t wij vTf,"-h
The Commoner
VOL. 15, NO. 2
14
W'
r
i
I'
I1;.
8$?
W
St
?
&
F
Jul
I
Vr
r,--
&
American Neutrality Officially
Explained
:Frbni The Literary Digest, Feb. G.)
Critics with British or German
sympathies have been so insistent in
accusing our governraont of unncu
traiity that our secretary of stato has
felt compelled to clear the air by a
plain statement of its position. His
words carry conviction to most of the
newspapers wo have examined, but it
isnoiiceablo that just as the major
ity "of the accusations come from the
pro-German side, that side is now not
fully satisfied with his dofonse. Mr.
Horman Kidder, for instance, tolls
us in his Now York Staats-Zeitung
how clear it is to him that "the doc
ument which bears the signature of
Mr. Bryan was composed either in
London or in the English embassy at
Washington." But Mr. Clement
Gtiscom, an American partizan of the
Allies, finds in the letter "conclusive
proof" that most of the administra
tion's acts have "been in favor of
Germany and against the Allied."
Some political foes of tne administra
tion profess to hold the document in
contempt, yet wo note many of Mr.
Bryan's most inveterate cnomies in
the long list of press eulogists. Some
of them, indeed, find the letter so
satisfactory that they can. not believe
Mr. Bryan had much to do with pre
paring it. The London press, it may
bo hero noted, seem generally to
fhink our secretary of state has
proved his case, The Times even go
ing so far as to say that his letter
"will bo read with satisfaction by all
unprejudiced champions of neutral
rights." "Whoth.Gr the various "pros"
like Mr. Bryan's letter or not, "pat
riotic Americans," decaros the Now
York "World, "will like it because ho
clears up all tho points that have
been raised in respect to theattitude
o,tho Unitod States government. "
Tho letter, it adds, "is a permanent
contribution to American history."
Though some writers object to
what they call the "political motive"
behind tho letter, tho New York
Evening Post believes tnat those in
charge of our foreign relations, "a
elected rulers Li a democracy, have
to take cognizanco of tho attitude of
large elements in our citizenship."
And, in view of the many citizens of
German origin, "the administration
m'ay rightly take steps to show them
that tin laws of neutrality are im
partially cnforcod.'i. For example,
"If British pretensions have been
ovorweening, the government can
rove that it has not tamely acquiesc
ed, in them. This was mado clear in
tho American note. It stands out in
greater plainness, and with more de
tail in the recitals af the letter to
Senator Stone. In several matters,
the department of state has protested
to tho British government or one of'
the Allies. It objected to tho 'hov
ering' of British cruisers off New
York harbor, and that practise has
in consequence been given up. In like
manner, a Japanese warship, after a
protest by us, ceased to 'hover' off
Honolulu. And in the instance of
discouraging tho flotation of a public
loan here, in the interest of the Allies
the administration gave the surest
proof of its desire to hold tho scales
absolutely even, where there was no
specific provision of law, domestic or
International, compelling it to a def
inite course."
Since Secretary Bryan's letter is
6,000 words long and fills five news
paper columns, answering twenty
specific complaints, it is impossible
to do more than sketch its outline
here. Besides the matter mention
ed by Tho Evening Post or covered
in tho recent note to Sir Edward
Grey, tho secretary explains that this
government allows free communica
tion by cable while censoring wire
less messages, becauso cables can bo
cut by belligerents, and because, mes
sages may bo sent from wireless sta
tions on neutral shores to belligerent
warships on tho high seas. There has
icon, go far, no serious trouble over
private letters, passports, and arrests
of American citizens, and, in tho few
cases that have occurred, both sides
are held to be about equally at fault.
