Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

On June 10th Mr. Bryan issued a formal statement of his position, defining in detail the methods of effecting a peaceful settlement as to which Mr. Bryan had said in his letter of resignation, "we find ourselves differing irreconcilably." This statement follows:

My reason for resigning is clearly stated in my letter of resignation, namely, that I may employ as a private citizen, the means which the President does not feel at liberty to employ. I honor him for doing what he believes to be right, and I am sure that he desires, as I do, to find a peaceful solution of the problem which has been created by the action of the submarines.

Two of the points on which we differ, each conscientious in his conviction, are: First, as to the suggestion of investigation by an international commission, and Second, as to warning Americans against traveling on belligerent vessels or with cargoes of ammunition.

I believe that this nation should frankly state to Germany that we are willing to apply in this case the principle which we are bound by treaty to apply to disputes be tween the United States and thirty countries with which we have made treaties, providing for investigation of all disputes of every character and nature.

These treaties, negotiated under this Administration, make war practically impossible between this country and these thirty governments, representing nearly three-fourths of all the people of the world.

Among the nations with which we have these treaties are Great Britain, France and Russia. No matter what disputes may arise between us and these treaty nations, we agree that there shall be no declaration and no commencement of hostilities until the matters in dispute have been investigated by an international commission, and a year's time is allowed for investigation and report. This plan was offered to all the nations without any exceptions whatever, and Germany was one of the nations that accepted the principle, being the twelfth, I think, to accept.

No treaty was actually entered into with Germany, but I cannot see that that should stand in the way when both nations indorsed the principle. I do not know whether Germany would accept the offer, but our country should, in my judgment, make the offer. Such an offer, if accepted, would at once relieve the tension and silence all the jingoes who are demanding war.

Germany has always been a friendly nation, and a great many of our people are of German ancestry. Why should we not deal with Germany according to this plan to which the nation has pledged its support?

The second point of difference is as to the course which should be pursued in regard to Americans traveling on belligerent ships or with cargoes of ammunition.

Why should an American citizen be permitted to involve his country in war by traveling upon a belligerent ship, when he knows that the ship will pass through a danger zone? The question is not whether an American citizen has a right, under international law, to travel on a belligerent ship; the question is whether he ought not, out of consideration for his country, if not for his own safety, avoid danger when avoidance is possible.

It is a very one-sided citizenship that compels a government to go to war over a citizen's rights and yet relieve the citizen of all obligations to consider his nation's

welfare. I do not know just how far the President can legally go in actually preventing Americans from traveling on belligerent ships, but I believe the Government should go as far as it can, and that in case of doubt it should give the benefit of the doubt to the Government.

But even if the Government could not legally prevent citizens from traveling on belligerent ships, it could, and in my judgment should, earnestly advise American citizens not to risk themselves or the peace of their country, and I have no doubt that these warnings would be heeded.

President Taft advised Americans to leave Mexico when insurrection broke out there, and President Wilson has repeated the advice. This advice, in my judgment, was eminently wise, and I think the same course should be followed in regard to warning Americans to keep off vessels subject to attack.

I think, too, that American passenger ships should be prohibited from carrying ammunition. The lives of passengers ought not to be endangered by cargoes of ammunition whether that danger comes from possible explosions within or from possible attacks from without. Passengers and ammunition should not travel together. The attempt to prevent American citizens from incurring these risks is entirely consistent with the effort which our Government is making to prevent attacks from submarines.

The use of one remedy does not exclude the use of the other. The most familiar illustration is to be found in the action taken by municipal authorities during a riot. It is the duty of the mayor to suppress the mob, and to prevent violence, but he does not hesitate to warn citizens to keep off the streets during the riots. He does not question their right to use the streets, but for their own protection and in the interest of order he warns them not to incur the risks involved in going upon the streets when men are shooting at each other.

