First World War Centennial

CHAPTER XXIII

EXPRESSION OF OPINION

UNDER date of August 19, 1914, the President of the United States through the medium of the Senate appealed to the citizens of the Republic "to assist in main­taining a state of neutrality during the present European War."

Drafted with the skill that is noticeable in every message from Mr. Wilson's pen, and reflecting the high and honorable purposes of the Executive, the document properly caused remark at the time and may still be advantageously used to introduce a dis­cussion of the limitation of speech in neutral countries.

Is it incumbent upon the people of a country that has proclaimed its neutrality to refrain from that sort of comment upon belligerent policies or action which proclaims partisan­ship? It is inconceivable that any other answer than one that means No! can be framed, unless such expression be authori­tatively and lawfully enjoined by the govern­ment. Nor does it follow that any exception can be made because the Powers at war or either of them are irritated thereby. The latter are free, if it suit their purpose, to take notice of what is happening in a sphere which is absolutely outside of their control, and may even go so far as to threaten or force hostilities. The neutral state owes them no such duty as may entail a gag law, and there is no privity between them and the citizens of another sovereignty. If they take action, therefore, it must be on some plea analogous to necessity, as viewed from their standpoint. It cannot be a matter of right.

Having disposed of the first question in a manner by no means uncertain, the inquirer finds himself confronted by a second, which to a fair-minded person is no less impressive.

Is it desirable for the people of a country which has proclaimed its neutrality to refrain from an unfettered discussion of all issues which are being tried out between the belligerents as well as the motives, standards, and policies of the latter? Yes! If there is bias, blind pre­judice, and unworthy motive behind the spoken speech, or the sort of partisanship that may be readily challenged because it prefers some other cause to that of country. No! and eternally Not if the land of one's nativity is directly concerned and its future may be affected thereby. Such conditions should and do present moral elements which may even be conceived of as justifying a good citizen in challenging the mistaken authority of his country, if the latter attempts to bridle the expression of opinion. They cer­tainly therefore permit the utmost frankness of speech in cases where there is no restric­tion of municipal law, and one finds it difficult to think of any enlightened people, whether under the sway of a sceptre or self-guided, which might not otherwise find its dearest interests imperiled.

This is particularly true of a democracy!

From the time when Montesquieu in dis­tinguishing his three forms of government differentiated the republican from the monarchical and despotic, by pointing out that the whole body of the people therein took part in the government and each individual assumed the responsibility thereof—the thinking world has taken it for granted that this sort of body politic must inform itself and these citizen units ought to inform themselves regarding both exterior and interior affairs so that the interests of the people may be guarded.

With these facts in mind one finds it diffi­cult to understand those phrases in the dignified appeal of President Wilson which suggest withholding of discussion and judg­ment, unless they may be explained:

1. By the failure of a layman, whose patriotism and wisdom are beyond question, to appreciate the difference that exists be­tween the official action of a state and the informal and private utterances of its people.

2. By the conviction that his warning must be so framed as to prevent actual collision between the millions of European-born citizens of the United States whose affiliations separate them into various camps.

That the first explanation would not be unnatural will occur to those who are familiar with the confused manner in which interna­tional lawyers of repute have handled the question of national partisanship, and who recall that the Chief Magistrate was called to meet a great crisis with brief time for meditation.

As to the second—it must be noted that one-third of the appeal calls attention to the diverse character of American citizenship and bears witness to the fact that this aspect of our national status had made its impression on the President's mind.

Certain of these sentences are as follows: "I venture to speak a solemn word of warning to you against that deepest, most subtle, most essential breach of neutrality which may spring out of partisanship, out of passion­ately taking sides." We must be "a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others," etc.

It is not improbable that they were at first and are still misinterpreted, and that the President meant nothing more than to push a little further the thought expressed when he says—"we must be impartial in thought as well as in action"—which is certainly rational and beyond criticism, in that it counsels judicial fairness in the use of the thinking processes.

If so, there exists no ground for objection.

If, to the contrary, there was an intention to convey the idea that citizens individually or in conference must not under any circum­stances stir public opinion to such a degree as will make war possible and probable—there is certainly ground for challenging the counsel thus given, because of the serious consequences that might follow silent acquiescence in the misdeeds of a foreign Power.

No one knows, and few dare to hazard an opinion as to the close of the war which furnished the occasion of this particular message. Meanwhile every intelligent per­son appreciates the fact that whenever actual hostilities cease, or whatever cause is dominant at the end—every State of conse­quence is apt to have its political or com­mercial policies distinctly shifted in the rearrangement that will follow. How can the appreciation of such pregnant conse­quences exert other influence than force upon the loyal citizen of every neutral coun­try the necessity of watching the course of events as it unrolls itself, and interchang­ing opinions with others thereupon.

It may be that the outlook is portentous, and that now, not to-morrow, is noticeable in every message from Mr. Wilson's pen, and reflecting the high and honorable purposes of the Executive, the document properly caused remark at the time for action. In that case, belligerency, not neutrality, will be in order.

It is because of this necessary attitude of a brave and vigilant people that any advice which looks toward the people of a country that has proclaimed its neutrality must be carefully scrutinized, bearing in mind that the safety and prosperity of their native land is the object, not neutral policies or action which proclaims partisan­ship? It is inconceivable that any other answer than one that means No! can be framed, unless such expression be authori­tatively and lawfully enjoined by the govern­ment. Nor does it follow that any exception can be made because the Powers at war or either of any virtue in itself. Neutrality is happening in a means to an end—an end which may mean peace and may mean warfare, but does not necessarily mean either in the largest sense of the word. When it becomes worthless as a means, it cannot too quickly be thrown aside.

In making use of the President's appeal for the purpose of considering in a general way the right of the people of any neutral country to fully express opinion regarding belligerent activities, whether or not the spoken or writ­ten word indicates something of bias—we are led to deal directly with the present attitude of all issues which are being tried out between the European nations toward the people of the United States.

That this ranges from criticism where ministerial action is frankly condemned, to direct hostility engendered because of a con­viction as to the trend of national sym­pathies, is obvious and natural. The pity is that in either case there should be a dis­position to regard American people as unneutral, notwithstanding their approval of an official policy which is beyond suspicion.

In the first instance it must be remembered that few cabinets exist in these days without having to endure the expression of the people they represent. It is therefore perfectly natural that groups of individuals who suffer directly from the policies inaugu­rated by a Power to which they owe no fealty, will give vent to cynicism, if not to justifiable anger. All this is natural and without significance.

As to the trend of national sympathy in a neutral country that is unexpressed officially—it can no more be prevented than the suc­cession of municipal law, and is expected. Meantime the belligerent can congratulate itself if from any motive it is receiving the same courtesies that is offered its enemy.

What is thus said in general has a particular illustration in the attitude of Americans toward the contending nations of Europe. Earnestly devoted to the free institutions, which are a passion with them as they were with the Fathers of the Republic, they can have no fondness for autocracy itself, and can only dread its achievements. To suggest otherwise would be a hypocrisy which would deceive no one, and could add nothing to a sovereignty's fair attempt to perform its duties impartially.

Meantime a generous enthusiasm for their own ideals does not preclude their enacting the role of a neutral Power and even leaning backward in their attempt to rigorously observe the requirements of the part they choose to play.

Let us remember that neutrality is one thing, but that national sympathy is another, and that no good can come from confusing the two.