As to alleged violations of the Hague
Conventions and the Declaration of
London, our government does not
consider them binding, and is acting
according to the general principles of
international law. Complaints of thd
sale of dumdum bullets to Groat
Britain by American manufacturers
aro said to" be unfounded. There has
been no shipment of British troops or
war material ticross tho territory of
the United States, though "a request
on the part of the Canadian govern'
ment for permission to ship equip
ment across Alaska to the sea" was
refused. Since "no German warship
has sought to obtain coal in tho Canal
Zone," the charge of discrimination
there rests upon a possibility which
has not yet materialized. Mr. Bryan
points out that Tigorous protests
hfrve been mado to tho British gov
ernment against interference' with
our, shipping, and that our attitude
on the subject of contraband has
been made known to that govern
ment. But he would remind com
plainants that "some of the doctrines
which appear to bear harshly upon
neutrals at the present time are an
alogous to or outgrowths from poli
cies adopted by the" United States
when it was a belligerent." More
over, "the fact that tho commerce
of the United States is interrupted by
Great Britain is consequent upon tho
superiority of her navy on the high
seas. History shows that whenever
a country has possest that superiority
our trade has been interrupted and
that few articles essential to the
prosecution of the war have been al
lowed to reach its enemy from this
country." Mr. Bryan also takes up
the complaint discust at length else
where in this issue, that "tho United
States has not interfered with the
sale to Great Britain and her Allies
of arms, ammunition, horses, uni
forms, and othor munitions of war,
although such sales prolong the con
flict." The position of the adminis
tration, in which the Gorman gov
ernment is said to acquiesce, is this:
"There is no power in the execu
tive to prevent the sale of ammuni
tion to the belligerents. The duty of
a neutral to restrict trade in muni
tions of war has never been imposed
by international law or by municipal
statute."
Finally, Mr. Bryan denies the
charge of unfriendliness toward Ger
many and Austria-Hungary:
"It is the business of a belligerent
operating on the high seas, not the
duty of a noutral, to prevent contra
band from reaching an enemy.
"Those in this country who sym
pathize with Gcfrmany and Austria
Hungary appear to assume that some
obligation rests upon this govern
ment, in the performance of its nou
tral duty, to prevent all trade in con
traband and thus equalize the differ
ence due to the relative naval
strength of the belligerents.
"No such obligation exists. It
would be an unneutral act, an act of
partiality on .the part of this govern
ment, to adopt such a policy if the
executive had the power to do so. If
Germany and Austria-Hungary can
not import contraband from this
country It ia not becauso of that fact
tho duty of the United States to close
ita markets to tho Allies. The mar
kets of this country aro open upon
equal terms to all the world, to every
nation, belligerent or neutral."
Unqualified approval of the posi
tion hero taken by the administration
though with occasional disagreement
with certain minor details of policy,
is expressed by such representative
eastern dailies as the Boston Tran
script (Rep.), Springfield Republican
(Ind.), New Haven Journal-Courier
(Ind.), Albany Journal (Rep.), New
York Wall Street Journal, Commer
cial, Journal of Commerce, Sun
(Ind.), Herald (Ind.), Times (Ind.
Doin.), Tribune (Rep.), Globe (Ind.),
Evening Post (Ind.), Brooklyn Eagle
(Ind. Dem.), Times (Rep.), Citizen
(Dem.), Newark News (Ind.), Phil
adelphia Evening Ledger (Ind.Rep.),
Evening Telegraph (Rep.), Inquirer
(Rep.), Record (Dem.), Baltimore
News (Prog.), American (Rep.),
Washington Star (Ind.), and Herald
(Ind.), Richmond Times-Dispatch
(Dem.), and Pittsburg Gazette-Times
(Rep.); and in the middle west the
Chicago News Und.), St. Louis Globe
Democrat (Rep.), St. Paul Dispatch
(Ind. Rep.), Indianapolis News
(Ind.), and Grand Rapids Press
(Ind.). The London editors are al
so well pleased. The Daily Chronicle
calls the Bryan letter an "unanswer-
has been in favor of Germany and
against the Allies," adding that "the
administration of these United States
has been the catspaw of German
manipulation long enough."
Mr. Curtis Guild, former ambassa
dor to Russia, also charges in an ar
ticle in the Philadelphia Public Ledg
er that the president's "partisanship
on the side of Germany" has been
"extraordinary," and intimates that
his shipping bill is, virtually "an act
of war by the United States against
the Allies."
