CHAPTER VII
AVOIDANCE OF FALSE ISSUES—EXPERT SERVICE FOR THE PRESS
THE path of a neutral is difficult enough in these days of stress without adding to its perplexities. At the best, its duties are not easy to perform and its rights are hard to maintain. Notwithstanding this there are numberless journalists who insist upon stirring the neutral people of the United States with false as well as real issues.
No better instance can be cited than that of the Armenian. Whatever the official report may later show, the story which first reached the news centers contained no element that made the sinking of the freighter parallel the case of the Lusitania. This in no way discouraged the press. Even papers
that are carefully edited informed their readers that there was cause for apprehension in the fact that Germany was continuing the illegal use of the submarine as if no protest had been made. Yellow journals went further. To their mind the sinking of the Armenian took the place of a diplomatic note. It was Germany's way of saying, "We accept your implied challenge and join issue. Hereafter we shall continue to destroy merchant ships and non-combatants at our pleasure. If Americans happen to be involved, so much the worse for them."
People who are informed and who reason carefully from premise to conclusion were naturally not deceived.
According to the published account the Armenian was: (1) Carrying freight rather than passengers; (2) conveying mules direct to the British or allied armies; (3) under charter to the British Government, or in its direct service, whether the relation was that arising by requisition or contract; (4) probably officered by the British Government; (5) the meager returns at hand failed to state 4 whether the destroyed ship had attempted to escape or had offered resistance, and without such data the spirit of fair play required a suspension of judgment.
Thus the tale carried in itself elements which refuted the suggestions which editors were pleased to make, and the latter would have been harmless if the ordinary reader were trained to logical thinking. Unfortunately the ordinary reader is neither thoughtful nor logical, however estimable he or she may be in character or disposition. Nor is this in itself a reproach. Such is the speed and tension of modern life that much has to be taken for granted by those who are inclined to be meditative. How can it be otherwise with people who are without such tendency?
To a large part of the public therefore the suggestion that the killing of Americans on the Armenian was a bit of outrageous belligerent impudence outweighed the narrative itself. It was fortunate that the incident happened at a time when the country was confident that the President and the Department of State were zealously guarding its interests in the very matter which was thus brought to its attention. Otherwise results might have been as serious as they are bound to be in the future, if more restraint and good sense is not shown by those who are the purveyors of news.
War is a terrific proposition, upsetting the economic affairs of neutrals as well as belligerents, and in direct proportion to its f rightfulness. Although not directly engaged neutrals are thus of it. It follows that though there is a difference in degree, their affairs, whenever there is contact with warring nations, require the same nicety of attention as do those of the belligerent. If the latter have censors who are authorized to forbid the printing of matter which will endanger the state, why should not neutral governments, at least, see to it that their news agencies have the benefit of such trained official cooperation as will eliminate unjustifiable constructions that often accompany has already been shown how necessary it already exists in some loose manner is that a neutral which occurs in metropolitan journals as well as country sheets on the morning following an episode of international importance.
The adoption of a few simple measures bringing a government expert in touch with the editor would not only make such paragraphs as hazard a guess at the law, authoritative, but would keep the public from that sort of erratic and unreasonable action which is fraught with peril.
We have seen how the story of the Armenian as first retailed gave no possible ground for the heavy leaded headings in the newspaper columns of the United States, and have noted how injudicious it is for patriotic journals to add to the real problems that their country is desirous of solving.
There is another lesson which is furnished by the incident to those who are not unwilling willing to learn. This has to do with the animus of a neutral toward either belligerent in matters which have to do with the presence of American neutrals change the war. States in conflict have undoubted rights in the matter of hostilities, and may reasonably expect that a neutral should recognize this in just the same manner that it exacts consideration for claims which much more particularly concern it. Indeed a personified belligerent may properly argue—"Within a short time you who are now a neutral nation may be swept into the vortex of war. When that day comes you will need to have your hands free, and to take advantage of every fair means to protect your interests. For that reason you must be careful not to permit any prejudice, however slight, to call forth unjust criticism because a blow given in open battle affects your personal interests. Otherwise you will be gravely handicapped, first by rousing resentment on the part of a nation from which concession is desired, and second, by making it awkward for yourself when your time comes to buckle on the harness." It has already been shown how necessary it is that a neutral which expects to maintain its rights should be careful to observe its obligations. Due consideration, and a few experiences like that adverted to, must bring home to us the further truth, that a nation which lacks poise and balance, that mistakes ordinary episodes for affronts, will foul its own nest and can never hope to serve humanity in the way of progress.
On the supposition that the Armenian was either in the direct pay of the British Admiralty, or, if not in such service, refused to respond to the hail of a war vessel, whether submarine or otherwise, there is not a word which can fairly be said in criticism of a succeeding attack, provided the recognized rules of war were not violated. Nor does the presence of American neutrals change the situation in the slightest. If the facts are otherwise, conclusions will also differ correspondingly. Meanwhile as a neutral country the United States should banish any hallucination as to the probable treatment that belligerent men-of-war will accord supply-ships which refuse to permit visitation or capture. They are not going to circle about the transgressing freighter, protesting through a speaking trumpet or otherwise until the vessel is safe in port. To the contrary, they are sure to deal vigorously as the occasion seems to require. It is probable that American citizens in general do not understand the clear distinction which exists between an ordinary freighter, especially when attached to the naval service, and a passenger steamship. It is also not unreasonable to suppose that they are ignorant of a warship's right to compel visitation.
Inasmuch as such lack of knowledge may involve them in catastrophes, effort should be made to provide for their instruction. Whether or not this is done, the nation should learn to accept the fortunes of those who enter any sort of enemy service, as something which is not a national concern.