The President does not feel justified in taking the action above stated. That is, he does not feel justified, first, in suggesting the submission of the controversy to investigation, or, second, in warning the people not to incur the extra hazards in traveling on belligerent ships or on ships carrying ammunition. And he may be right in the position he has taken, but as a private citizen I am free to urge both of these propositions, and to call public attention to these remedies in the hope of securing such an expression of public sentiment as will support the President in employing these remedies, if, in the future, he finds it consistent with his sense of duty to favor them.1

On June 11th Mr. Bryan issued a further statement on what he called the real issue, addressed to the American people. This statement follows, as it explains in Mr. Bryan's own words the convictions which caused him to oppose the President's policy and to surrender the Secretaryship of State rather than to surrender his convictions:

You now have before you the text of the note to Germany-the note which it would have been my official duty to sign had I remained Secretary of State. I ask

1 The New York Times, Thursday, June 2, 1915, page 2.

you to sit in judgment upon my decision to resign rather than to share responsibility for it.

I am sure you will credit me with honorable motives, but that is not enough. Good intentions could not atone for a mistake at such a time, on such a subject, and under such circumstances. If your verdict is against me I ask no mercy; I desire none if I have acted unwisely.

A man in public life must act according to his conscience, but, however conscientiously he acts, he must be prepared to accept without complaint any condemnation which his own errors may bring upon him; he must be willing to bear any deserved punishment, from ostracism to execution. But hear me before you pass sentence. The President and I agree in purpose; we desire a peaceful solution of the dispute which has arisen between the United States and Germany. We not only desire it, but, with equal fervor, we pray for it; but we differ irreconcilably as to the means of securing it.

If it were merely a personal difference, it would be a matter of little moment, for all the presumptions are on his side-the presumptions that go with power and authority. He is your President, I am a private citizen without office or title-but one of the one hundred million of inhabitants.

But the real issue is not between persons, it is between systems, and I rely for vindication wholly upon the strength of the position taken.

Among the influences which governments employ in dealing with each other there are two which are preeminent and antagonistic-force and persuasion. Force speaks with firmness and acts through the ultimatum; persuasion employs argument, courts investigation, and depends upon negotiation. Force represents the old system-the system that must pass away; persuasion represents the new system-the system that has been growing, all too slowly, it is true, but growing for 1,900 years. In the old system war is the chief cornerstone-war, which at its best is little better than war at its worst; the new system contemplates an universal brotherhood established through the uplifting power of example.

If I correctly interpret the note to Germany, it conforms to the standards of the old system rather than to the rules of the new, and I cheerfully admit that it is abundantly supported by precedents-precedents written in characters of blood upon almost every page of human history. Austria furnishes the most recent precedent; it was Austria's firmness that dictated the ultimatum against Serbia, which set the world

at war.

Every ruler now participating in this unparalleled conflict has proclaimed his desire for peace and denied responsibility for the war, and it is only charitable that we should credit all of them with good faith. They desired peace, but they sought it according to the rules of the old system. They believed that firmness would give the best assurance of the maintenance of peace, and, faithfully following precedent, they went so near the fire that they were, one after another, sucked into the contest.

Never before have the frightful follies of this fatal system been so clearly revealed as now. The most civilized and enlightened—aye, the most Christian—of the nations of Europe are grappling with each other as if in a death struggle. They are sacrificing the best and bravest of their sons on the battlefield; they are converting their gardens into cemeteries and their homes into houses of mourning; they are taxing the wealth of to-day and laying a burden of debt on the toil of the future;

they have filled the air with thunder-bolts more deadly than those of Jove, and they have multiplied the perils of the deep.

Adding fresh fuel to the flame of hate, they have daily devised new horrors, until one side is endeavoring to drown noncombatant men, women, and children at sea, while the other side seeks to starve noncombatant men, women, and children on land. And they are so absorbed in alternate retaliations and in competitive cruelties that they seem, for the time being, blind to the rights of neutrals and deaf to the appeals of humanity. A tree is known by its fruit. The war in Europe is the ripened fruit of the old system.

