340.30973 (3, {» 
 
 :162a 
 
 Aiding the Entente 
 
 === = = as -'■■■■— - ■■= 
 
 an American Policy 
 
 By 
 
 GEORGE F. CANFIELD 
 
 PROFESSOR OF LAW 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 19 16 
 
 (Reprinted from THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 13th, 1916) 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/aidingententeasaOOcanf 
 
Aiding the Entente as an American Policy 
 
 An Official Declaration Is Advocated as Our Best Course— 
 Losses Due to the Blockade to be Paid 
 by a Tax Upon Ourselves 
 
 To the Editor of The New York Times: 
 
 The present dominant sentiments of the American people, 
 if I read the signs of the times aright, are for peace, prepared¬ 
 ness, and the destruction of German militarism. These three 
 objects are closely related and are, in fact, mutually interde¬ 
 pendent. The destruction of German militarism would quickly 
 prepare the way for a durable peace. Peace re-established 
 without the destruction of German militarism would be un¬ 
 stable and, so far as we can now see, in its ultimate effect upon 
 the human race would be worse than the continuance of the 
 war. And until militarism is destroyed—until the world is 
 rid of aggressive nations coveting the territory or wealth of 
 other nations—preparedness is ,a vital and immediate need 
 of all nations possessing the coveted territory or wealth. 
 
 The American people are by tradition unalterably opposed 
 to militarism—that is, to the system under which there is a 
 subordination of the civil to the military regime and of the 
 civil power to the military power of the State. History is a 
 witness to the abominable deeds of oppression and cruelty 
 committed in its name. It is incompatible with American 
 ideals, which, as our Secretary of State finely expressed it 
 before the Pan American Congress, do not lie in the path of 
 conquest, but in the paths of peace and justice. And in par¬ 
 ticular militarism is incompatible with those principles of 
 liberty and individualism which are the cherished heritage of 
 the English-speaking world. 
 
 While for these reasons we are opposed to militarism in 
 general, with still greater reason do we dread and abhor Ger¬ 
 man militarism, because it is so efficient, so ruthless, and so 
 unrestrained by any principle of law, morality, or human¬ 
 ity. The invasion of Belgium, the use of asphyxiating gas, 
 
the Zeppelin raids, the Lusitania, Arabic, Ancona, and other 
 horrors of submarine warfare, the shooting of Miss Cavell, 
 the plotting against life and property, and the deeds 
 of violence in this neutral country are each and all 
 lurid revelations of the particular brand of militarism which 
 is made in Germany. Captain von Papen, upon his being 
 informed that President 'Wilson had demanded his recall, is 
 reported to have said: “I have no regrets. I have simply 
 done my duty as a soldier and have obeyed instructions.” (It 
 is to be noted that this is a confession that whatever he was 
 responsible for was done under the orders of his superior 
 officers.) Similarly, Captain Bpy-Ed, with equal nonchalance, 
 is reported to have expressed himself as follows: “I have 
 simply done my duty as a naval officer, and the majority of 
 criticisms against me in the American press have been un¬ 
 justified and unfair. The American newspaper men have not 
 taken into consideration the strain under which I have labored 
 and the fact that none of my activities were individual in 
 character, but that I have been simply an officer carrying out 
 orders to the best of my ability under all circumstances.” (An¬ 
 other naive confession.) 
 
 This is the essence of German militarism—obedience im¬ 
 plicit and unquestioning. Whatever the great military 
 oligarchy orders you to do, whether it is to destroy priceless 
 works of art, to kill innocent women and children, or to shoot 
 down a ministering angel of mercy, you do it without hesita¬ 
 tion, and after it is done you contemplate your deeds with 
 complacent satisfaction, feeling that you have simply acted as 
 a blind instrument of ruthless military force and have done 
 nothing in your individual capacity as a moral being. Against 
 such militarism the whole world, including all loyal German- 
 Americans who are in sympathy with our institutions, should 
 be inflexibly arrayed, and until such militarism is destroyed 
 we cannot escape the obligations and burdens of preparedness, 
 naval and military. 
 
