition to belligerent powers which if it was pursued 
 against us when we were driven into war would leave us 
 helpless. 
 
 In our Spanish war we were obliged to purchase ships 
 and other equipments for war from foreign countries, and 
 in any future war we would be in the same position. 
 
 More than this, if we were to place an embargo on the 
 sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents, we would 
 discourage the industry in this country and reduce substan- 
 tially our possible domestic means of preparing for future 
 wars. It has long been the policy and the wise policy of 
 the War Department not to be dependent for its supplies 
 on government factories alone, but to encourttge private 
 enterprise in this line of manufacture, in order that, should 
 national exigency arise, we could depend on aid from private 
 sources. To deny to the owners of such investments the 
 opportunities of trade with belligerents would be to dis- 
 courage them and make our preparedness to resist unjust 
 aggression even less than it now is. 
 
 Finally, the general adoption of a course by neutrals not 
 to sell arras to the belligerents in a war would greatly stim- 
 14 
 
ulaio the tercIcDcj to iEcrease aimr.nun(s in time of peace 
 to be ready for war. Such a stimulus to great armaments 
 we all should deplore, because of their burden upon the 
 peoples of the countries affected, and because of the temp 
 tation to war involved in their maintenance. 
 
 Another criticism against the Administration comes not 
 only from those whose predilections are based on their 
 European origin, but also from native Americans who are 
 aroused by what they conceive to be the possible evil world 
 consequences of this war and the merits of its issues. They 
 complain of the Administration because it did not protest 
 against every violation of international law committed by 
 one set of the belligerents against the ether. This view was 
 made to depend at first upon what was thought to be a 
 treaty obligation on the part of the United States to protest, 
 growing out of the provisions of Hague treaties, to which 
 most of the belligerents together with the United States 
 have been signatories. Further examination, I think, show- 
 ed that most of these treaties were by their own terms in- 
 operative, because they bad not been signed by all the 
 belligerents. While the people of the United States might 
 well maintain the wisdom and righteousness of such pro- 
 visions, or deplore their violation, their government was not 
 under any treaty obligation to take part in the controversy, 
 to express an opinion, or to register a protest. 
 
 It must be noted that in every war one side must be 
 wrong, and frequently both sides are wrong. Frequently 
 both sides violate international law and the laws of war 
 against each other. It is most diffic.dt for a neutral to 
 learn all the facts in such a way as to reach a safe and 
 certain judgment on the merits. Moreover, even if this is 
 possible, it has been the policy of our government since its 
 establishment to decline to enter the European arena of war 
 in any capacity, and our obligation to take sides in a 
 European war and enter a protest must be exceedingly clear 
 before we should permit ourselves to do so. When an 
 issue made is being fought by millions of men on one side 
 and by millions of men on another, a neutral nation which 
 15 
 
fails to protest against violations of the laws of war as 
 between belligerents can not be said to acquiesce in those 
 violations or to recognize tliem in any way as a precedent 
 wliich will embarrass it. We must realize that in a contro- 
 versy like this, where the whole life-blood of each contestant 
 is being poured out, and in which its very existence as a 
 nation is at stake, protests like those proposed, in respect 
 of issues in which a neutral is not directly interested, may 
 Avell seem to the highly sensitive peoples engaged a formal 
 declaration of sympathy in the war with one side or the 
 other. This must inevitably and materially injure our 
 attitude of neutrality, without accomplishing any good. 
 Therefore, while I sympathize with the Belgians in this war, 
 its bloody center, I approve and commend to the full the 
 attitude of President Wilson in declining to consider the 
 evidence brought before him in respect to alleged atrocities 
 in Belgium, and to express an opinion on the issues pre- 
 sented. A similar decision with respect to the application 
 of the German Government to have him investigate the 
 evidence of the use of dum-dum bullets was equally sound. 
 We are not sitting as judges of issues between countries in 
 Europe in this great war. We are seeking to maintain strict 
 neutrality, and until our decision is invoked, with an agree- 
 ment to abide by our judgment and recommendation for 
 settlement, we need not embroil ourselves by official 
 expressions of criticism or approval of the acts of the par- 
 ticipants in the war. | Applause.] This is not only the 
 wisest course for us to pursue in maintaining an attitude that 
 may give us influence in promoting mediation when mediation 
 is possible; but it will help us avoid being drawn into the war. 
 It is said that we show ourselves utterly selfish and 
 commercial when we refuse to protest against a breach of 
 the laws of war by one belligerent against another, and yet 
 register protest against the violation of our neutral trade 
 rights. Thus our critics say we exalt our pockets above 
 principle. This is a confusion of ideas. When the action 
 of a belligerent directly affects our commercial interests, 
 then we must protest or acquiesce in the wrong. When the 
 16 
 
