iili^^^'iiii'^iii 
 
 jj 
 
 I 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 BY 
 
 ELIHU ROOT 
 
 lS temporary chairman of the new YORK 
 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION 
 
 NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 15, 1916 
 
 \EPRINTED, WITH CERTAIN ELIMINATIONS, 
 
 FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE 
 
 AMERICAN PUBLIC 
 
 G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
 
 NEW YORK AND LONDON 
 
 Ube If^ntcherbocJ^er press 
 
X 
 
 
 ■ <i> 
 
 
 V' 
 
ROOT'S SPEECH 
 
 FOREWORD 
 
 The Address of Elihu Root impressed the under- 
 signed who has taken the responsibiHty for its 
 re-issue as presenting material that should prove 
 of service and enlightenment for citizens through- 
 out the coimtry. 
 
 . The portions of the Address here printed have 
 to do with the subject of foreign relations. Ameri- 
 can citizens who are interested in the welfare of 
 the nation and in the fulfillment of our national 
 obligations will find in Senator Root's clearly- 
 thought out argument material for guidance 
 and for inspiration. Legislators and voters have 
 been unduly confused by the specious talk of 
 W. J. Bryan, the political leader who was ready to 
 recommend the payment of debts, national and 
 individual, fifty cents on the dollar, and who is 
 
 331S03 
 
still ready to advocate the discharge of all our 
 national obligations on the same basis. 
 
 It is well that our people should be placed in a 
 position to combat the heresies of Bryan and his 
 followers with the thoughtful utterances of a 
 real statesman like Senator Root. 
 
 '* Peace Under the Sword." 
 
 March lo, 191 6. 
 
Gentlemen of the Convention : 
 
 We are entering upon a contest for the election of 
 a President and the control of government under 
 conditions essentially new in the experience of our 
 country. The forms which we are about to follow 
 are old and familiar; but the grounds for action, the 
 demand of great events for decision upon national 
 conduct, the moral forces urging to a solution of/ 
 vaguely outlined questions, the tremendous conse- 
 quences of wisdom or folly in national policy, all 
 these are new to the great mass of American voters. 
 Never since 1864 has an election been fraught 
 with consequences so vital to national life. All 
 the ordinary considerations which play so great a 
 part in our presidential campaigns are and ought 
 to be dwarfed into insignificance. 
 
 For the first time in twenty years we enter the 
 field as the party of opposition, and indeed it is a 
 much longer time, for in 1896, in all respects save 
 the tariff, the real opposition to the sturdy and 
 patriotic course of President Cleveland was to 
 be found in the party that followed Mr. Bryan. 
 
.But it is xiQ% from domestic questions that the 
 most' difficult pioblems of this day arise. The 
 events of the last few years have taught us many 
 lessons. We have learned that civilization is but 
 a veneer thinly covering the savage nature of 
 man; that conventions, courtesies, respect for 
 law, regard for justice and humanity, are acquired 
 habits, feebly constraining the elemental forces 
 of man's nature developed through countless 
 centuries of struggle against wild beasts and 
 savage foes. We have been forced to perceive 
 that a nation which fulfills the conditions on which 
 alone it can continue to exist, which preserves its 
 independence and the liberty of its people and 
 makes its power a shield for the rights of its citi- 
 zens, must deal with greed and lust of conquest 
 and of power and indifference to human rights. 
 /We have seen that neither the faith of treaties 
 nor the law of nations affords protection to the 
 weak against the aggression of the strong! We 
 have begun to realize that America, with its vast 
 foreign trade, with its citizens scattered over 
 the whole earth, with millions of aliens upon its 
 soil, with its constantly increasing participation 
 in world-wide efforts for the benefit of mankind, 
 with a thousand bonds of intercourse and intimacy 
 imiting it to other nations, is no longer isolated; 
 that our nation can no longer live unto itself 
 
 4 
 
alone or stand aloof from the rest of mankind; 
 that we must play some part in the progress of 
 civilization, recognize some duties as correlative 
 to our rights. For the first time within the 
 memory of men now living, the international 
 relations of the United States, long deemed of/ 
 trifling consequence, are recognized as vital. How 
 can this nation,, which loves peace and intends 
 justice, avoid the curse of militarism and at the 
 same time preserve its independence, defend its 
 territory, protect the lives and liberty and property 
 of its citizens? How can we prevent the same 
 principles of action, the same policies of conduct, 
 the same forces of military power which are 
 exhibited in Europe from laying hold upon the 
 vast territory and practically undefended wealth of 
 the new world? Can we expect immunity? Can 
 we command immunity? How shall we play our 
 part in the world? Have selfish living and fac- 
 tional quarreling and easy prosperity obscured 
 the spiritual vision of our coimtry? Has the 
 patriotism of a generation never summoned to 
 sacrifice become lifeless? Is our nation one, or a 
 discordant multitude? Have we still national 
 ideals? Will anybody live for them? Would 
 anybody die for them? Or are we all for ease and 
 comfort and wealth at any price? Confronted 
 by such questions as these and the practical situa- 
 
 5 
 
tions which give rise to them, is the country 
 satisfied to trust itself again in the hands of the 
 Democratic party ? 
 