 The advocates of preparedness have sometimes been ac¬ 
 cused of selfish purposes. This is the usual argumentum ad 
 hominem which can always be used against either party to a 
 controversy. Undoubtedly selfish motives enter to some ex¬ 
 tent into every national policy, but nothing can be clearer than 
 that our military and naval officers and our manufacturers of 
 munitions constitute negligible factors in the affairs of this 
 nation, and that the plan of preparedness which will be 
 finally adopted will be based on the broad and fundamental 
 national needs and will be determined in accordance with the 
 judgment of patriotic Americans, uninfluenced by any selfish 
 consideration other than a commendable selfish regard for 
 the welfare of the country. And there need be no fear that 
 
America, in pursuing a sound policy of preparedness, will 
 be diverted from her path of peace or abandon any of her 
 old ideals. 
 
 There can also be no doubt that the overwhelming senti¬ 
 ment and influence of this nation will always be for peace, 
 for its maintenance so long as that is possible, and for the 
 speediest re-establishment of it after it has been broken. 
 But in our desire for peace, we must not lose sight of the fact 
 that a peace which is not based on justice and the right adjust¬ 
 ment of international relations may be a curse instead of a 
 blessing. In the present crisis, therefore, we must use such 
 influence as we may have to promote the re-establishment of 
 such a peace as will not involve the menace of future wars. 
 And to this end we must insist, so far as we may have any 
 voice in the matter, that there shall be no peace which will 
 add to the prestige and menace of German militarism. 
 
 If the foregoing propositions are sound, the path of our 
 nation’s duty is clearly marked out for us. We should, in 
 the first place, promptly modify our present official attitude of 
 neutrality in thought and action. 
 
 At the outbreak of the war President Wilson not only 
 issued the usual proclamation of neutrality, but, out of regard 
 for the large Teutonic element in our population, he issued 
 a special appeal to the country, enjoining neutrality in thought 
 and action. This was an attempt to impose upon us what 
 probably under any circumstances would have proved to be 
 an impossible task, but it was made all the more difficult by 
 the attitude of the German Government, which, not being 
 satisfied with the neutrality of this country, at once set to 
 work to win our sympathy and support. At first its efforts 
 were limited to the methods of a fairly legitimate educational 
 campaign. The country was flooded with literature and public 
 meetings were addressed by speakers presenting the German 
 point of view. But in spite Of the most strenuous efforts of 
 this sort the American people, after having patiently weighed 
 the facts and arguments, remained of the same opinion still, 
 and finally the whole campaign broke down ingloriously at 
 the time of the torpedoing of the Lusitania, when Dr. Dem- 
 burg so gravely misinterpreted the temper of the American 
 public. 
 
 This campaign of education, having failed of its object, 
 was followed by the nefarious and sinister plottings and con¬ 
 spiracies, apparently financed by the German Government, 
 against the lives and property of American citizens, against 
 the legitimate industries of the country, and against the flota¬ 
 tion of the Anglo-French loan. These conspiracies have like¬ 
 wise miserably failed, and they have not only failed, but they 
 have had an effect quite contrary to the intention of those who 
 
sought to carry them into execution, the effect, namely, of 
 strengthening and consolidating the sentiment of the American 
 people in favor of the Allies and of absolving us from all 
 further obligation to attempt to maintain an attitude of neu¬ 
 trality. Let us be frank and honest. There is no use of 
 further pretending that the country is neutral. It is no longer 
 neutral, and the official attitude of our Government should 
 be brought into harmony with the real attitude of the country 
 and should give expression to our sympathy with the cause of 
 the Allies. 
 
