,9 
 / 1 
 
 DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT VON ST. LOUIS 
 
 Neutrality 
 
 AND 
 
 Public Opinion 
 
 BY 
 
 HON. CHARLES NAGEL 
 
 An Address Delivered under the Auspices 
 of the Society, at Sheldon Memorial Hall 
 on the Twenty-third of January, 1915 
 
ADDRESS BY 
 
 CHARLES NAGEL 
 
 DELIVERED UNDER THE AUSPICES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT 
 OF ST. LOUIS 
 
 SATURDAY, JANUARY 23rd, 1915 
 
 SHELDON MEMORIAL HALL 
 
 ST. LOUIS 
 
"3 
 
 ^^' 
 
 By transfer 
 The White House 
 
 Peterson Linotyping Company, Chicago 
 
Mr, Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 First, I want to express my appreciation for this invitation 
 from the Deutsche Gesellschaft. It means a great deal more 
 to me, perhaps, than you suspect, because, for the best part of 
 my life, I have lived under something of a suspicion that my 
 allegiance to our institutions of English origin might tempt me 
 to forget my ancestry. I have never felt the justice of that 
 charge, because I have believed that traditions bred in the bone 
 are perfectly safe in the citizenship of the United States. As I 
 read it, every nation whose representatives come to these shores 
 makes its contributions, and all must be amalgamated in the 
 one citizenship of this country. 
 
 Feeling as I do, I am not unaware of the delicacy of the 
 subject that I am to discuss, because I know that there is danger 
 of partisanship, of which we have had many demonstrations; 
 and because I believe it to be of the utmost importance that the 
 whole case be impartially and fairly stated. We must remem- 
 ber that we are a composite people. Our problem is to unite 
 the representatives of the many races in obedience to our com- 
 mon institutions. I think it can be said that the citizen of 
 German blood has done this. True, our institutions are of 
 English origin in the political sense; but in the social and 
 industrial sense tremendous influences have been brought to 
 bear from other countries, and, in that respect, the German 
 may claim to have done his share. In the political field his 
 prominence has not been particularly distinguished. It is true 
 at least to say that prominent positions have not been repre- 
 sented by him with any degree of frequency. But that is natural 
 and normal. It was wise to have institutions of English origin 
 kept within the charge of the representatives of those people 
 who might be expected to have the better understanding of these 
 institutions. But when we consider our country apart from 
 the strictly political phase, and include the industrial and 
 
 3 
 
social, it must be said that the German branch of our citizenship 
 has done its share. I know it is customary to point to the 
 contributions of German science and art and music and learning. 
 But let us look for once in another direction. 
 
 When, for illustration, we ask who does the farming, it will 
 not be denied that foremost among the real tillers of the soil are 
 the German, the Bohemian, the Swede, the Norwegian, the Pole 
 and the Italian. If we ask about the composition of our people, 
 we will find that the English, the Scotch and the Irish stock do not 
 represent substantially more than fifty per cent of the population 
 of this country. 
 
 These are facts, and we ought to congratulate ourselves 
 that they have not been made more prominent in the consid- 
 eration of our questions than has been the case. Every contri- 
 bution has been made to the common amalgamation, which, in 
 my judgment, is so complete that there should be no room for 
 the terms that we hear bandied about, which are perhaps not 
 intended to mean as much as they seem, but which, in my 
 opinion, are to be avoided. 
 
 Our sympathy we cannot deny. For many it must be diffi- 
 cult to restrain it within the confines of patriotism. But we 
 who glory in an independent citizenship must be careful that 
 no word and no conduct may tend to commit our country to a 
 false position. We must keep in mind a distinction between 
 sympathy for a particular belligerent, or even an opinion about 
 the right and wrong of the war, and the position which we ask 
 our Government to take as a neutral countrj^ In my opinion 
 there should be in our citizenship no German- Americans, no 
 Irish-Americans, no Italian-Americans, and no English-Ameri- 
 cans. The use of the hyphen as I see it really defeats the very 
 idea for which w^e stand. And I say this fully appreciating 
 that there are English sympathizers who might well employ 
 the hyphen to identify themselves as Americans. There is just 
 one i^latform upon which all the ]:)rinciples and traditions of 
 all the races here represented must be assembled, and from 
 which must be announced every rule for our guidance. That 
 is the platform of the United States. But, standing upon it, 
 every citizen has the right to ask questions of himself and of 
 others ; and he may even be under the obligation to express his 
 
 4 
 
convictions as they come to him, upon every problem of moment 
 to this nation. 
 
 I know it has been said that the foreign war does not 
 concern us. Eminent authority in our nation has made that 
 statement. How monstrous a proposition! The foreign war 
 concerns us, not only now in the most material sense ; but the 
 consequences of that war, no matter what the result may be, 
 will be of vast significance to this nation for years to come. 
 The mere cutting of communication between Germany and 
 Austria and this country has brought anguish and sorrow to 
 homes here and there, has deprived people here of the privilege 
 of communication, and of the right to give support ofttimes to 
 those dearest and nearest to them. So profoundly are we 
 interested in tliis means of communication, that its destruction 
 may well present the question of our right to protest, and how 
 the situation is to be remedied. Civilized peoples are so closely 
 related today that the consequences of such a war cannot be 
 escaped by us, privately or officially. 
 
 Some of the questions forced upon us are of public moment, 
 and concern the Government. As to them we have a right 
 to ask how they are dealt with, and how they are answered; 
 and whether they are considered with that degree of impar- 
 tiality, judgment and firmness, which the united citizenship of 
 this country has the right to expect. 
 
 For illustration : It is urged that the United States should 
 not permit the sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents, and 
 that contention has been presented from several ])oints of view. 
 It has been said that we are not neutral if we sell arms under 
 the existing conditions, because one belligerent is in a position 
 to prevent similar delivery of arms to other belligerents, and, 
 therefore, enjoys an advantage. As one citizen, I am bound tu 
 say that I cannot follow that argument. I cannot believe that 
 there is anything in treaties or in international law which 
 prevents citizens of the United States from selling ammunition 
 to any nation that is in a position to obtain and to pay for them. 
 In other words, the choice is not ours. We appear to be willing 
 to sell to any nation ; and the circumstances that one can prevent 
 us from selling to another, does not present a question of inter- 
 national law or justice. In my judgment, a mistake is made 
 
 5 
 
when the argument is put upon that ground. As a matter of 
 right, our manufacturers may sell to whom they please. The 
 fact that they cannot deliver may be their misfortune; and it 
 may be the misfortune of a belligerent people; but it does not 
 present a question under international law. In other words, 
 the question is not one of justice to Germany and Austria, but 
 it is one of self-respect for the United States. The real question 
 is, are we willing to have our manufacturers sell arms and 
 ammunition to any one? In view of all our recommendations 
 for peace treaties, are we prepared to have that traffic continue f 
 
 With respect to this Continent, and more especially with 
 respect to Mexico, Congress a few years ago adopted a reso- 
 lution which authorized the President of the United States to 
 prevent the exportation of arms to nations on this Continent. 
 That authority was used, and arms were not imported for a 
 time. If we are really as solicitous about peace on the other 
 side of the ocean as we appear to be, what is there to prevent 
 us from extending that resolution? That, in my opinion, is the 
 weight of the argument against the sale of arms. It is true 
 that the use of the President's authority in pursuance of that 
 resolution has somewhat obscured our position. We did after- 
 wards allow the export of arms and ammunition to help a 
 particular side in the Mexican controversy; and we did hinder 
 a German ship from delivering arms and ammunition at a 
 particular point to the other side. But that circumstance might 
 be used to show the danger of playing favorites, and to accen- 
 tuate the necessity for extreme circumspection in our attitude 
 now. In any event this much is true: Our position as a pro- 
 moter of peace will not be judged by high-sounding treaties, 
 platforms and political speeches, but by the promptness with 
 which we cast our moral declarations into legislative form. 
 