This is what firmness, supported by force, has done in the Old World; shall we invite it to cross the Atlantic? Already the jingoes of our own country have caught the rabies from the dogs of war; shall the opponents of organized slaughter be silent while the disease spreads?

As an humble follower of the Prince of Peace, as a devoted believer in the prophecy that "they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," I beg to be counted among those who earnestly urge the adoption of a course in this matter which will leave no doubt of our Government's willingness to continue negotiations with Germany until an amicable understanding is reached, or at least until, the stress of war over, we can appeal from Philip drunk with carnage to Philip sobered by the memories of an historic friendship and by a recollection of the innumerable ties of kinship that bind the Fatherland to the United States.

Some nation must lead the world out of the black night of war into the light of that day when "swords shall be beaten into plowshares." Why not make that honor ours? Some day-why not now?-The nations will learn that enduring peace cannot be built upon fear-that good-will does not grow upon the stalk of violence. Some day the nations will place their trust in love, the weapon for which there is no shield; in love, that suffereth long and is kind; in love, that is not easily provoked, that beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things; in love, which, though despised as weakness by the worshippers of Mars, abideth when all else fails.2

Opinions differ as to the wisdom of Mr. Bryan's resignation, when he agreed with the President as to the object but differed only as to the means of carrying it into effect; and opinions likewise differ as to the propriety of explaining in detail his reasons for resigning at a time of great tension with Germany, and indeed before the Lusitania note which Mr. Bryan refused to sign had been received at Berlin or made public by either government. Without expressing any opinion on these difficult and perplexing questions, about which the wisest seem to differ, and without discussing the question raised by Mr. Bryan of the propriety of Americans traveling on belligerent ships or with cargoes of ammunition, it should be said, in fairness to Mr. Bryan, that he believed the Administration to be legally bound by the principle incorporated in the thirty

2 The New York Times, Friday, June 11, 1915, page 1.

commission of inquiry treaties negotiated by him as Secretary of State, twenty-eight of which have been duly approved by the Senate and proclaimed by the President of the United States; and that the Administration was morally bound to apply the principle of the commission of inquiry treaties to disputes with other nations which, like Germany, were not parties to actual treaties, but had accepted them in principle. Regarding this contention there is also much difference of opinion; but again it should be said, in fairness to Mr. Bryan, that he accepted the Secretaryship of State with the understanding that he should negotiate commission of inquiry treaties with the Powers willing to conclude them, and that the authorization so to do influenced him to accept the Secretaryship of State, as Mr. Bryan has stated on more than one occasion to the writer of this editorial comment before the Lusitania incident occurred.

The commission of inquiry treaties are themselves the subject of much discussion. Many believe-and the writer of this comment shares the belief that the treaties are very important documents, especially the series based upon the treaty between the Netherlands and the United States. That treaty, it will be recalled, provides that all disputes not covered by arbitration treaties or agreements, or not submitted to arbitration, shall, upon the failure of diplomacy, be submitted for investigation and report to a permanent commission of inquiry; that the international commission may, without the request of either government offer its services; that the governments shall furnish the international commission with the means and facilities required for its investigation and report; that the commission shall have a year in which to complete its report, unless the time be extended; and that the report when presented does not bind the nations to comply with its terms, as it is specifically stated in Article 3 of the treaty that "The high contracting parties reserve the right to act independently on the subject-matter of the dispute after the report of the commission shall have been submitted." That is to say, if treaties of arbitration exist, covering a particular dispute, then the controversy is to be arbitrated according to the treaty of arbitration, or if there be a treaty providing a different method of solution, then that method is to be followed. If, however, the disputes have not been actually referred to arbitration or the particular method followed agreed upon in other treaties, then the question is to be referred to the investigation and report of a commission whose composition is known in advance and whose members are appointed in ad

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »