Neutralitt 
 
 AND 
 
 Public Opinion 
 
 BY 
 
 HON. CHARLES NAGEL 
 
 An Address Delivered at 
 Sheldon Memorial Halt 
 St. Louis, Mo., on the 
 Twenty-third of January, 
 19 15 
 
 SOUTHARD y BROWN. Putliskers and 
 Distributors, ^\^orl<^ Building, New York 
 
 \ TEN CENTS PEK COPY 
 
ADDRESS BY 
 CHARLES NAGEL 
 
 DELIVERED AT SHELDON MEMORIAL HALL 
 
 ST. LOUIS, MO., ON THE 23d OF 
 
 JANUARY, 1915 
 
 Ten: Cents Per Copy 
 
 SOUTHARD & BROWN 
 
 Publishers and Distributors 
 WORLD BUILDING 
 NEW YORK 
 
By transfer 
 T32L& \:aX'i,& r;<iU^o. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 
 C\\ 
 
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 allegi- 
 ance 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 per- 
 fectly 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 citizen- 
 ship of this country. 
 
 Feeling as I do, I am not unaware of the delicacy of the sub- 
 ject 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 remember that 
 we are a composite people. Our problem is to unite the repre- 
 sentatives of the many races in obedience to our common institu 
 tions. 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 represented by him with a.iy 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 under- 
 
 3 
 
standing of these institutions. But when we consider our country 
 apart from the strictly political phase, and include the industrial 
 and social, it must be said that the German branch of our citizen- 
 ship has done its share. I know it is customary to point to the con- 
 tributions 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 popu- 
 lation of this country. 
 
 These are facts, and we ought to congratulate ourselves that 
 they have not been made more prominent in the consideration of 
 our questions than has been the case. Every contribution 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 difficult 
 to restrain it within ihe 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 par- 
 ticular 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 country. In my opinion there should be in 
 our citizenship no German-Americans, no Irish-Americans, no 
 Italian-Americans and no English-Americans. The use of the 
 hyphen as I see it really defeats the very idea for which we stand. 
 And I say this fully appreciating that there are English sympa- 
 thizers who might well employ the hyphen to identify themselves 
 as Americans. There is just one platform upon which all the 
 principles and traditions of all the races here represented must 
 be assembled, and from which must be announced every rule for 
 
 4 
 
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 convictions as they come to him, upon every problera 
 of moment to this nation. 
 
 I know it has been said that the foreign war does not con- 
 cern us. Eminent authority in our nation has made that state- 
 ment. 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 sig- 
 nificance to this nation for years to come. The mere cutting of 
 cummunication 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 this means of com- 
 munication, 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 to-day that the conse- 
 quences of such a war cannot be escaped by us, privately or offi- 
 cially. 
 
 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 impartiality, 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 points 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 pre- 
 vent similar delivery of arms to other belligerents, and, therefore, 
 enjoys an advantage. As one citizen, I am bound to say that I 
 cannot follow that argument. I cannot believe that there is any- 
 thincr in treaties or in international law which prevents citizens 
 
 5 
 
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 international law or 
 justice. In my judgment, a mistake is made when the argument 
 is put upon that ground. As a matter of right, our manufac- 
 turers 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 inter- 
 national 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? 
 
 With respect to this Continent, and more especially with 
 respect to Mexico, Congress a few years ago adopted a resolution 
 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 extend- 
 ing 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 some- 
 what obscured our position. We did afterwards 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 accentuate the necessity for extreme circum- 
 spection in our attitude now. In any event this much is true: 
 Our position as a promoter 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 legis- 
 lative form. 
 
 6 
 
Again, we have a sliippiug 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 toward government ownership of 
 large enterprises. But the further doubt has been suggested, 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 merchantmen upon whom 
 we have, in the absence of a merchant marine of our own, de- 
 pended 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 deserv- 
 ing of serious attention, is the one that these ships in their 
 
 7 
 
present position are subject to capture by tbe allies; and of tbis 
 question tbe utmost tbat can be said is tbat it is undetermined. 
 Accepting it as sucb, it is for us to decide wbetber it is our pur- 
 pose to permit every doubtful question in whose answer we are 
 interested, to be settled for us by another power, in accordance 
 with tbe dictates of ber immediate necessities. Or wbetber we 
 will, for ourselves, inquire into tbe rule of reason of tbe particu- 
 lar case, and having reached our own conclusion, will stand for 
 our decision. What is tbe reason of the case? To repeat, these 
 merchantmen constitute in large part our reliance for carrying 
 our trade between friendly ports. They are not now prepared for 
 war. They are in no sense to be likened to men-of-war built in 
 neutral ports, and there transferred to a belligerent to be em- 
 ployed upon the high seas. The change of ownership in our case 
 would involve nothing more than tbe employment of these ships 
 in the same business in which they were heretofore engaged under 
 tbe flag of a neutral between neutral ports. 
 