 As a corollary to this official declaration of our sympathy 
 with the Allies we should not interfere with the British 
 blockade of Germany, even if it should conflict with the rights 
 of some of our citizens. It would be utterly incongruous and 
 would shock the conscience of the country if by pursuing our 
 protests against the British Orders in Council we should 
 hamper the operations of the Allies, who are really fighting our 
 battles and contending for principles which we hold most dear. 
 And the country should lose no time in letting Congress and 
 the Administration know what its sentiments are on this sub¬ 
 ject. Assuming for the purpose of argument that the blockade 
 cannot be made completely effective without violating the 
 rights of our citizens, it may be urged that these rights should 
 not be abandoned or sacrificed even for our general welfare. 
 There is merit in this contention. It is one of the cardinal 
 principles of our Constitutions that private property shall not 
 be taken even for public use without compensation. But 
 this difficulty may be easily overcome. Our Government can 
 establish a claims commission to determine, after the close of 
 the war, upon the basis of legal evidence, the amount of injury 
 suffered by out citizens as a result of the blockade. This com¬ 
 mission could be given jurisdiction to pass upon the whole 
 question both of law and of fact. And if it should be determ¬ 
 ined that the rights of our citizens had been violated and that 
 they were entitled to an award of damages, we should not 
 ask England to pay those damages, but we should assume the 
 payment of them ourselves. We ought to be willing to make 
 at least this small contribution to the cause of liberty and to 
 the right settlement of the tremendous issues involved in 
 the present war. If exact justice could be done it might be 
 contended that the award of damages to those who had 
 suffered from the blockade should be paid out of funds raised 
 by a special tax upon those who have benefited by the im¬ 
 mense expansion of our foreign trade, for which this country 
 is indebted to the invincible British Navy. But the benefits 
 of this enlarged foreign trade have been so widely diffused 
 among all classes of our citizens, including not merely manu¬ 
 facturers of munitions, of automobiles, and of many kinds 
 of steel and leather goods, but also the oil men, the miners, 
 
and the farmers of the West, that practical justice will be done 
 by levying a tax upon the whole country. 
 
 The advantages of the suggested policy may be briefly 
 stated as follows: 
 
 We should contribute very directly and efficiently to the 
 speedy re-establishment of peace. There is danger that, if 
 Germany is any longer permitted to indulge in the illusion 
 that she can ever win the sympathy or support of this country 
 before she renounces her militarism and her dreams of world 
 domination, she will be induced to continue the struggle be¬ 
 yond the time when any useful purpose can be served and 
 possibly to the irreparable impairment of her econmic re¬ 
 sources. She is fairly entitled to know officially what the 
 attitude of this country is, and there is reason to believe that, 
 when every doubt as to our attitude is removed, she will 
 become accessible to reasonable proposals of peace. 
 
 We should also retain and strengthen the friendship of 
 the Allies for this country. We have already lost for the time 
 being the good-will of the Teutonic allies, and simple prudence 
 dictates that we should not incur any more enmities. And 
 until we have put our military and naval house in order, the 
 friendship and support of the Allies might be of the greatest 
 advantage to us. Indeed, with the active support of France 
 and England, and especially with such an alliance between the 
 three great liberty-loving nations of the world, as President 
 Eliot has advocated, the need of a large army, or even a large 
 navy, would be greatly diminished. The suggested policy 
 therefore would contribute in a very direct manner to the 
 solution of our difficult problem of preparedness and deserves 
 the support of pacifists as well as of the advocates of pre¬ 
 paredness. 
 
 Finally, by modifying our present neutrality and throwing 
 the full weight of our moral influence, and, if need be, of our 
 material resources into the scales on the side of the Allies, we 
 shall gain the right to be heard as to the terms of peace. We 
 are vitally interested in these terms of peace. We are vitally 
 interested in the right settlement of the tremendous issues 
 involved in this great war, and we are vitally interested that 
 these issues shall be so settled as to assure an enduring peace 
 and to relieve ourselves as well as the rest of the world from 
 the burden and waste of military preparedness. It may also 
 be important that we should have a voice in the councils of 
 peace in order to mitigate the exactions of the conquerors. 
 The sentiment and influence of this country will always be 
 against harsh terms and against the “crushing” or crippling 
 of any nation. 
 
 The modification of our neutrality to the extent above 
 indicated does not mean the widening of the area of warfare 
 
or that we shall become involved in it and in the frightful 
 sacrifices of human life which modern warfare entails. Our 
 official expressions of sympathy with Greece in her struggle 
 for independence against Turkey did not involve us in war. 
 On the contrary, the policy herein suggested means in all 
 human probability the speedier return of peace and on a basis 
 just and fair to all parties. And it is earnestly submitted that 
 a policy may be confidently commended as one possessing 
 intrinsic merit, which by a single stroke will contribute simul¬ 
 taneously to the three great objects of our desires—peace, 
 preparedness, and the destruction of German militarism. 
 
 —GEORGE F. CANFIELD. 
 
 
 CRITERION PRESS, 59 PEARL STREET, N. Y.