 When a President and Secretary of State have 
 been lawfully established in office the power of 
 initiative in foreign affairs rests with them. The 
 nation is in their hands. Theirs is the authority 
 and theirs the duty to adopt and act upon policies, 
 subject to such laws as Congress may enact 
 within constitutional limits. Parliamentary oppo- » 
 sition can take no affirmative step ; can accomplish \ 
 no affirmative action. The expression of public 
 opinion can do nothing except as it produces an 
 influence upon the minds of those officers who 
 have the lawful power to conduct our foreign 
 relations. Their policy is the country's policy 
 because it is they who are authorized to act for 
 the country. While they are working out their 
 policy all opposition, all criticism, all condem- 
 nation, are at the risk of weakening the case of 
 one's own country and frustrating the efforts 
 of its lawful representatives to Succeed in what 
 they are seeking to accomplish for the country's 
 benefit. An American should wish the representa- 
 tives of his country to succeed whatever may be 
 their party unless there be wrong-doing against 
 conscience. However much he may doubt the 
 wisdom of their course he should help them where 
 
 6 
 
he can and refrain from placing obstacles in their 
 way. But when the President and Secretary of 
 State have acted, and seek a new grant of power, 
 they and the party which is responsible for them 
 must account for their use of power to the people 
 from whom it came, and the people must pass 
 judgment upon them, and then full and frank 
 public discussion becomes the citizen's duty. 
 
 The United States had rights and duties in 
 Mexico. More than forty thousand of our 
 citizens had sought their fortunes and made their 
 homes there. A thousand millions of American 
 capital had been invested in that rich and produc- 
 tive country, and millions of income from these 
 enterprises were annually returned to the United 
 States not merely for the benefit of the investors, 
 but for the enrichment of our whole country 
 and all its production and enterprise. But 
 revolution had come, and factional warfare was 
 rife. Americans had been murdered, American 
 property had been wantonly destroyed, the lives 
 and property of all Americans in Mexico were in 
 danger. That was the situation when Mr. Wilson 
 became President in March, 1913. His duty then 
 was plain. It was, first, to use his powers as 
 President to secure protection for the lives and 
 property of Americans in Mexico and to require 
 that the rules of law and stipulations of treaties 
 
 7 
 
should be observed by Mexico towards the United 
 States and its citizens. His duty was, second, as 
 the head of a foreign power to respect the in- 
 dependence of Mexico, to refrain from all inter- 
 ference with her internal affairs, except as he was 
 justified by the law of nations for the protection 
 of American rights. The President of the United 
 States failed to observe either of those duties. 
 He deliberately abandoned them both and fol- 
 lowed an entirely different and inconsistent 
 purpose. He intervened in Mexico to aid one 
 faction in civil strife against another. He under- 
 took to pull down Huerta and set Carranza up 
 in his place. Huerta was in possession. He 
 claimed to be the constitutional president of 
 Mexico. He certainly was the de facto president 
 of Mexico. Rightly or wrongly, good or bad, he 
 was there. From the north Carranza and a 
 group of independent chieftains were endeavoring 
 to pull down the power of Huerta. President 
 Wilson took sides with them in pulling down that 
 power. In August, 191 3, through Mr. John 
 Lind, he presented to Huerta a communication 
 which was in substance a demand that Huerta 
 should retire permanently from the government of 
 Mexico. When Huerta refused, the power of the 
 United States was appHed to turn him out. For- 
 eign nations were induced to refuse to his govem- 
 
