First World War Centennial

CHAPTER IV

the Lusitania matter—non-combatants

ON MERCHANTMEN

NO better illustration can be given as to the right and the wrong course for a neutral to pursue at a moment when basic principles are under discussion, than that furnished by the resignation of Mr. Bryan from Mr. Wilson's Cabinet, June, 1915.

The question before the American people, acting not only for themselves but in the interests of the race, was—righteousness or peace—which!

Mr. Bryan said first peace, and perhaps righteousness if a court provided for along lines suggested by him so arranges. The President, with dear insight into the hearts of the American people, said—righteousness first, then let us hope, peace. While any pacificist ought to see that in the eternal order of things Mr. Bryan's cast of peace conscientiously suggested could only be temporary at the best, it is dreadfully apparent that there is much confusion of thought.

In no other way can we explain the regret recently expressed in a certain part of the press, which affirmed that the United States by standing too vigorously for principle had lost the opportunity to lead a coalition of neutrals and be the peacemaker of Europe.

Because of this befogged condition of the public mind—consistently and persist­ently bewildered by the sociological group that anticipates the near approach of the millennium—it is desirable to clearly distin­guish issues so that people may understand that the defense of neutral rights is one thing—the inauguration of world peace another.

This being done, men who look forward to the elimination of war can then produce such arguments as they please to convert to their way of thinking those of us who are incorrigi­ble doubters and who believe that there are more important things in life than the attain­ment of a peaceful status; that there is noth­ing in the moral law or the teachings of the founder of Christianity that prefers dissimu­lation to straightforwardness, temporizing to decision, cowardice to intrepidity, or that there is no better way for this generation to assist in bettering international conditions than by endeavoring to secure for nations at peace (neutrals) recognized or unrecognized rights which belong to them, but which have heretofore been too frequently disregarded.

Meantime having eliminated such matter as is irrelevant, and having brought home to those who are looking for light the fact that, although a pacificist may be a neutral, it by no means follows that a neutral has to be a pacificist, those who look for progress through the broadening and extending of right legal principles can take up the matter affecting neutral rights which had the attention of President Wilson at the time of Mr. Bryan's resignation.

In doing this they will find that there is no question or doubt about the existing law of nations regarding the status of non-combat­ant individuals traveling upon other than war vessels.

Wrangle as the nations have pleased to about free goods, free ships, visit, search, and contraband, from the time of the Consolato del Mare to August, 1914, they have been in accord regarding human life on the high seas.

Thus there has grown up a body of positive laws, buttressed, fortified, and resting upon foundations which include the appreciation of natural law by medieval and modern conscience, the conclusive reasoning of the keenest intellects, and the formal assent of great sovereignties.

These affirm and insist that the non-com­batant, whether neutral or enemy (but emphatically if neutral), is to be protected in every exigency which may arise in connection with the chase, overhauling, capture, and dis­position of a merchant vessel, unless there be such resistance on the part of the carrying ship, after full warning, as will justify the man-of-war in taking severe measures by way of self-defense, or in order to compel obedience to its demands. They cannot be construed otherwise than as requiring the captain of a cruiser or other national craft to use every resource at his command to avoid the endangering or destruction of people not themselves bearing arms or in the regular service of the enemy.

With the law thus defined and available by the use of responsible text-books written in any of the great modern languages, and with the facts which have to do with the matter in hand (viz., the loss of the Lusitania) collated and published, it will be surprising if such inquiries do not come to the following conclusions:

That this is a case where natural and positive law are one, the decisions of courts keeping pace with eternal principles of justice and equity, and therefore not to be lightly surrendered.

2. That if the rights thus accorded neutral citizens be infringed, it is for the neutral state to take action, provided it is desirable, as seems to be generally believed, that neu­trals shall take an increasing part in the shaping of the law of nations.

3. That any failure on the part of the neutral to insist upon observance of a law and custom which thus seriously affects it, or the substitution of such a scheme as was suggested by Mr. Bryan, would not only negative neutral influence for the time be­ing and hereafter, but exalt belligerency and push it back upon the throne from which it has sent forth so many bloody decrees.

4. That at a time when the engines of destruction are becoming more fright­ful, any cowardice in the maintenance of recognized standard's will permit the in­vasion of peaceful fields by a new cloud of terror.

In that case a plain duty will follow, to take issue with the recent Secretary of State, whose sincerity is not impugned, and to see to it that the general public has the law and the facts clearly brought to its attention.

Our democracy cannot live without discus­sion of these vital things which have to do with its well being. Mr. Bryan himself in a late publication has come out as unequivocally endorsing a platform already assumed in these pages, viz., it is for neutrals, not belligerents, to dictate the international law of the future. Perhaps after all the arguments are in he may be brought to see that the way adopted by the President, at this time of national crisis, is profoundly in the interest of such world peace as is attainable.

However this may be, with right matter put properly before him, it seems as if any American of good understanding, whether conscience-dulled by modern vagaries or not, would say in the exigency caused by the unhappy loss of American lives by belliger­ent usurpation:

"There is but one choice, unless the nation is to forfeit rights and prove recalcitrant. This is—to demand a discontinuance of a lawless practice, and if no attention be given its reasonable representations, to take such steps as may seem expedient to forcibly prevent a recurrence of the offense."