 Tbat tbis is the reason of the case was virtually confirmed 
 in tbe London declaration of 1909. That declaration was signed 
 by tbe 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 tbe correctness of tbe principle. Tbe only 
 point tbat can be made is tbat some countries have not formally 
 acceded to the princif)le, although they have morally ratified it. 
 Tbat being so, it appears to me that we are unquestionably in a 
 position to say tbat we propose to have some band in tbe formu- 
 lating 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. 
 
 Tbe 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 
 
 8 
 
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 sub- 
 stantially 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 nation with whom 
 we are not at war any goods that were not commonly recognized 
 as contraband by international rule. Belligerents may be per- 
 mitted to modify international law in so far as these modifica- 
 tions affect only the immediate contestants. 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 German 
 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 discourage- 
 ment 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 this purchase 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 
 
 9 
 
Government lias 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 the announce- 
 ment 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. 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 discus- 
 sions 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 
 uunneutral 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 inquiry, 
 to receive and to accept Great Britain's note in which she an- 
 nounces that she may not continue the observance of the rule with 
 respect to free cargoes, because her enemies are guilty of bar- 
 barous 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 surrender 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 
 
 10 
 
sakl that we are not substantially concerned, because ^^e have 
 no ships to speak of to be challenged. But we are profoundly 
 "nterested in the situation, because it presents a grave principle of 
 international law for the Adoption of which we paid a heavy price 
 
 *"* * DuS the War of Independence Great Britain captured 
 Laurens on board a neutral Dutch ship and held "- -^ PJ— 
 in the Tower until the end of the war. In 1861 we took two Con 
 federate emissaries off the English neutral ship Ti^nt, and we 
 were driven to the verge of war with England by doing precisely 
 That England had done to us. Only by the presence of mmd 
 Senator Sumner-by his taking the responsibility on the floor n 
 
 thetnate-was oi^ country --^-^'^"rVri^rot 
 Our submission established a rule, in spite of which citizens of 
 beni-e ent countries have now been taken off Italian ships and 
 Dut^h ships. If it be contended that our right to protest depends 
 upo 1 in's'ent injury suffered by us. then it looks very much as 
 rhou-b the law may be changed from time to time, so long as there 
 s no neutral country strong enough to assert its rights. Again, 
 i si^l!:it that there'has been much said of late about strong 
 
 ponntries protecting weaker ones. 
 
 countiies p^^ ^^ ^ = .g^^^ter Abraham Lincoln and Secretary 
 
 Seward and their experience in 18G1. 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 abso- 
 
 '"'' MoTopoly is a dangerous thing. It may be beneficent but 
 it may also be abused. I hear that one of our distingmshed cit. 
 zens has said that the development of our commerce to South 
 America would be very much furthered by the triumph of the 
 BH sh fl ir pon the seas. I trust that the growth of our com- 
 me"y never be entrusted to the sufferance of any foreign 
 power unless there be a world peace, I hope that we may stand 
 for our i«ts and our obligations in our own name, not beholdea 
 o any nation. It there be need for a fleet, let it be a fleet with the 
 StaiTand Stripes at the mast. So long as there is monopoly of 
 
sea power there is temptation to substitute men-of-war for mer- 
 chantmen ; there is clanger 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 em- 
 ployed that all citizens embodied in the army of a belligerent 
 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 the 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 controversy was su!- 
 mitted to The Hague tribunal, and it was decided 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 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 international 
 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 these questions 
 should be submitted to tribunals for definite settlement. Ordi- 
 narily, I favor that course, but not when the delay is had under 
 circumstances that must work obvious and irreparable injury to 
 
 12 
 
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 
 partisan 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 fric- 
 tion, on this side. But the way to avoid it is to speak promptly, 
 deliberately and fearlessly. 
 
 True, our institutions are of English origin. It is not stretch- 
 ing a point to say that in the last analysis they 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 set- 
 tlers upon our shores and gave direction to our institutions. We 
 are not so far apart, between the United States, and England and 
 Germany and Austria. Even other 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 Englisi 
 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. 
 
 To-day the English language is still the most powerful mon- 
 opoly in the civilized world. A benificient 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 
 
 13 
 
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 ultimate 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 to-day we see that the de- 
 mand is growing. In every newspaper we read, and in every con- 
 versation we hear, the effect of this new demand. Just as inter- 
 national 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 tlie 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 impres- 
 sion created was that Austria-Hungary had made an unreason- 
 able demand upon Servia. Her Crown Prince had been assas- 
 sinated. She had made exhaustive inquiry and presented evi- 
 dence to show that among some twentj^-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 her's participate in the inves- 
 tigation — not in the judgment. Her request in that respect was 
 assigned as the cause of the war, and upon that narrow margin 
 
 14 
 
has it been attempted to fix tlie 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 inquiry into 
 the guilt of the participants ; and that thereupon Italy, accepting 
 these terms, had at once landed her own Consul, with instruc- 
 tion to participate in the investigation, and to see to it that that 
 inquiry was brought to a prompt conclusion. The cases were pre- 
 cisely 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. What 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 rellect 
 upon what we ourselves have done through our Government. 
 
 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 
 officer, 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 after- 
 wards. 
 
 15 
 
By way of comparison, we should remember that Austria-Hun- 
 gary, in making her demands, even to the last offered to guarantee 
 to Servia, and to the great powers, that the integrity of the Gov- 
 ernment and territory of Servia should in all respects be main- 
 tained. 
 
 Furthermore, as late as 1909 the great powers had solemnly 
 demanded of Servia that her conduct toward 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 Servia, 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 inquiry 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? 
 
 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 everything, 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 Belgium if she did not; and that therefore she 
 could not take the risk of an attack under such disadvantageous 
 
 lii 
 
conditions. I know there liaTe 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 ap- 
 prove 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 Ger- 
 many. 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 pro- 
 tection to Belgium's integrity and reimbursement for all damage 
 that might be done by the crossing of her troops, which was re- 
 fused, and that even after the first conflicts Germany again re- 
 newed the tender and it was again 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 
 
 17 
 
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 effect 
 that Great Britain would land troops in Belgium for her protec- 
 tion. 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 
 miglit encroach upon Belgium ; but in the last interview reduced 
 to writing, the representative 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 in- 
 sisted 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 Belgium, when it would 
 be necessary to land her troops upon the shores of Belgium. 
 
 Again, it is important to remember that an ex-Ambassador 
 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 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 
 
 18 
 
they do say that Germany had remonstrated with Belgium for 
 having so many French officers in her forts; and When France 
 answered 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 sus- 
 picion 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 Germany, 
 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 Parlament, 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 with 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 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 com- 
 menced. And that statement finds support in the correspondence 
 to the New York Nation No wonder Trevelyan 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. 
 
 19 
 
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 Belgium in 
 St. Petersburg oflflcially 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 Eussia could not be kept in control after the confidence 
 had gaind ground in St. Petersburg that Great Britain would 
 stand behind Kussia 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 sympathy 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 suffering 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 suffer- 
 ings, with 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 are 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 constitutional 
 independence by the stroke of the Czar's pen, and now further 
 subjected to wrong and deprivation? Why not sympathize with 
 that people? 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 off communication with Germany and 
 Austria-Hungary, because had we felt from the beginning that we 
 
 20 
 
heard botli sides, impatience would never have entered our judg- 
 ment, 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 identified 
 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 discussion, 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 inter- 
 ested in increasing the hazards in the North Sea? With the ex- 
 ception 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 much or more reason to make the 
 North Sea insecure for the double purpose of discouraging com- 
 mercial 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 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 American 
 
 21 
 
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, 
 Prench, Belgians, Russians, 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 accusa- 
 tions 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 in- 
 jured 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? 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 un- 
 fortified Duesseldorf in Germany. 
 
 That was the introduction in the early part of the war, 
 which has been followed up since then at other points; and the 
 only difference between the 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 
 fought many wars, and has had many peoples help her fight, 
 but she has had no fighting on English soil. Granting that her 
 
 22 
 
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 a 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' 
 w^ar. Was it very different in the Napoleonic wars? Humilia- 
 tion — 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 was 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 ex- 
 perience 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 law- 
 yers based upon paper cases carefully prepared by experienci d 
 diplomats. The real cause of the war is not to be found in 
 the trouble between Austria-Hungary and Servia, nor is it lo 
 be read in Grey's speeches, nor in the German Chancellor's, 
 nor in the attitude of France, nor in the state of prepared- 
 ness of Germany, nor in the timely review of the English 
 
 23 
 
fleet, nor even in the building of Kussian railroads with French 
 money 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 people's 
 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 oj)erate powerfully, though half-consciously, to bring about 
 war in spite of all our peacd proclamations. The spirit of the 
 crusades is at 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 ex- 
 planation. The war being inevitable, the question really was how 
 otiier 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 traditional enemy, Russia, to bring 
 war about. As Grey said, she consulted her own interest. She 
 had a civilized competitor against whom she had no cause for war, 
 but for whose humiliation 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 profoundest defeat. 
 