 8 
 
ment the loans of money necessary to repair the 
 ravages of war and estabHsh order. Arms and 
 munitions of war were freely furnished to the 
 Northern forces and withheld from Huerta. 
 Finally the President sent our army and navy to 
 invade Mexico and capture its great seaport, 
 Vera Cruz, and hold it and throttle Mexican 
 commerce until Huerta fell. The government 
 of the United States intervened in Mexico to 
 control the internal affairs of that independent \ 
 cotmtry and to enforce the will of the American 
 President in those affairs by threat, by economic 
 pressure, and by force of arms. Upon what 
 claim of right did this intervention proceed? 
 Not to secure respect for American rights; not to 
 protect the lives or property of our citizens; not 
 to assert the law of nations; not to compel observ- 
 ance of the law of himianity. On the contrary, 
 Huerta' s was the only power in Mexico to which 
 appeal could be made for protection of life or 
 property. That was the only power which in 
 fact did protect either American or European or 
 Mexican. It was only within the territory where ■ 
 Huerta ruled that comparative peace and order 
 prevailed. The territory over which the armed 
 power of Carranza and Villa and their associates 
 extended was the theater of the most appalling 
 crimes. Bands of robbers roved the coimtry 
 
 9 
 
with unbridled license. Americans and Mexicans 
 alike were at their mercy, and American men were 
 murdered and American women were outraged 
 with impunity. Thousands were reduced to 
 poverty by the wanton destruction of the 
 industries through which they lived. The pay- 
 ment of blackmail was the only protection of 
 property against burnings and robbery. No one 
 in authority could or would give protection or 
 redress. It had become perfectly plain that the 
 terms upon which both Carranza and Villa held 
 their supporters were unrestricted opportunity 
 and license for murder, robbery, and lust. Yet the 
 government of the United States ignored, condoned, 
 the murder of American men and the rape of 
 American women and destruction of American 
 property and insult to American officers and 
 defilement of the American flag and joined itself 
 to the men who were guilty of all these things 
 to pull down the power of Huerta. Why? The 
 President himself has told us. It was because he 
 adjudged Huerta to be a usurper; because he 
 deemed that the common people of Mexico ought 
 to have greater participation in government and 
 share in the land; and he believed that Carranza 
 and Villa would give them these things. We 
 must all sympathize with these sentiments, but 
 there is nothing more dangerous than misplaced 
 
 10 
 
sentiment. Of all men in this world, the man 
 who had vested in him the executive power of the 
 United States was least at liberty to sit in judg- 
 ment of his own motion upon the title of a claimant 
 to the Mexican presidency or to reform the land 
 laws of Mexico. 
 
 The results of this interference were most unfor- 
 tunate. If our government had sent an armed 
 force into Mexico to protect American life and 
 honor we might have been opposed but we should 
 have been understood and respected by the people 
 of Mexico, because they would have realized 
 that we were acting within our international right 
 and performing a nation's duty for the protection 
 of its own people; but when the President sent an 
 armed force into Mexico to determine the Mexican 
 presidential succession he created resentment 
 and distrust of motives among all classes and sec- 
 tions of the Mexican people. When our army 
 landed at Vera Cruz, Carranza himself, who was 
 to be the chief beneficiary of the act, publicly 
 protested against it. So strong was the resent- 
 ment that he could not have kept his followers 
 otherwise. When Huerta had fallen the new 
 government which for the day had succeeded to 
 his place peremptorily demanded the withdrawal 
 of the American troops. The universal sentiment 
 of Mexicans required that peremptory demand, 
 
 II 
 
and the troops were withdrawn. Still worse than , 
 that, the taking of Vera Cruz destroyed confidence 
 in the sincerity of the American government in 
 Mexico, because every intelligent man in Mexico 
 believed that the avowed reason for the act 
 was not the real reason. The avowed purpose ^ 
 was to compel a salute to the American flag. I , 
 will state the circumstances: On the ninth of 
 April, 1914, a boat's crew from the Dolphin landed 
 at a wharf in Tampico to take off supplies. The 
 use of that wharf had been prohibited, and 
 the Mexican officer in charge of the wharf put the 
 crew under arrest, but a higher officer ordered 
 him to hold the boat's crew at the wharf and 
 await instructions. Within an hour and a half 
 the crew was set free. No injury or indignity 
 was suffered except the fact of the arrest. Im- 
 mediate amends were made. The Mexican 
 officer in command at Tampico apologized; 
 General Huerta's government apologized; the 
 officer who made the arrest was himself arrested 
 and his punishment promised. The admiral in 
 command of our fleet at Tampico demanded 
 more public amends through a salute to our 
 flag, but there ensued a discussion as to the facts 
 and as to the character of the salute which 
 the circumstances demanded, the number of 
 guns, and how, if at all, the salute was to be 
 