wrong is not committed against us but against a European 
 nation in a European quarrel, absence of protest by us is 
 not acquiescence by us but only consistent maintenance of 
 our National policy to avoid European quarrels. Not only 
 was this rule laid down by Washington, but it has found 
 authoritative expression in the reservation made in the treaty 
 between the United States, Germany, Austria- Hungary, 
 Belgium, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, The Nether- 
 lands, Portugal, Kussia and Sweden known as the Treaty of 
 Algeciras, proclaimed January 2t3, 1907. The reservation 
 was as follows: 
 
 "As a part of this act of ratification, the Senate under- 
 stands that the participation of the United States in the 
 Algeciras Conference, and in t^ie formulation and adoption 
 of the General Act and Protocol which resulted therefrom, 
 was with the sole purpose of preserving and increasing its 
 commerce in Morocco, the protection as to life, liberty and 
 property of its citizens residing or traveling therein, and of 
 aiding by its friendly offices and efforts in removing friction 
 and controversy which seemed to menace the peace between 
 the powers signatory with the United States to the treaty of 
 1880, all of which are on terms of amity with this govern- 
 ment; and without purpose to depart from the traditional 
 American foreign policy which forbids participation by the 
 United States in the settlement of political questions which 
 are entirely European in their scope." 
 
 It is noteworthy that this reservation was proposed by 
 the Senate and approved and signed by President Koosevelt in 
 the same years in which the Hague Treaties were signed. 
 It throws light on the attitude we proposed to take in 
 respect of breaches of those treaties committed by one 
 European Nation against another. 
 
 Our interest in the present war, therefore, under the 
 conditions that exist, should be limited as set forth in this 
 reservation, to wit, to 
 
 "Preserving and increasing the commerce of the United 
 States with the belligerents, to the protection as to life, 
 liberty and property of our citizsus residing or traveling in 
 
 17 
 
their countries, ami to tlie aiding by our friendly offices and 
 efff)rts in bringiuo; those countries to peace." 
 
 Our efforts for peace have been made as complete as 
 possible, for the President has already tendered his good 
 offices by way of mediation between the powers, and they 
 have not been accepted. 
 
 In preserving the commerce of the United States with 
 the belligerents, however, we are face to face Avith a crisis. 
 AYe are threatened with a serious invasion of our rights as 
 neutrals in trading with the bel]igereu.t countries. What 
 certainly is an innovation upon previous rules in respect to 
 neutral commerce and contraband of war has been initiated 
 bv the belligerents of both sides. The plantirjg of mines in 
 the open sea and the nse of submarines to send neutral ves- 
 sels to the bottom without inquiry as to their neutrality 
 when found in a so-called war zone of the open sea, are al] 
 of them a variation from the rules of international law 
 governing the action of belligerents towards neutral trade. 
 When their violation results in the destruction of the lives 
 of American citizens, or of American property, a grave issue 
 will arise as to what the duty of this Government is. The 
 responsibility of the President and Congress in meeting the 
 critical issue thus presented, in maintaining our national 
 rights and oar national honor on the one hand, with due 
 regard to the jiwful consequences to our 90,000,000 of people, 
 of engaging in this horrible world war, on the other, will be 
 very great. It involves on their part a judgment so 
 momentous in its consequences that we should earnestly 
 ])ray that the necessity for it may be averted. If. however, 
 the occasion arises, we can be confident tliat those in 
 authority will be actuated by the highest patriotic motives 
 and by the deepest concern for our national welfare. We 
 must not allow our pride or momentary passion to influence 
 our judgment. We must exercise the deliberation that the 
 fateful consequences in the loss of our best blood and the 
 enormous waste of treasure would necessarily impose upon 
 us. We must allow no jingo spirit to prevail. We must 
 abide the judgment of those to whom we have entrusted the 
 18 
 
authority, and when the President shall act, we must stand 
 I)}' him to the end. [Applause.] In this determination we 
 may be sure that all will join, no matter what their previous 
 views, no matter what their European origin. All will for- 
 get their differences in self-sacrificing loyalty to our common 
 flag and our common country. [Applause.] 
 
 Mn. IVIiLLS. I hear a motion extending the thanks of 
 this Association to Mr. Taft for his magnificent address. All 
 in favor of this motion will please rise. 
 
 We will close by singing " Auld Lang Syne." 
 
 19 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 914 138 3#