 Again, we have a shipping bill, which presents the question 
 whether we have the right to buy merchantmen that are interned 
 in our harbors. Personally, I am opposed to this bill ; because 
 I should regret to have a seeming emergency used as the induce- 
 ment for the adoption of a political policy which, to my mind, 
 constitutes a radical departure from accepted principle, and 
 which invites the first step towards government ownership of 
 large enterprises. But the further doubt has been suggested, 
 
 6 
 
and is now urged, that we might give offense to one of the 
 belligerents if we bought such ships. I cannot follow that 
 argument. If we have a right to sell ammunition to England, 
 we must have a right to buy ships from Germany. I am told, 
 and read in the press, that it has been officially said that no 
 objection is made to the purchase by us of German ships, 
 provided those ships are used in South American commerce. 
 That argument I cannot follow. We either have a right to 
 buy those ships, or we have not ; and it must not be left to any 
 foreign country to say how we shall employ those ships, or 
 where we shall carry our commerce. 
 
 The uncertainty of the objection to such a purchase is well 
 illustrated by the varying grounds that have been assigned. 
 Originally it was said that Great Britain might take exception 
 to the fact that a purchase of German ships by us would result 
 in a material monetary support to her enemy. Now we are told 
 that these interned ships might be converted into armed men- 
 of-war. Probably these objections are readily disposed of. In 
 the first instance, the validity of a purchase for cash from 
 Germany must depend entirely upon the character of the subject 
 purchased. So far as the ships — the subject of the purchase — 
 are concerned, they are not armed at the present time, but are 
 merchantmen pure and simple ; and, further, they are merchant- 
 men upon whom we have, in the absence of a merchant marine 
 of our own, depended in a very large measure as our carriers, 
 in the pursuit of our legitimate business with foreign countries. 
 
 The only argument, therefore, which, in my opinion, is 
 deserving of serious attention, is the one that these ships in 
 their present position are subject to capture by the allies ; and 
 of this question the utmost that can be said is that it is unde- 
 termined. Accepting it as such, it is for us to decide whether 
 it is our purpose to permit every doubtful question in whose 
 answer we are interested, to be settled for us by another power, 
 in accordance with the dictates of her immediate necessities. Or 
 whether we will for ourselves enquire into the rule of reason 
 of the particular case, and, having reached our own conclusion, 
 will stand for our decision. What is the reason of the case? 
 To repeat, these merchantmen constitute in large part our 
 reliance for carrving our trade between friendly ports. They 
 
 7 
 
are not now prepared for war. They are in no sense to be 
 likened to men-of-war built in neutral ports, and there trans- 
 ferred to a belligerent to be employed upon the high seas. The 
 change of ownership in our case would involve nothing more 
 than the employment of these ships in the same business in 
 which they were heretofore engaged under the flag of a neutral 
 between neutral ports. 
 
 That this is the reason of the case was virtually confirmed 
 in the London declaration of 1909. That declaration was signed 
 by the delegate of Great Britain; and the only circumstance 
 that now prevents us from insisting upon that declaration is 
 that it has not been ratified by her. 
 
 In view of this situation, I submit that there is no more 
 room for discussion about the correctness of the principle. The 
 only point that can be made is that some countries have not 
 formally acceded to the principle, although they have morally 
 ratified it. That being so, it appears to me that we are unques- 
 tionably in a iDosition to say that we propose to have some 
 hand in the formulating of correct international principles — 
 not after the time of their employment has passed — but while 
 they can be invoked by us, and that we should stand upon a 
 decision so reached. 
 
 The next question is as to cargoes that may be carried from 
 our country to neutral ports — and here we are confronted by 
 an extended list announced by Great Britain, which is not based 
 upon and is not enforced in obedience to accepted practice under 
 international law, but which has now been so extended and so 
 enforced, upon the avowed ground that the necessities of the 
 case compel Great Britain to resort to such measures. You 
 have heard it said during this war that necessity does not afford 
 a good excuse ; and, for my part, I fail to see why the argument 
 should be good one way and not the other. We may in this 
 case want to consult our own interest, as others have done; 
 and, in my judgment, we have a right to insist upon a list of 
 free goods substantially as it stood before the war was declared. 
 "While I am not a believer in our ability to permanently build 
 up our trade upon the misfortunes of other countries, we have 
 a right to take advantage of the legitimate conditions that have 
 arisen; and we must at least have the privilege to sell to any 
 
 8 
 
nation with whom we are not at war any goods that were not 
 commonly recognized as contraband by international rule. 
 Belligerents may be permitted to modify International Law in 
 so far as these modifications affect only the immediate con- 
 testants. It is quite another thing to have either belligerent by 
 declaration or conduct deprive a neutral of established rights. 
 
 More than that. Great Britain has extended the right of 
 blockade. She secures the effect of an actual blockade of Ger- 
 man ports, by withdrawing her fleet to the North Sea, perhaps 
 even to the western coast of England, and by taking neutral 
 ships into her ports upon mere suspicion, without any such 
 well-defined grounds as have heretofore been recognized. Her 
 trials in her Prize Courts, and her ultimate purchase of cargoes, 
 afford no relief, because her course necessarily results in the 
 discouragement and destruction of our commerce. 
 
 These are questions that present themselves to us as citi- 
 zens; and we watch the answers that are made because we are 
 interested in the development of international law and rules 
 as they are now being formulated. We have an illustration: 
 There is a ship which has been purchased by a citizen of the 
 United States, and our Government has decided that his pur- 
 chase is proper and regular. That ship has a cargo confessedly 
 not within any interpretation of the contraband list. In other 
 words, by every rule of international law, and by the decision 
 which our Government has deliberately made, as I understand 
 it, this ship has a right to carry that cargo to a neutral port. 
 We are told that this ship will be seized because the sale is 
 questioned. What are we going to do about it? Two extreme 
 measures are possible. Perhaps a man-of-war might go with 
 that ship, with tlie announcement that whoever seized one would 
 have to sink the other. Or we might wait to have something 
 turn up, and content ourselves with insuring the cargo for the 
 time being. One course is as sure to invite trouble as the other. 
 
 In my judgment there is a middle course. There might be 
 a Secretary of State who would declare in unequivocal language 
 that we had determined that this ship has a right to go, and 
 that she will go. In such an event we would not need a man- 
 of-war, because the rights to the cargo are conceded, and the 
 question of the ship's bona fide sale has been decided by us. 
 