 12 
 
returned. While that discussion was pending and 
 avowedly because of that incident the American 
 government presented a twenty-four-hour ulti- 
 matum and landed an armed force and captured 
 the City of Vera Cruz. Three hundred Mexicans 
 were reported killed; seventeen United States 
 Marines were killed and many were wounded. 
 At that very time Mr. Bryan, with the President's A 
 approval, was signing treaties with half the world / 
 agreeing that if any controversy should arise it 
 should be submitted to a joint commission and 
 no action should be taken until after a full year 
 had elapsed. This controversy arose on the ninth 
 of April and on the twenty-first of the same 
 month Vera Cruz was taken. Several times the 
 troops of Carranza and Villa had arrested and 
 imprisoned American consular officers and torn 
 down the American flags from the consulates and 
 trampled them in the mire, with indescribable 
 indignities. The proofs were in our hands and 
 no attention was paid to them. Many times 
 soldiers of the United States, in uniform, on duty, 
 had been shot and killed or wounded across the 
 border by soldiers of Carranza and Villa. More 
 than fifty of them have been killed in this way and 
 no attention has been paid to it. The demand 
 of a salute to the flag was never heard of again 
 after Vera Cruz was captured. There is not an 
 
 13 
 
intelligent man in Mexico who believes that the 
 dispute about the salute was the real reason for 
 the capture of Vera Cruz. Is there one here who 
 doubts that the alleged cause was but a pretext 
 and that the real cause was the purpose to turn 
 Huerta out of office? The people of Mexico, who 
 saw their unoffending city captured by force of 
 arms, three hundred of its people slain, their soil 
 violated, a foreign flag floating over their great- 
 seaport, upon what they felt to be a false pretense, 
 were misled into imputing a more sinister purpose 
 still — to secure control of Mexico for the United 
 States ; and they believed that when the American 
 troops departed, that purpose was abandoned 
 through fear. With the occupation of Vera Cruz 
 the moral power of the United States in Mexico 
 ended. We were then and we are now hated for 
 what we did to Mexico, and we were then and we 
 are now despised for our feeble and irresolute 
 failure to protect the lives and rights of our 
 citizens. No flag is so dishonored and no citizen- 
 ship so little worth the claiming in Mexico as 
 ours. And that is why we have failed in Mexico. 
 
 Incredible as it seems, Huerta had been turned 
 out by the assistance of the American govern- 
 ment without any guaranties from the men who 
 were to be set up in his place, and so the murdering 
 and burning and ravishing have gone on to this 
 
 14 
 
day. After Huerta had fallen and the Vera 
 Cruz expedition had been withdrawn, President 
 Wilson announced that no one was entitled to 
 interfere in the affairs of Mexico ; that she was 
 entitled to settle them herself. IJe disclaims all 
 responsibility for what happens in Mexico and. 
 contents himself with a policy of Watchful Wait-/ 
 ing. But who can interfere in a quarrel and help 
 some contestants and destroy others and then 
 absolve himself from responsibility for the results? 
 It is not by force of circumstances over which we 
 had no control, but largely because the American 
 Administration intervened by force to control the 
 internal affairs of that country instead of asserting 
 and maintaining American rights that we have 
 been brought to our present pass of confusion 
 and humiliation over Mexico. 
 
 And for the death and outrage, the suffering and 
 ruin of our own brethren, the hatred and contempt 
 for our country, and the dishonor of our name 
 in that land, the Administration at Washington 
 shares responsibility with the inhuman brutes 
 with whom it made common cause. 
 
 When we turn to the Administration's conduct 
 of foreign affairs incident to the great war in 
 Europe we cannot fail to perceive that there is 
 much dissatisfaction among Americans. Some are 
 dissatisfied for specific reasons, some with a vague 
 
 15 
 
impression that our diplomacy has been inade- 
 quate. Dissatisfaction is not in itself ground for 
 condemnation. The best work of the diplomatist 
 often fails to receive public approval at the time 
 and must look to a calm review in the dispassion- 
 ate future for recognition of its merit. The 
 situation created by the war has been difficult 
 and trying. Much of the correspondence of the 
 State Department, especially since Mr. Lansing 
 took charge, has been characterized by accurate 
 learning and skillful statement of specific Ameri- 
 can rights. Everyone in the performance of new 
 and unprecedented duties is entitled to generous 
 allowance for unavoidable shortcomings and 
 errors. No one should be held to the accom- 
 plishment of the impossible. The question 
 whether dissatisfaction is just or unjust is to be 
 determined upon an examination of the great 
 lines of policy which have been followed and upon 
 considering whether the emergencies of the time 
 have been met with foresight, wisdom, and decisive 
 courage. If these are lacking as guides, all the 
 learning of the institutes and the highest skill in 
 correspondence are of little avail. 
 