 If Great Britain succeeds with Russia and Japan in defeat- 
 ing Germany for the time being, is there doubt in your minds 
 
 24 
 
that Eussia will take Constantinople, will in that way control the 
 way to India, and will lay the first foundation for the dismem- 
 berment of the British Empire? Who would settle the questions 
 which must surely arise in such a contingency between England 
 and her Eastern ally? 
 
 Who are Great Britain's allies? First and foremost, Kussia. 
 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 abrogation 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 bru- 
 tality 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 oligations 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 responsibility 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 
 
 25 
 
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 of the en- 
 couragement to Japan in the Pacific Ocean, but glorifying in the 
 combination of their fleets to humiliate Germany. 
 
 Is there anything inspiring in the presence of the Turco? 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 Eng- 
 land was still withdrawing from her temporary occupancy. Now 
 she has in Egypt's name declared war on Germany to control the 
 Suez Canal; and still we talk of breaches of neutrality, and con- 
 demn a restrained nation's desire to enlarge her territory. 
 
 Keflect 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 humilitate 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 state- 
 ment. 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 state- 
 ments of the president of Yale, who, with absolute impartiality 
 
 26 
 
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 declared. If he had read the 
 books himself, or, better, if he had read other books about Ger- 
 many, 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 ol 
 the "Deutsche Michel" had again come upon the country, or tliat 
 the people might suffer the common fate of prosperity; and they 
 sought to arouse the people from what 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 Eoberts coun- 
 seled 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 Roberts, 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 which 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 at- 
 tack 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 civiliza- 
 tion and meeting our responsibility to the world. Nor should we 
 
 27 
 
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 Germany was strong in her own army, let it be remembered 
 that she had not as large a percentage of soldiers to her popula- 
 tion 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 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 atten- 
 tion. 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 %-omen ut 
 home. Without sign of rejoicing or dismay upon every lip the 
 
 28 
 
word Schicksalsstiinde. I stood at the railroad station in Muen- 
 chen 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 calcu- 
 lated 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 transportation, and not a person to 
 molest them, not an officer required to protect them. I saw offi- 
 cers 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 accompanying 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 coun- 
 try, 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 saluting 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 othcx', that nation has solved the modern problem of doing 
 substantially 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 prerogatives, but had forgotten its 
 obligations. Dawson, an Englishman, puts it plainly to Eng- 
 
 29 
 
land, 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 England 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 Ger- 
 many has no paupers; she has only poor; she has no feeling of 
 contempt for poor people, but she has solicitude; she has no beg- 
 gars 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 war, she 
 has even now made an appropriation of |100, 000,000 for the re- 
 construction of East Prussia, destroyed by Russian invasion 
 within the last few months. She has not rested with the appro- 
 priation, 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 constitute an im- 
 provement over the conditions that prevailed before the war. 
 These are evidences of her s..ccess in a field in which, despite all 
 our declamation about liberty, most civilized countries of the pres- 
 ent 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 de- 
 clared because they did not wish to see France destroyed, but that 
 he was just as much interested in the name of civilization not to 
 see Germany destroyed. He asked whether they are to rejoice to 
 
 30 
 
see Kussia 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 cannot 
 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 regret that they 
 are not more widely understood in my country. I cannot but be- 
 lieve that our people would be benefited by a better appreciation 
 of the sublime idealism of Schiller, the profound philosophy of 
 Goethe, the intense patriotism of Arndt and 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 pro- 
 vide inspiration for high patriotism. We cannot be asked to for- 
 get 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 inestimable 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 support, 
 to sustain them in the ultimate conflict. Germany has under- 
 stood the literature and the laws of England, and has profited by 
 them. Although the English people have no corresponding 
 acquaintance with German literature, her distinguished men have 
 repeatedly paid tribute to German thought and influence. We 
 need but instance Carlyle and Morley. Within less than two 
 
 31 
 
years Lord Haldane, in his address before the American Bar As- 
 sociation, frankly stated that the German word "JSittlichkeit" — 
 the foundation of all law and social order — 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 conflict 
 must be the more serious because they are. Nevertheless, I cling 
 to the hope and belief that in the last analysis the question must 
 be how untimely Eastern influence shall be withstood in its at- 
 tempt to encroach upon Western civilization. I ask, will any one 
 nation be strong enough to make that resistance? 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. Russia'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 
 meaasure, 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 peo- 
 jjle can never be conquered because their country cannot be in- 
 vaded. 
 
 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 acquiescense. It 
 means absolute impartiality between belligerents, and firm insist- 
 ence upon our own rights. 
 
 THE END :. 
 
 32 
 
020 914 097 4