 9 
 
We are not interested in disputed questions to be brought into 
 moot courts. The delay of diplomatic correspondence is well 
 calculated to serve the same purpose as seizing the ship itself. 
 Protracted discussions mean no foreign commerce for us during 
 this war. If we yield, the result would be a solemn declaration 
 of the right of our manufacturers to sell ammunition to the 
 allies, and acquiesce in the refusal to have us deliver cotton 
 to Germany and Austria for fear that we might give offense to 
 their enemies. In the last analysis we might be asked to admit 
 that it is equally unneutral to refuse to sell ammunition to 
 Great Britain, and to offer to sell cotton to Germany and 
 Austria. 
 
 In any event, is it neutral for us, without protest or enquiry, 
 to receive and to accept Great Britain's note in which she 
 announces that she may not continue the observance of the 
 rule with respect to free cargoes, because her enemies are guilty 
 of barbarous conduct in making war? Are we prepared to 
 institute comparisons in the methods of warfare, and to accept 
 this charge as against one belligerent, and upon that to sur- 
 render our rights with respect to the other? 
 
 Another international question is presented; that is, with 
 respect to the right of belligerents on neutral ships. It may be 
 said that we are not substantially concerned, because we have 
 no ships to speak of to be challenged. But we are profoundly 
 interested in the situation, because it presents a grave principle 
 of international law for the adoption of which we paid a heavy 
 price at the time. 
 
 During the War of Independence, Great Britain captured 
 Laurens on board a neutral Dutch ship, and held him as a pris- 
 oner in the Tower until the end of the war. In 1861 we took 
 two Confederate emissaries off the English neutral ship Trent, 
 and we were driven to the verge of war with England by doing^ 
 precisely what England had done to us. Only by the presence 
 of mind of Senator Sumner — by his taking the responsibility on 
 the floor of the Senate — ^was our country saved from the gravest 
 consequences. Our submission established a rule, in spite of 
 which citizens of belligerent countries have now been taken off 
 Italian ships and Dutch ships. If it be contended that our right 
 to protest depends upon present injury suffered by us, then it 
 
 10 
 
looks very much as though the law may be changed from time 
 to time, so long as there is no neutral country strong enough 
 to assert its rights. Again, I submit that there has been much 
 said of late about strong countries protecting weaker ones. 
 
 It is for us to remember Abraham Lincoln and Secretary 
 Seward, and their experience in 1861. We have a right to ask 
 whether these rules of conduct upon the sea may be changed 
 from day to day to suit the convenience and the purpose of one 
 absolute power. 
 
 Monopoly is a dangerous thing. It may be beneficent, but 
 it may also be abused. I hear that one of our distinguished 
 citizens has said that the development of our commerce to South 
 America would be very much furthered by the triumph of the 
 British fleet upon the seas. I trust that the growth of our 
 commerce may never be entrusted to the sufferance of any 
 foreign power. Unless there be a world peace, I hope that we 
 may stand for our rights and our obligations in our own name, 
 not beholden to any nation. If there be need for a fleet, let it 
 be a fleet with the stars and stripes at the mast. So long as 
 there is monopoly of sea power, there is temptation to substitute 
 men-of-war for merchantmen; there is danger of abuse and 
 friction ; and so long as there is friction there is danger of war ; 
 and that we should be prepared to meet. 
 
 I refer to these questions because they are real, and because, 
 as citizens, we are entitled to our opinions. It may be said 
 that this last question to which I have just referred is affected 
 by the declaration of London of 1909, in which the broad term 
 is employed that all citizens embodied in the army of a bellig- 
 erent country may be taken off a neutral ship. The language 
 is not that men, subject to call or service, may be taken, but 
 that men embodied in tlie army, may. It is to be remembered 
 that the declaration of London has not been ratified by Great 
 Britain, and has therefore not been accepted as binding by her; 
 but even so, the declaration has received interpretation in two 
 cases arising between Italy and Turkey. In one case Italy did 
 take Turkey's soldiers and officers off an English ship without 
 protest. In the other case Italy took passengers on the ground 
 that they were enlisted men from a French ship. The last con- 
 troversy was submitted to The Hague tribunal, and it was de- 
 ll 
 
cided that Italy was right because some of the passengers 
 taken were really enlisted men. In other words, the decision 
 rested upon the presence of passengers who were enlisted men. 
 But apart from that, it must be remembered that many citizens 
 of Germany and Austria taken off neutral ships were not only 
 not embodied in either army, but were not even subject to call 
 or service, because they were far beyond the years when army 
 service could be contemplated. 
 
 I submit that there has been no modification of interna- 
 tional law in this respect ; and if there is a principle at stake to 
 which we, as one of the nations, have contributed at our cost, 
 then that principle should not be changed without protest from 
 us. If we act otherwise, the law will, in every instance, be 
 made without us while we are waiting. We will be told that 
 thes^ questions should be submitted to tribunals for definite 
 settlement. Ordinarily, I favor that course; but not when the 
 delay is had under circumstances that must work obvious and 
 irreparable injury to us. Submission and awards of that kind 
 are consolations for the weak. Present insistence upon right 
 and justice in reason is a part of the strong. It should be 
 remembered that international law is now in the making, and 
 that not unlike all other law, it is the growth of conduct. If we 
 stand helplessly by, the leveling process will be downward. 
 
 There are other questions, in my judgment, more difficult 
 still and perhaps more far-reaching in their consequences, with 
 reference to which there is great danger, that we may take par- 
 tisan views and be guilty of hasty expression. For my part, I 
 say again that I should regard it as a calamity if the difficulties 
 and controversies on the other side should find reflection, by 
 friction, on this side. But the way to avoid it, is to speak 
 promxjtly, deliberately and fearlessly. 
 
 True, our institutions are of English origin. It is not 
 stretching a point to say tliat in the last analysis tliey are of 
 German origin. It should be remembered that the English are 
 not an unmixed stock, that the great mass of her people is 
 Saxon, and that it was essentially this branch that constituted 
 the early .settlers upon our shores, and gave direction to our 
 institutions. AVe are not so far apart, between the United 
 States, and England and. Germany and Austria. Even other 
 
 12 
 
countries might easily be included, but the pressure is upon 
 this particular point now. 
 
 When England had her war with the Boers, I expressed 
 the opinion that the Boers could never win, because the English 
 language would defeat them. They would not be understood 
 in time to make a successful war. Even in great wars public 
 opinion is a powerful factor. 
 
 Today the English language is still the most powerful 
 monopoly in the civilized world. A beneficent monopoly, no 
 doubt; but in case of emergency, capable of great abuse. That 
 monopoly has existed for a long period. It has been used to 
 frame and to make opinion in England and in other countries; 
 and the difficulty at this time is to correct impressions that have 
 been created in the past, and that have been most carefully 
 encouraged in the present. 
 
 This has been demonstrated particularly in the beginning 
 of this foreign war, when our country was flooded with one- 
 sided, with colored and with false reports. In my judgment, 
 the cutting of the German cable was the greatest political 
 blunder of the war, not for temporary purposes, but in its ulti- 
 mate consequences. It is true that in the beginning, public 
 opinion was successfully prejudiced, because all the information 
 came from one side. But the American people are fair-minded ; 
 they want the truth. They will be impatient if it is denied, and 
 today we see that the demand is growing. In every newspaper 
 we read, and in every conversation we hear, the effect of this 
 new demand. Just as international law is made in the act, so 
 history will be recorded as the facts are now written down. 
 It is our part to help write them down correctly. We should 
 remember that to this day the story of the Hessians is the chief 
 reproach against the German element of this country ; forgetting 
 all the time that it was Great Britain who bought these wretched, 
 helpless men; forgetting that the purchase was made against 
 the energetic protest of Frederick the Great; and forgetting 
 that Germany has always been a friendly power. 
 
 Let us return to some of these early reports about the war, 
 and see how they read in the light of facts that have been 
 brought to us since. Take the case of Austria and Servia. 
 One impression created was that Austria-Hungary had made 
 
 13 
 
an unreasonable demand upon Servia. Her Crown Prince had 
 been assassinated. She had made exhaustive inquiry, and pre- 
 sented evidence to show that among some twenty-five persons 
 implicated, there were a number in high official position, by 
 whom the crime had been instigated and encouraged. It was 
 claimed in the early reports that Austria-Hungary, in asking 
 to participate in the hearing which Servia was willing to afford, 
 had gone so far as to deny the integrity and independence of 
 Servia herself ; and that interpretation has found support here. 
 What is the fact! Austria did not demand to sit in judgment 
 upon the wrong-doers ; she did ask that a representative of hers 
 participate in the investigation — not in the judgment. Her 
 request in that respect was assigned as the cause of the war, 
 and upon that narrow margin has it been attempted to fix the 
 responsibility of this war by a great many among us. 
 
 Let us see how it compares with other instances. It was 
 claimed by Austria that such a demand as she made was not 
 unusual in similar international controversies. But we need 
 not go back far. Only the other day the newspapers stated that 
 Italy's demand upon Turkey had been met by an agreement to 
 return an English Consul, and to name a commission to make 
 enquiry into the guilt of the participants; and that thereupon 
 Italy, accepting these terms, had at once landed her own Consul, 
 with instructions to participate in the investigation, and to see 
 to it that that enquiry was brought to a prompt conclusion. 
 The cases are precisely similar, with this exception, that 
 Austria asked for the right to participate, and Italy took it. 
 And yet there has not been an adverse comment upon the 
 conduct of Italy, in public or in private, that has come to my 
 attention. 
 
 But let us come nearer home. We have had controversies 
 now and then. We went down to the Gulf of Mexico and made 
 an attack upon a Mexican city. We killed a number of people, 
 and lost some of our men. Wliat was our grievance! Because 
 somebody whom we would not recognize would not speak to us. 
 That was the substance of it. We never declared war, but we 
 made war. Are we in a position to pass upon the formalities 
 of intercourse between nations? I speak of it because if we as 
 a people propose to condemn the abuses of war, we should re- 
 
 14 
 
fleet upon what we ourselves have done through our Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 What did we do about Spain? One morning the country 
 was aroused by the information that the Maine had been blown 
 up. When did we ask for or make an investigation. Some years 
 after the war. We came to the conclusion that some Spanish 
 ofl&cer, without any reason to believe that the Spanish Govern- 
 ment knew of it, must have been instrumental in the blowing 
 up of the Maine, And President McKinley himself could not 
 stop the popular demand for war upon Spain. We made that 
 war. We took territory in consequence, and we investigated 
 afterwards. 
 
 By way of comparison, we should remember that Austria- 
 Hungary, in making her demands, even to the last offered to 
 guarantee to Servia, and to the great powers, that the integrity 
 of the Government and territory of Servia should in all respects 
 be maintained. 
 
 Furthermore, as late as 1909 the great powers had solemnly 
 demanded of Servia that her conduct towards Austria must 
 be mended ; that she had given constant occasion for unrest, and 
 that the patience of Austria had been tried to the extreme. Is it 
 to be wondered at that in view of the past experience and the 
 immediate tragedy, and the unsatisfactory response from Ser- 
 via, Austria found it impossible to further control popular 
 impatience, and felt compelled to resort to aggressive measures'? 
 And if she did, are we in a position to pass judgment on her 
 conduct? 
 
 In this connection, is there not reason to believe that 
 Russia exercised practical control over Servia throughout ; that 
 some of her people were, as Austria charged, instrumental in 
 furthering the friction on the border line ? Is it not of peculiar 
 interest now to recall that Grey said throughout the efforts to 
 preserve peace that he was not interested in the Austria-Servia 
 controversy; but if Russia entered, he would become interested? 
 And is there no reason now, in the enquiry which has been made 
 in the English Labor Organ of late, why it was that Grey, 
 apparently solicitous for peace, exerted his influence at every 
 point except the one where it might have been effective, namely, 
 with Russia? 
 
 15 
 
Take the case of Belgium. I know that there is strong 
 feeling upon that subject. But let us get the true situation, 
 and at least make up our minds upon all the facts that we can 
 get; or if we feel that we have not been supplied with every- 
 thing, let us wait for the rest before we pass final judgment. 
 It is true, as Germany said, she had no right to go through 
 Belgium. As I recall it, she did not say it was a breach of 
 neutrality, but that it was against international law. She also 
 said that she was driven by necessity, and, finally, that she 
 had every reason to believe that France would go through Bel- 
 gium if she did not; and that therefore she could not take the 
 risk of an attack under such disadvantageous conditions. I 
 know there have been a number of explanations made, and many 
 of them do not meet with our sympathy. I know that Belgian, 
 French, English and German authorities have said that in case 
 of necessity every country at war has a right to cross neutral 
 territory; and it has even been claimed that a Belgian authority 
 has declared that this is especially true when the neutral power 
 is not strong enough to protect itself. We need not approve 
 of this doctrine; but reflection will tell us that necessity is a 
 powerful factor, which has by no means been invoked by only 
 one side in this war, and which has strong support in private 
 and in public emergency. 
 
 Again, it has been said that Belgium had a treaty with 
 Germany. Upon technical grounds that is to be doubted. 
 Strictly speaking, the German Empire probably never had a 
 treaty with Belgium. For this view Professor Burgess is 
 authority. A similar view was expressed by Gladstone in 1870, 
 and, I think, is shared by Grey at the present time. But that 
 argument is hardly persuasive for the American mind. If, 
 however, Germany was right in saying that Belgium was not 
 really neutral ; if she had serious reason to believe that Belgium 
 was not neutral, then, in my judgment, she could not hesitate to 
 act; because her own salvation depended upon her decision and 
 conduct. And in this connection it should not be forgotten that 
 Germany promised protection to Belgium's integrity and reim- 
 bursement for all damage that might be done by the crossing 
 of her troops, which was refused, and that even after the first 
 conflicts Germany again renewed the tender and it was again 
 
 16 
 
refused. In the light of Germany's conduct with respect to 
 Luxemburg, where she also crossed without strict right, but 
 where her offer was accepted, Germany is at least entitled to 
 have it said that an adjustment of the injury done has been 
 reached, and that the larger part of the sum awarded has even 
 now been paid. 
 
 But more has come to the surface now, although little 
 enough publicity has been given to it. We are still told about 
 the poor inhabitants of Belgium, and God knows every human 
 being sees that picture. But sometimes there seems to be a 
 disposition to dwell upon our sympathies for the people, in order 
 that the later disclosures about Belgium's official conduct may 
 be covered over. There is no question now that Belgium and 
 Great Britain had had communications. Not a treaty, but an 
 understanding, to the eifect that Great Britain would land 
 troops in Belgium for her protection. Such understandings are 
 more dangerous than treaties, because they are even more 
 secret. Originally that understanding appears to have been 
 based upon the supposition that Germany might encroach upon 
 Belgium ; but in the last interview reduced to wanting, the repre- 
 sentative of Great Britain makes it perfectly plain that his 
 country intended to land troops without request on the part of 
 Belgium, and would do it when England thought that such a 
 course was necessary. When the Belgian representative insisted 
 that English troops could be landed only upon Belgium's request, 
 the answer was that Belgium was not strong enough to defend 
 herself, and that Great Britain herself would decide when such 
 landing should be made. 
 
 The documents are no longer denied, although for a long 
 period of time after their discovery silence was observed with 
 respect to them. The explanation has been offered that the 
 entire communications were based upon the idea that Germany 
 might become guilty of a breach of neutrality with respect to 
 Belgium. But no explanation has been given, or, indeed, upon 
 the face of the record can be given, for England's declaration 
 that she herself would determine, without consultation of Bel- 
 gium, when it would be necessary to land her troops upon the 
 shores of Belgium. 
 
 Again, it is important to remember that an ex- Ambassador 
 
 17 
 
of Belgium, when these communications between Great Britain 
 and his country were brought to his attention, in an extended 
 communication which is also on hand, made the declaration that 
 the understanding between the two countries had effected the 
 surrender of Belgium's neutrality. 
 
 Does it not stand to reason that Germany had grounds for 
 suspicion, and are we to assume that she was entirely ignorant 
 of these occurrences? Of course, no one here can prove it, but 
 I assume German papers are as reliable as English papers, and 
 they do say that Germany had remonstrated with Belgium for 
 having so many French officers in her forts ; and when France 
 ^nsw^ered that there was no French artillery in Belgium at the 
 beginning of the war, Germany's response was that she captured 
 such artillery at Liege. 
 
 These are circumstances to be considered, and if the case 
 is as it now appears, Germany was undoubtedly right in her 
 suspicion and in her decision. In any event, there is a great 
 deal in what Trevelyan said at the time of his resignation from 
 the British Cabinet at the beginning of the war : ' ' I disapprove 
 as much as any one the breach of Belgium's neutrality by Ger- 
 many, but I insist that if France had been guilty of this wrong, 
 we would have protested in some fashion without committing 
 our country to war." 
 
 Above all, what becomes of the English claim that Great 
 Britain was induced to join this war because of the injustice 
 that Germany had done to Belgium, when Grey, on the third of 
 August, in his speech to Parliament, said that on the day before, 
 namely, on the second of August, and before Germany had 
 touched Belgium, he had promised France that if France 
 and Germany became engaged in war, the English fleet would 
 protect the north coast of France Avith British ships. Was 
 that neutrality? There is no claim that this promise was 
 not made before Germany was guilty of any conduct with respect 
 to Belgium. 
 
 In the same speech Grey admits that as early as 1906 
 the officers of the English and the officers of the French 
 army had been communicating for the purpose of preparing 
 themselves against a common enemy. Even now in an English 
 magazine we may read praise of Churchill for having had the 
 
 18 
 
foresight to have the English fleet reviewed as early as July 
 (while the German Kaiser was sailing in his yacht in the North 
 Sea) , in order that the fleet might be ready for prompt action 
 when the war commenced. And that statement finds support in 
 the correspondence to the New York Nation. No wonder Tre- 
 velyan said when he resigned that they had been assured that 
 England was free to act, but that they found now that she had 
 been committed all the time. 
 
 Are not these circumstances to be weighed in determining 
 the question of guilt or innocence of this world war! 
 
 It is not for me to say that this or that is true ; but I do 
 say that it is stated in responsible journals. Inasmuch as we 
 are judging men and nations by books and articles, it is fair to 
 present this side. It is also fair to add that the attache of Bel- 
 gium in St. Petersburg officially reported in so many words, that 
 it was obvious that the Kaiser had done everything within his 
 power to prevent the war, and that there was little question that 
 the war party in Russia could not be kept in control after the 
 confidence had gained ground in St. Petersburg that Great 
 Britain would stand behind Russia in any event. 
 
 These, too, are only circumstances, but why should they 
 not be weighed? 
 
 To my mind there is strong proof that the Belgian govern- 
 ment was responsible, and that the Belgian people are innocent. 
 All the sj^mpathy that goes out to them they deserve. No one 
 on this side can do too much; but, let me ask, why not other 
 peoples? Do you suppose that the Cossacks inflicted no suffer- 
 ing upon women and children in East Prussia! Or do we fail 
 to think about their suffering because the English language 
 fails to record it? Why not the Poles; are they guilty? They 
 do not belong to any country. And does any one need to be told 
 about their sufferings, vvith two armies marching across their 
 country as often as three times— and does any one raise a 
 voice or a hand for them? If we arc to weep, why not shed our 
 tears impartially? 
 
 Why not remember Finland? A civilized country with her 
 own religion and her own literature, deprived of her constitu- 
 tional independence by the stroke of the Czar's pen, and now 
 further subjected to wrong and deprivation? Why not sympa- 
 
 19 
 
tliize with that jieople! If you doubt the gravity of their case, 
 read the volume by Fisher, who is an Englishman. 
 
 There are other minor matters that receive their coloring 
 from the reports that come to us by way of England. I repeat, 
 it is a mistake to cut oil communication with Germany and 
 Austria-Hungary, because had we felt from the beginning that 
 we heard both sides impatience would never have entered our 
 judgment, and it would be unnecessary for us to present the 
 other side in such meetings as this, upon the ground that only 
 one side had been fairly heard. 
 
 We read about the mines in the North Sea, and they are 
 invariably called "German mines." Has anybody ever identi- 
 fied one? I read in a German paper the other day that the 
 Dutch Government picked up one hundred mines, and that it 
 was semi-officially announced that eighty of them were English 
 and twenty French. I do not know whether this is true or 
 not, and neither do you, but it should enter into the discus- 
 sion, and should at least raise our doubts before we accept so 
 plain a charge. Especially is this true when the statement is 
 coupled with the early German official announcement that the 
 Government has laid no mines in the North Sea except on the 
 immediate coast of England and Germany, and that these mines 
 are so secure that in the absence of unforeseen conditions they 
 cannot be torn away. 
 
 Does it not stand to reason that Germany may not be 
 interested in increasing the hazards in the North Sea? With the 
 exception of Italy, her only means of communication with the 
 world is by way of the North Sea — with the neutral powers, 
 Holland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. If interests are to be 
 balanced. Great Britain has perhaps as mucli or more reason 
 to make the North Sea insecure for the double purpose of dis- 
 couraging commercial intercourse with Germany, and of giving 
 Great Britain an excuse to maintain a practical blockade of 
 German ports, with her fleet secure on the western coast of 
 England. 
 
 Then there was the tale that the Kaiser had one hundred 
 socialists shot. We now know that the socialists who fell were 
 at the front. One socialist voted against one war appropriation, 
 and more has been made of that than of the resignation of 
 
 20 
 
three of Great Britain's most distinguished citizens from her 
 Cabinet, because they could not approve of the war. 
 
 We hear about atrocities. I shall not go into that subject. 
 We know that there are atrocities in all wars, and that there 
 are bad people in all countries. But, upon reflection, the Ameri- 
 can mind will hardly accept that the German soldier — at least 
 a product of a schooling system and of a system of labor and 
 work — is more brutal than an army that is composed of English, 
 French, Belgians, Eussians, Japanese, Hindus and Turcos. It 
 does not appeal to the imagination and judgment; and rather 
 than listen to all these accusations, I would take the words of 
 Lord Roberts — an Englishman such as Great Britain has ever 
 had, a man, every inch of him — who, in writing the book ' ' Forty 
 Years in India," observed the moderation and the modesty that 
 Grant showed in his memoirs, and who deprecated these accu- 
 sations because, as he said, ''there are atrocities in all wars." 
 Finally, as investigations are made by Americans, and even by 
 Englishmen, these accusations fall to the ground. 
 
 And so about the attacks upon the coast. It is the purpose 
 now to have us believe that those attacks are barbarous and 
 savage. It is true a man reading an account like that is bound 
 to put down the paper. One child or one woman killed or 
 injured in that manner is enough of tragedy for a whole war. 
 Have you read about the little peasant girl in Galicia who 
 received the highest order from the Austrian Emperor because 
 her leg was shot off while carrying water to the fighting soldiers I 
 But let us remember that the first attack on an undefended 
 coast was made by the British ship Pegasus, while the coast of 
 England is at least defended ; and the first aerial raid was made 
 upon unfortified Duesseldorf in Germany. 
 
 That was the introduction in the early part of tlie war, 
 which has been followed up since then at other points; and 
 the only difference between tlie two is that the one has been 
 effective and the other was not. 
 
 That brings to my mind the point to which your chairman 
 referred, and which should not be forgotten. Great Britain 
 will naturally make much of these attacks because she has not 
 smelt foreign powder in her country for several centuries. I do 
 not say that rejoicingly, but these are facts. Great Britain has 
 
 21 
 
fought many wars, and has had many peoples help her fight, 
 but she has had no fighting on English soil. Granting that her 
 men have fought like brave men — and they have been and are 
 a brave people, in spite of everything that may be said now — 
 they have not known for centuries what it is to have English 
 women and children subjected to the ravages of war. 
 
 Germany, on the other hand, knows what war means. She 
 has never had time to forget, and she is not apt to declare 
 war hastily. 
 
 When abroad last summer I asked whether I could get a 
 piece of old German furniture. I knew I could get French and 
 Italian, but I wanted a representative piece of old German. 
 I was told it could not be had, because the thirty years' war 
 had left none. That is the whole story. No one knows how that 
 country has been devastated by wars fought upon its soil, often 
 by foreign contending forces. Only the other day I read that 
 no historian has ever dared to put in print the real story of the 
 thirty years' war. Was it very different in the Napoleonic 
 wars? Humiliation — heroism, but no recognition in the treaty 
 of Vienna. Had Germany been given Elsas and Lothringen by 
 treaty then, that question would have been justly and finally 
 settled. She was denied even so much. She w^as left to take 
 these provinces in 1870, and thus was sowed the seed for another 
 war. Germany knows the story that England has forgotten; 
 and the people of Great Britain are naturally more sensitive, in 
 view of their experience during the last few centuries about the 
 real sufferings of war. 
 
 However, all this does not go to the real cause. We cannot 
 determine who was responsible by considering merely such facts. 
 We cannot determine guilt or innocence by the mere studying 
 of the diplomatic chess-board, or by reading the White Book 
 and the Blue Book, and less still by reading the briefs of astute 
 lawyers based upon paper cases carefully prepared by experi- 
 enced diplomats. The real cause of the war is not to be found 
 in the trouble between Austria-Hungary and Servia, nor is it 
 to be read in Grey's speeches, nor in the German Chancellor's, 
 nor in the attitude of France, nor in the state of preparedness 
 of Germany, nor in the timely review of tlie English fleet, nor 
 even in the building of Russian railroads with French monev 
 
 22 
 
to the Eastern border of Germany. The real cause of the war, 
 in my opinion, lies deep down beyond all these things. Wars are 
 not made by Kings today; they are made by peoples; and, in 
 my judgment, this war, in the last analysis, is a peoples' war. 
 It is to be attributed to the inevitable conflict between the East 
 and the West. That is the essential cause of the war. There 
 are irrepressible conflicts of race, religion and material struggle 
 that operate powerfully, thougli half-consciously, to bring about 
 war in spite of all our peace proclamations. The spirit of the 
 crusades is as present today as it was centuries ago, and some 
 of the peoples involved are as little advanced and as little pre- 
 pared for appeals to more spiritual tribunals than were the 
 peoples of earlier days. 
 
 Germany is today the essential standard-bearer of western 
 civilization against eastern encroachment, because England has 
 for the time abandoned the cause. That is the fundamental 
 explanation. The war being inevitable, the question really 
 was how other countries would align themselves. About France 
 there could be no doubt. She had decorated the statue of 
 Elsas all these years, and the people who did that could not 
 resist the war fever when the chance came. She had her war 
 party and the day had come. Every one accepts that, and 
 every one — even her enemies — feel profoundest sympathy for 
 her. But that does not say that Elsas has not been as well 
 governed by Germany as Ireland has been by England. The 
 serious question was whether England would ally herself with 
 her natural friend, Germany, to postpone war, or with her tra- 
 ditional enemy, Russia, to bring war about. As Grey said, 
 she consulted her own interest. She had a civilized competitoi* 
 against whom she had no cause for war, but for whose humilia- 
 tion she was willing to become a party to any combination. 
 In my judgment, she committed the greatest blunder in her 
 history, because her unquestioned triumph would be her pro- 
 foundest defeat. 
 
 If Great Britain succeeds with Russia and Japan in defeat- 
 ing Germany for the time being, is there doubt in your minds 
 that Russia will take Constantinople, will in that way control 
 the way to India, and will lay the first foundation for the dis- 
 memberment of the British Empire? Who would settle the ques- 
 
 23 
 
tions which must surely arise in such a contingency between 
 England and her Eastern ally? 
 
 Who are Great Britain's allies! First and foremost, Rus- 
 sia. Is that a combination to invite our confidence and our 
 sympathy? What has become of the sentiment that was created 
 in years past by the writings of Kennan about the horrors of 
 Siberia? What has become of the impressions that were created 
 by the fate of Finland? What is there to change the attitude 
 of the United States, whose people sympathized with Japan 
 against Russia and are now asked to side with Russia against 
 Germany? Where is the popular demand that forced an abro- 
 gation of all treaties between the United States and Russia 
 because of the oppressive measures which Russia exercised 
 against citizens of the United States visiting their old homes? 
 Do those who prate about brutality really wish the triumph of 
 a government whose reputation speaks naught but oppression? 
 
 And what of Japan? What is the foundation and where 
 is the justification of that alliance? Will anybody believe that 
 Japan entered into the war without definite assurance of con- 
 cessions ? Then what has become of this abhorrence of conquest ! 
 Does any one know when, under what circumstances, and with 
 what obligations the treaty between Great Britain and Japan 
 was made? Was it an offensive and defensive treaty against 
 the world? If we were excepted, was as much true of other 
 countries? If so, who were they? And if Germany alone was 
 had in mind in that treaty do we not get a hint as to responsi- 
 bility for this war? 
 
 I ask is not such a condition suggestive for us — for the 
 future in the far East? 
 
 Who are the other allies? The Hindus? No. They are not 
 allies. They have not the independence to form an alliance. 
 They are citizens for the purpose of being soldiers, and for 
 no other. I do not desire to criticize the Hindu; but I am 
 endeavoring to see just how it would look to us. It is somewhat 
 anomalous, it appears to me, to know that a Hindu is practically 
 excluded from Canada, and, if he gets in, is generally sent back, 
 although he comes under the flag of Great Britain. And yet the 
 Canadian and the Hindu are fighting side by side in the name of 
 civilization against Germany. Not unlike Australia, suspicious 
 
 24 
 
of the encouragement to Japan in the Pacific Ocean, but glorify- 
 ing in the combination of their fleets to humiliate Germany. 
 
 Is there anything inspiring in the presence of the Turcot 
 No American will say that he ought to be a soldier in such a 
 war. He belongs to a subject race. There is no thought of his 
 fighting for his own independence or cause. The highest motive 
 that can be attributed to him is his joy in killing some kind of a 
 white man. In our country it is the irony of fate that we cannot 
 secure even a chance at equality for the black man, although we 
 have granted it to him constitutionally and legally ; and, at the 
 same time, the very part of our people which is least willing 
 to secure the black man that right, is loudest in its expression 
 of sympathy for the Turco's victory over the Germans. 
 
 And at last the Egyptian, too. Within twenty-five years 
 England was still withdrawing from her temporary occupancy. 
 Now she has in Egypt's name declared war on Germany to con- 
 trol the Suez Canal ; and still we talk of breaches of neutrality, 
 and condemn a restrained nation's desire to enlarge her ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 Eeflect upon such a combination to destroy a highly civilized 
 people, upon the ground that they are brutal — for that is the 
 charge. An attack to humiliate Teutonic civilization; and in 
 that attack Great Britain has allies galore, but not a Teuton 
 nation allied with her. 
 
 We are told that the accusations that have gone out are 
 not really entertained in our country. It is said the American 
 people are intelligent enough not to be influenced by that sort 
 of statement. I am glad to say that, in a large measure, this 
 is true. Some very distinguished men in our country have 
 spoken up bravely and impartially. We read with deep interest 
 the statements of the president of Yale, who, with absolute 
 impartiality and admirable clearness, lays before us conditions 
 abroad as he knows them. But can we suppress other statements 
 coming from a very prominent citizen, also associated with 
 intellectual life, who has so far forgotten himself as to ascribe 
 this war chiefly to the brutality of the German mind? That 
 leads one to suspect that the author of such statements must 
 have received his first impressions about Bernhardi and 
 Treitschke from newspaper clippings after the war was 
 
 25 
 
declared. If he had read the books themselves, or, better, if 
 he had read other books about Germany, he would know that 
 he has completely missed the point of these authors. Their 
 appeal to the German people was to wake up; that was their 
 real plea. They feared that the old spirit of the Deutsche 
 Michel had again come upon the country, or that the people 
 might suffer the common fate of prosperity; and they sought 
 to arouse the people from Avhat they thought to be lethargy 
 and luxury. 
 
 But if we must speak of brutality, let us recall what authors 
 of other countries have said. Have there been no Englishmen 
 who talked war and advocated preparation! Lord Roberts 
 counseled an English army based upon service, and he was a 
 respected soldier and citizen. Churchill had for some time 
 avowedly aimed at Germany in his public utterances. Lea, an 
 American, as late as 1912, in a book dedicated to Lord Eoberts, 
 announced it to be the first duty of Great Britain to crush 
 Germany; and Kitchener's reputation rests upon his ability 
 to ruthlessly mow down savages. Is there nothing savage, for 
 illustration, in Kipling, the poet? Has any man succeeded in 
 putting brutality in so poetic a form, with the eternal refrain 
 of the white man's burden, and never a thought for the yellow 
 man? Is there nothing brutal in Curzon's speech, in ^vhich he 
 anticipates the joy of seeing the Turcos dance on the sidewalks 
 of Potsdam? And has France had no war spirit? Her present 
 Minister of War has for many years favored an attack upon 
 Germany. Russia has had her war party, menacing the peace 
 of the world. Our country had Admiral Mahan, who believed 
 in taking territory'- for the purpose of spreading civilization and 
 meeting our responsibility to the world. Nor should we forget 
 that there was a time when we had Roosevelt, and regarded him 
 as something of an interpreter of public sentiment. 
 
 So let us deal with these facts, and let us not be lost in 
 phrases of militarism. 
 
 If German}^ was strong in her own army, let it be remem- 
 bered that she had not as large a percentage of soldiers to her 
 population as France; and her appropriations per capita were 
 smaller. Her appropriations for army and navy were not as 
 large as those of Great Britain, and per capita they were much 
 
 26 
 
smaller. They were not as large as those of Russia. And 
 above all, her army is composed of her own citizens — the same 
 citizens who have made her a nation of first rank by every test 
 of high civilization. 
 
 When we speak of the dangers of such a power in Germany, 
 why not reflect upon the power of the British fleet? Is there 
 no significance in a fleet which arbitrarily controls the seas, and, 
 so far as we can see, makes international law to meet the case? 
 As for the Kaiser, he is not an absolute monarch, as is so often 
 stated. These impressions about militarism, monarchy and 
 bureaucracy in Germany have been permitted to grow and live, 
 because English information has not kept pace with German 
 development. But now since we have watched the Kaiser for 
 some five months, I think we must admit that there is at least 
 one imperial figure who with every son at the front, challenges 
 the world's attention. They are a part of a system of which 
 the people themselves form a part ; more completely than is the 
 case in any one of the other countries. Germany is a country 
 of service from Kaiser to Knecht — in peace and in war. 
 
 I had not been in Germany for forty-two years, arriving 
 there two days before the state of war was declared; but I 
 witnessed the greatest demonstration that was ever presented 
 to me. I could not have believed that it was possible for any 
 people to exhibit such unanimity of spirit and devotion. On the 
 day before the war,, apparently every human being hoped that 
 war might be averted ; but in one hour the change was wrought, 
 an army was created, an army of men at the front, and an army 
 of women at home. Without sign of rejoicing or dismay upon 
 every lip the word Schicksalsstunde. I stood at the railroad 
 station in Muenchen for hours and saw the strangers apparently 
 of all countries rush to get away. With all the anxiety and 
 terror among them, I never heard a word of unfriendliness; 
 never saw an act calculated to invite friction or discomfort. As 
 late as September, in Berlin day after day I saw English women 
 standing in long lines in the street waiting for their transporta- 
 tion ; and not a person to molest them, not an officer required to 
 protect them. I saw officers with their wives and families go 
 to join their regiments, and part from them at the entrance of 
 the stations. I remember seeing an old peasant woman accom- 
 
 27 
 
panying her young son, carrying the last bundle as a token to 
 her boy — but never a tear while the men were there. All for 
 the nation. I traveled through the country, and out in the fields 
 I saw the women and the children and the old men, who at sight 
 of a uniform would pause to put down their rakes and cheer; 
 and then go on to bring in the harvest. I have seen the children 
 at the station cheering the soldiers ; many times, no doubt, salut- 
 ing the men who filled the gaps made by their own fallen fathers 
 or brothers. I attended a religious service in the Thier Garten 
 in Berlin, and heard the national hymns sung by the multitude — 
 a mixture of religion and patriotism, such as I had not believed 
 possible in this day and century. And it seemed to me that I 
 saw one nation which the civilized world cannot afford to lose ; 
 because, and I say it without hesitation, more than any other, 
 that nation has solved the modern problem of doing substanti- 
 ally all its own work in peace and in war. 
 
 We must remember that the questions of today are not so 
 much political; they are rather industrial and social, and in 
 these fields Germany has forged ahead with a degree of success 
 that is little understood in other countries, and that, in my 
 judgment, is without parallel. Great Britain has learned the 
 lesson to import her labor. France has employed much foreign 
 labor. We are doing it; and our unwillingness to do our own 
 work constitutes our greatest weakness. Disraeli early in his 
 career said that British aristocracy had retained its preroga- 
 tives, but had forgotten its obligations. Dawson, an English- 
 man, puts it plainly to England, that if she wants to compete 
 with Germany she must work like Germany. In a later book he 
 says that bureaucracy does not necessarily mean the same thing 
 in two countries, and that the greatest mistake England has 
 made with respect to Germany is to misunderstand her local 
 system, the foundation of her national strength. He says Eng- 
 land has kept the form of free government, but has dismissed 
 the use of experts. Germany has retained the expert, and has 
 evolved the most successful system of liberal self-government 
 upon the old rules laid down by Stein, that is known to the 
 civilized world of the present day. The result is that Germany 
 has no paupers; she has only poor; she has no feeling of con- 
 tempt for poor people, but she has solicitude ; she has no beggars 
 
 28 
 
on the streets, because there is work or support; she has no 
 unprotected orphans, because the government takes control and 
 sees to their bringing up. If persuasive evidence were needed 
 of the perfection of her system in the care of her destitute, it 
 need only be said that in spite of all the horrors and cost of her 
 war, she has even now made an appropriation of $100,000,000 
 for the reconstruction of East Prussia, destroyed by Russian 
 invasion within the last few months. She has not rested with 
 the appropriation, but she has appointed a commission of 
 trained men to ascertain the best method for the restoration of 
 the destroyed country, upon lines and in a fashion that will con- 
 stitute an improvement over the conditions that prevailed before 
 the war. These are evidences of her success in a field in which, 
 despite all our declamation about liberty, most civilized coun- 
 tries of the present day have failed. 
 
 I need not say that it is not for us to make comparisons in 
 passion. For one, I do not share the feeling that is sometimes 
 expressed with respect to England. I think England has made 
 a great political mistake. That is my judgment, and in that I 
 am borne out by the statement made by Trevelyan at the time 
 of his resignation. He said among other things that war had 
 been declared because they did not wish to see France destroyed, 
 but that he was just as much interested in the name of civiliza- 
 tion not to see Germany destroyed. He asked whether they are 
 to rejoice to see Russia come out of this war successfully with 
 her wild and ever renewing hordes of endless peoples to pour 
 down upon bowed western civilization! He adds that they are 
 really fighting for Russia. 
 
 As many of you no doubt know, I have always been an ad- 
 mirer of England. The books of great Englishmen are on my 
 shelves, and I cannot forget that such inspiration as has come 
 to me I must attribute in large part to English influence. I can- 
 not question that most of our citizenship, whatever its origin, 
 must be in some measure indebted for the same experience. 
 True, there are German books upon my shelves, and I may re- 
 gret that they are not more widely understood in my country. 
 I cannot but believe that our people would be benefited by a 
 better appreciation of the sublime idealism of Schiller, the pro- 
 found philosophy of Goethe, the intense patriotism of Arndt and 
 
 29 
 
Jahn, and the great statesmanship of Stein. But with all that, 
 no American can be asked to forget that England always had 
 her great men as she has now. I must still turn to Burke, Pitt, 
 Fox and others, who were friends to our country in the day 
 of her need, and who today provide inspiration for high patriot- 
 ism. We cannot be asked to forget that in the day of our Civil 
 War, but for Bright, the great Englishman, we might have had 
 England against us. I cannot forget that in this day there are 
 Morley, Trevelyan, Burns and others, who see England's case 
 much as I see it, and who regard her attitude as a blunder. I 
 cannot forget that Bryce wrote a book which was an awakening 
 for the United States, and thereby rendered a service of ines- 
 timable value to us. 
 
 The truth is that the peoples of Germany and England are 
 so closely related that this conflict should never have been. All 
 the strength they have should have gone to each other's sup- 
 port, to sustain them in the ultimate conflict. Germany has 
 understood the literature and the laws of England, and has 
 profited by them. Although the English people have no corre- 
 sponding acquaintance with German literature, her distin- 
 guished men have repeatedly paid tribute to German thought 
 and influence. We need but instance Carlyle and Morley. 
 Within less than two years Lord Haldane, in his address before 
 the American Bar Association, frankly stated that the German 
 word '' SittlichJceit/' — the foundation of all law and social or- 
 der — had no translation in the language of any other people. 
 Then how did this conflict arise but through the influence of 
 misguided politicians. 
 
 In truth these people are cousins, and unhappily the con- 
 flict must be the more serious because they are. Nevertheless, 
 I cling to the hope and the belief, that in the last analysis the 
 question must be how untimely Eastern influence shall be with- 
 stood in its attempt to encroach upon western civilization. I 
 ask, will any one nation be strong enough to make that resist- 
 ance? For my part, I agree with the declaration which I read 
 in one of the German newspapers even after the war, that in 
 spite of all the savagery; in spite of all the bitterness and the 
 hatred, it must be recognized that ultimately the Teuton nations 
 will be compelled to stand together against Eastern invasion. 
 
 30 
 
Eussia's day may come in the dim future; but it has not now 
 come, because she is not now prepared to take control of the 
 world's civilization by aught but arms and force. 
 
 Again, the Germans have the word which is the keynote 
 to the ultimate Teutonic supremacy, — Ich dien. It comes from 
 them and they have lived it. The English adopted it, but, in 
 some measure, are forgetting to live it. These are the words 
 upon which those nations, Germany and England, will have to 
 build their platform, to stem the onslaught which is bound to 
 come from the East — from a country that must be resisted 
 although its people can never be conquered because their coun- 
 try cannot be invaded. 
 
 And we? Our part may be that of ultimate peacemaker. 
 If that be so, the first condition is an attitude of public and 
 private neutrality. But neutrality does not mean mere acquies- 
 cense. It means absolute impartiality between belligerents, and 
 firm insistence upon our own rights. 
 
 31 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 914 096 2