 A study of the Administration's policy towards 
 Europe since July, 19 14, reveals three fundamental 
 errors. First, the lack of foresight to make 
 timely provision for backing up American diplo- 
 
 16 
 
macy by actual or assured military and naval 
 force. Second, the forfeiture of the world^s 
 respect for our assertion of rights by pursuing? 
 the policy of making threats and failing to make 
 them good. Third, a loss of the moral forces 
 of the civilized world through failure to truly 
 interpret to the world the spirit of the American 
 democracy in its attitude towards the terrible 
 events which accompanied the early stages of the 
 war. 
 
 First, as to power. 
 
 When the war in Europe began, free, peaceable 
 little Switzerland instantly mobilized upon her 
 frontier a great army of trained citizen soldiers. 
 Stui'dy Httle Holland did the same, and, standing 
 within the very sound of the gims, both have kept 
 their territory and their independence inviolate. 
 Nobody has run over them because they have 
 made it apparent that the cost would be too great. 
 
 Great, peaceable America was farther removed 
 from the conflict, but her trade and her citizens 
 traveled on every sea. Ordinary knowledge of 
 European affairs made it plain that the war was 
 begun not by accident but with purpose which 
 would not soon be relinquished. Ordinary knowl- 1 
 edge of military events made it plain from the 
 moment when the tide of German invasion turned 
 from the Battle of the Marne that the conflict 
 
 17 
 
was certain to be long and desperate. Ordinary- 
 knowledge of history — of our own history during 
 the Napoleonic Wars — made it plain that in that 
 conflict neutral rights would be worthless unless 
 powerfully maintained. All the world had fair 
 notice that, as against the desperate belligerent 
 resolve to conquer, the law of nations and the 
 law of humanity interposed no effective barriers 
 for the protection of neutral rights. Ordinary 
 practical sense in the conduct of affairs demanded 
 that such steps should be taken that behind the 
 peaceable assertion of our country's rights, its 
 independence and its honor, should stand power, 
 manifest and available, warning the whole world 
 that it would cost too much to press aggression 
 too far. The Democratic government at Wash-\ 
 ington did not see it. Others saw it and their 
 opinions found voice. Mr. Gardner urged it; 
 Mr. Lodge urged it; Mr. Stimson urged it; Mr. 
 Roosevelt urged it ; but their argument and urgency 
 were ascribed to political motives; and the Presi- 
 dent described them with a sneer as being nervous 
 and excited. 
 
 But the warning voices would not be stilled. 
 The opinion that we ought no longer to remain 
 defenseless became public opinion. Its expres- 
 sion grew more general and insistent, and finally 
 the President, not leading, but following, has 
 
 i8 
 
shifted his ground, has reversed his position, and 
 asks the country to prepare against war. God 
 grant that he be not too late ! But the Democratic 
 party has not shifted its ground. A large part 
 of its members in Congress are endeavoring now] 
 to sidetrack the movement for national prepared-/ 
 ness; to muddle it by amendment and turn it into 
 channels which will produce the least possible 
 result in the increase of national power of defense. 
 What sense of effectiveness in this effort can we 
 gather from the presence of Joseph us Daniels 
 at the most critical post of all — the head of 
 the Navy Department; when we see that where! 
 preparation has been possible it has not been made / 
 when We see that construction of warships already 
 authorized has not been pressed, and in some 
 cases after long delay has not even been begun. 
 If an increase of our country's power to defend 
 itself against aggression is authorized by the pres- 
 ent Congress it must be largely through Repub- 
 lican votes, because the representatives of the 
 Republican party in Washington stand for the 
 country no matter who is president; and all 
 the traditions and convictions of that party are 
 for national power and duty and honor. 
 
 As to the policy of threatening words without 
 deeds. 
 
 19 
 
When Germany gave notice of her purpose to 
 sink merchant vessels on the high seas without 
 safeguarding the lives of innocent passengers, our 
 Government replied on the tenth of February, 
 one year ago, in the following words: 
 
 ''The Government of the United States . . . 
 feels it to be its duty to call the attention of the 
 Imperial German Government, with sincere respect 
 and the most friendly sentiments but very candidly 
 and earnestly, to the very serious possibilities of the 
 course of action apparently contemplated under 
 that proclamation. 
 