But Mr. Griscom, indignantly com
ments the New York World, "belongs
to a class of Americans who are
much more English than the Eng
lish," who "are no more concerned
about the Honor and the welfare of
the United States in this war than
are the pro-German extremists who
blackguard President Wilson and
Mr, Bryan for not allowing Germany
to use the United States as a military
base. Neither of these elements be
lieves in honest neutrality, and their
grievance against the administration
io that it ha maintained an honest
neutrality." "Deutschland uber
Alles," remarks the New York Sun,
is an admirable motto for subjects of
tho Kaiser, but our citizens of Ger
man extraction aro recommended to
substitute the sentiment "Amerika
uber Alles."
able" reply to the pro-Germans, and
commends the administration's "ab
sence of bias" and "undoubted desire
to keep even keel between jarring
elements." Here The Times agrees.
"Broadly speaking," it finds that
"the doctrine laid down by Secretary
Bryan is the doctrine of our own
courts."
But perhaps these pleasant words
from London would only heighten
tho displeasure of Mr. -Hearst. In
his New. York American (Ind-), he
attacks Mr. Bryan for -appearing in
the role of "Defender of' Britain,"
and says that the "correspondence
between Senator Stone and the state
department is evidently designed to
give the administration the opportu
nity to retract its recent letter and
recede from the position of firmness
it recently assumed toward England
regarding American shipping. The
people are tired of needless humilia
tion of this sort." So, too, the New
York Evening Mail (Rep.), another
severe critic of the administration,
says Mr. Bryan's explanation "pleas
es nobody." In particular, it "will
not satisfy the Germans," and the
Now York Herald is cited as say
ing "that the only thing that pleases
it about the Bryan ple'a is that it
shows that the administration is be
ginning to get anxious about the Ger
man and Irish vote." So, concludes
The Evening Mail, "if Mr. Bryan has
accomplished nothing more than this
by his explanation, he would have
done better to hold his tongue."
In Chicago, the Illinois Staats-Zeitung
proclaims our secretary of state
as -"England's servant," while in
New York Mr. Ridder's Staats-Zeitung
beholds him "on the knee be
fore England," and the Deutsches
Journal says bitterly:
"No one can read this letter to
Senator Stone without feeling asham
ed at the pitiful role that the United
States the solo neutral power of the
first rank is playing in this war,
nor can he, before he comes to the
ena or tnis screed, escape a feeling of
nausea at the mixture of hypocrisy,
insolence, and derision shown to
Germany and the utter obsequious
ness shown to England." '
In contrast with the above is the
statement of Mr. Griscom, formerly
general manager of the International
Mercantile Marino Company, that
Mr. Bryan's letter "conclusively"
proves that "almost every action that
has been taken by the administration
MR. BRYAN AND PROHIBITION
Now that the great matter of riding
the proposed prohibition amendment
to its first expected fall has been done
with, it must be peculiarly distressing
to the many who take such an ex
treme interest in Mr. Bryan's person
al habits and opinion respecting the
use of liquor, to find that he has no
intention of throwing up his port
folio and bolting to the Prohibition
league.
When the secretary of state wrote
in The Commoner that he was for
prohibition and that the party should
rid itself of the liquor influence, ho
said only what he has said time and
time again. Yet the old cry of "bolt"
instantly was raised. There was fric
tion in the cabinet that could not be
allayed. Bryan already was seeking
the laurels of the prohibition party
nomination heretofore worn by Rev.
Swallow. Whereupon Mr. Bryan an
nounced that, while he was against
liquor and all its works, he realized
the strength of the contention that
the matter was one for the states;
that while he would fight liquor in
and out of the party, he did not pre
sume to attempt to commit the party
as a whole to prohibition. So. Mr.
Hobson has his "Day" and the
country including the Cabinet is
still intact. p
Mr. Bryan, of course, is a down
right man. He hates whiskey with a
passion possible only to one who has
never tasted it. Ho hates its sugges
tion, its smell, its name. In this mat
ter, as in others, lie will speak with
strategic candor on occasions, in pol
itics and otherwise, extremely some
times, certainly to conservative ears
inopportunely. His contribution to
The Commoner was in a way of the
same sort as that he contributed to
the Baltimore convention in the
Murphy-Belmont resolutions. Both
were expressions of convictions, es
pecially that as to the liquor ques
tion; but it is at least due to the sec
retary of state to say that, advocating
prohibition, he is still able to see and
recognize other problems upon the
political horizon. The State (Colum
bia) S. C.
SENATORIAL RECREATION
Those who think senators are over
worked should note that Senator Gal
linger has had time- to introduce a
resolution to repeal the tariff act.
eharleston'News and Courier.
m