 ''The Government of the United States views 
 those possibilities with such grave concern that it 
 feels it to be its privilege, and indeed its duty in the 
 circumstances, to request the Imperial German 
 Government to consider before action is taken the 
 critical situation in respect of the relations between 
 this country and Germany which might arise 
 were the German naval forces, in carrying out 
 the policy foreshadowed in the Admiralty's pro- 
 clamation, to destroy any merchant vessel of the 
 United States or cause the death of American 
 citizens. 
 
 "... If such a deplorable situation should 
 arise, the Imperial German Government can 
 readily appreciate that the Government of the 
 United States would be constrained to hold the 
 
 20 
 
Imperial German Government to a strict account- 
 ability for such acts of their naval a uthoriti es anc] 
 to take any steps it might be necessary to take to 
 safeguard American lives and property and to 
 secure to American citizens the full enjoyment 
 of their acknowledged rights on the high seas." 
 
 By all the usages and traditions of diplomatic 
 intercourse those words meant action. They 
 informed Germany in unmistakable terms that in 
 attacking and sinking vessels of the United States 
 and in destroying the lives of American citizens 
 lawfully traveling upon merchant vessels of other 
 coimtries, she would act at her peril. They pledged 
 the power and courage of America, with her 
 hundred million people and her vast wealth, to 
 the protection of her citizens, as during all her 
 history through the days of her youth and weak- 
 ness she had always protected them. 
 
 On the 28th of March, the passenger steamer 
 Falaha was torpedoed by a German submarine, 
 and an American citizen was killed, but nothing 
 was done. On the 28th of April, the American 
 vessel Gushing was attacked and crippled by a 
 German aeroplane. On the first of May, the 
 American vessel Gulfiight was torpedoed and 
 sunk by a German submarine, and two or more 
 Americans were killed, yet nothing was done. 
 On the 7th of May, the Lusitania was torpedoed 
 
and sunk by a German submarine, and more than 
 one hundred Americans and eleven hundred 
 other non-combatants were drowned. The very 
 thing which our government had warned Germany 
 she must not do, Germany did of set purpose 
 and in the most contemptuous and shocking way. 
 Then, when all America was stirred to the depths, 
 our government addressed another note to Ger- 
 many. It repeated its assertion of American 
 rights, and renewed its bold declaration of 
 purpose. It declared again that the American 
 Government "must hold the Imperial German 
 Government to a strict accountability for any 
 infringement of those rights, intentional or inci- 
 dental, " and it declared that it would not "omit 
 any word or any act necessary to the performance 
 of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of 
 the United States and its citizens and of safe- 
 guarding their free exercise and enjoyment." 
 
 Still nothing was done, and a long and technical 
 correspondence ensued; haggling over petty ques- 
 tions of detail, every American note growing less 
 and less strong and peremptory, until the Arabic 
 was torpedoed and sunk, and more American 
 lives were destroyed, and still nothing was done, 
 and the correspondence continued until the 
 Allied defense against German submarine warfare 
 made it unprofitable and led to its abandonment, 
 
 22 
 
and the correspondence is apparently approaching 
 its end without securing even that partial protec- 
 tion for the future which might be found in an 
 admission that the destruction of the Lusitania 
 was forbidden by law. The later correspondence 
 has been conducted by our State Department 
 with dignity, but it has been futile. An admission 
 of liability for damages has been secured, but the 
 time for real protection to American rights has 
 long since passed. Our government undertook one 
 year ago to prevent the destruction of American 
 life by submarine attack, and now that the 
 attempt has failed and our citizens are long 
 since dead and the system of attack has fallen of 
 its own weight, there is small advantage in dis- 
 cussing whether we shall or shall not have an 
 admission that it was unlawful to kill them. 
 
 The brave words with which we began the 
 controversy had produced no effect, because 
 they were read in the light of two extraordinary 
 events. One was the report of the Austrian 
 Ambassador, Mr. Dumba, to his government, that 
 when the American note of February loth was 
 received, he asked the Secretary of State, Mr. 
 Bryan, whether it meant business, and received 
 an answer which satisfied him that it did not, 
 but was intended for effect at home in America. 
 
 The other event was the strange and unfortunate 
 23 
 
declaration of the President in a public speech in 
 Philadelphia the fourth day after the sinking of 
 the Lusitania that *'a man may be too proud to 
 fight." Whatever the Austrian Ambassador was 
 in fact told by the Secretary of State, the impres- 
 sion which he reported was supported by the 
 events which followed. Whatever the President 
 did mean, his declaration, made in public at that 
 solemn time, amid the horror and mourning of 
 all our people over the murder of their brethren, 
 was accepted the world over as presenting the 
 attitude of the American Government towards 
 the protection of the life and liberty of American 
 citizens in the exercise of their just rights, and 
 throughout the world the phrase "too proud to 
 fight" became a byword of derision and contempt 
 for the Government of the United States. Later, 
 in another theater of war — the Mediterranean — 
 Austria, and perhaps Turkey also, resumed the 
 practice. The Ancona ana then the Persia 
 were destroyed, and more Americans were killed. 
 Why should they not resume the practice? They 
 had learned to believe that, no matter how shocked 
 the American Government might be, its resolu- 
 tion would expend itself in words. They had 
 learned to believe that it was safe to kill Americans, 
 — and the world believed with them. Measured 
 and restrained expression, backed to the full by 
 
 24 
 
serious purpose, is strong and respected. Extreme 
 and belligerent expression, unsupported by resolu- 
 tion, is weak and without effect. No man shoula 
 draw a pistol who dares not shoot. The govern- 
 ment that shakes its fist first and its finger after- 
 wards falls into contempt. Our diplomacy has 
 lost its authority and influence because we have 
 been brave in words and irresolute in action. 
 Men may say that the words of our diplomatic 
 notes were justified; men may say that our in- 
 action was justified ; but no man can say that both 
 our words and our inaction were wise and cred- 
 itable. 
 
 I have said that this government lost the moral 
 forces of the world by not truly interpreting the 
 spirit of the American democracy. 
 
 The American democracy stands for something 
 more than beef and cotton and grain and manu- 
 factures; stands for something that cannot be 
 measured by rates of exchange, and does not rise 
 or fall with the balance of trade. The American 
 people achieved liberty and schooled themselves 
 to the service of justice before they acquired 
 wealth, and they value their country's liberty and 
 justice above all their pride of possessions. Be- 
 neath their comfortable optimism and apparent 
 indifference they have a conception of their 
 
 25 
 
great republic as brave and strong and noble 
 to hand down to their children the blessings of 
 freedom and just and equal laws. They have 
 embodied their principles of government in fixed 
 rules of right conduct which they jealously pre- 
 serve, and, with the instinct of individual freedom, 
 they stand for a government of laws and not of 
 men. They deem that the moral laws which 
 formulate the duties of men towards each other 
 are binding upon nations equally with individuals. 
 Informed by their own experience, confirmed by 
 their observation of international life, they have 
 come to see that the independence of nations, the 
 liberty of their peoples, justice and humanity^ 
 cannot be maintained upon the good nature, the 
 kindly feeling, of the strong towards the weak; 
 that real independence, real liberty, cannot rest 
 upon sufferance; that peace and liberty can be 
 preserved only by the authority and observance 
 of rules of national conduct founded upon the 
 principles of justice and humanity; only by the 
 establishment of law among nations, responsive 
 to the enlightened public opinion of mankind. 
 To them liberty means not liberty for themselves 
 alone, but for all who are oppressed. Justice 
 means not justice for themselves alone, but a 
 shield for all who are weak against the aggression 
 of the strong. When their deeper natures are 
 
 26 
 
stirred they have a spiritual vision in which the 
 spread and perfection of free self-government shall 
 rescue the humble, who toil and endure, from the 
 hideous wrongs inflicted upon them by ambition 
 and lust for power, and they cherish in their 
 heart of hearts an ideal of their country loyal to 
 the mission of liberty for the lifting up of the op- 
 pressed and bringing in the rule of righteousness 
 and peace. 
 
 To this people, the invasion of Belgium brought 
 a shock of amazement and horror. The people of 
 Belgium were peaceable, industrious, law-abiding, 
 self-governing, and free. They had no quarrel 
 with anyone on earth. They were attacked by 
 overwhelming military power ; their country was de- 
 vastated by fire and sword ; they were slain by tens 
 of thousands; their independence was destroyed 
 and their liberty was subjected to the rule of an 
 invader, for no other cause than that they defended 
 their admitted rights. There was no question of 
 fact; there was no question of law; there was not 
 a plausible pretense of any other cause. The 
 admitted rights of Belgium stood in the way of 
 a mightier nation's purpose; and Belgium was 
 crushed. When the true nature of these events 
 was realized, the people of the United States did 
 not hesitate in their feeling or in their judgment. 
 Deepest sympathy with downtrodden Belgium 
 
 27 
 
and stem condemnation of the invader were 
 practically universal. Wherever there was respect 
 for law, it revolted against the wrong done to 
 Belgium. Wherever there was true passion for 
 liberty, it blazed out for Belgium. Wherever 
 there was humanity, it mourned for Belgium. 
 As the realization of the truth spread, it carried 
 a vague feeHng that not merely sentiment but 
 loyalty to the eternal principles of right was in- 
 volved in the attitude of the American people. 
 And it was so, for if the nations were to be in- 
 different to this first great concrete case for a 
 century of military power trampling under foot 
 at will the independence, the liberty and the life 
 of a peaceful and unoffending people in repudia- 
 tion of the faith of treaties and the law of nations 
 and of morality and of humanity — if the public 
 opinion of the world was to remain silent upon 
 that, neutral upon that, then all talk about peace 
 and justice and international law and the rights 
 of man, the progress of humanity and the spread 
 of liberty is idle patter — mere weak sentimentality ; 
 then opinion is powerless and brute force rules 
 and will rule the world. If no difference is recog- 
 nized between right and wrong, then there are no 
 moral standards. There come times in the lives 
 of nations as of men when to treat wrong as 
 if it were right is treason to the right. 
 
 28 
 
The American people were entitled not merely to 
 feel but to speak concerning the wrong done to 
 Belgium. It was not like interference in the 
 internal affairs of Mexico or any other nation, 
 for this was an international wrong. The law 
 protecting Belgium which was violated was our 
 law and the law of every other civilized country. 
 For generations we had been urging on and helping 
 in its development and establishment. We had 
 spent our efforts and our money to that end. 
 In legislative resolution and executive declaration 
 and diplomatic correspondence and special treaties 
 and international conferences and conventions we 
 had played our part in conjunction with other 
 civilized countries in making that law. We had 
 bound ourselves by it ; we had regulated our conduct 
 by it ; and we were entitled to have other nations 
 observe it. That law was the protection of our 
 peace and security. It was our safeguard against 
 the necessity of maintaining great armaments 
 and wasting our substance in continual readiness 
 for war. Our interest in having it maintained as 
 the law of nations was a substantial, valuable, 
 permanent interest, just as real as your interest 
 and mine in having maintained and enforced 
 the laws against assault and robbery and arson 
 which protect our personal safety and property. 
 Moreover, that law was written into a solemn 
 
 29 
 
and formal convention, signed and ratified by- 
 Germany and Belgium and France and the United 
 States in which those other countries agreed with 
 us that the law should be observed. When 
 Belgium was invaded that agreement was binding 
 not only morally but strictly and technically, 
 because there was then no nation a party to the 
 war which was not also a party to the convention. 
 The invasion of Belgium was a breach of contract 
 with us for the maintenance of a law of nations 
 which was the protection of our peace, and the 
 interest which sustained the contract justified an 
 objection to its breach. There was no question 
 here of interfering in the quarrels of Europe. 
 We had a right to be neutral and we were neutral 
 as to the quarrel between Germany and France, 
 but when as an incident to the prosecution of that 
 quarrel Germany broke the law which we were 
 entitled to have preserved, and which she had 
 agreed with us to preserve, we were entitled to be 
 heard in the assertion of our own national right. 
 With the right to speak came responsibility, 
 and with responsibility came duty — duty of 
 government towards all the peaceful men and 
 women in America not to acquiesce in the destruc- 
 tion of the law which protected them, for if the 
 world assents to this great and signal violation 
 of the law of nations, then the law of nations no 
 
 30 
 
longer exists and we have no protection save in 
 subserviency or in force. And with the right to 
 speak there came to this, the greatest of neutral 
 nations, the greatest of free democracies, another 
 duty to the cause of liberty and justice for which 
 America stands: duty to the ideals of America's 
 nobler nature; duty to the honor of her past and 
 the hopes of her future; for this law was a bulwark 
 of peace and justice to the world ; it was a barrier 
 to the spread of war; it was a safeguard to the 
 independence and liberty of all small, weak states. 
 It marks the progress of civilization. If the world 
 consents to its destruction the world turns back- 
 wards towards savagery, and America's assent 
 would be America's abandoment of the mission 
 of democracy. 
 
 Yet the American Government acquiesced in 
 the treatment of Belgium and the destruction of 
 the law of nations. Without one word of objection 
 or dissent to the repudiation of law or the breach 
 of our treaty or the violation of justice and hu- 
 manity in the treatment of Belgium, our govern- 
 ment enjoined upon the people of the United 
 States an undiscriminating and all-embracing 
 neutrality, and the President admonished the 
 people that they must be neutral in all respects in 
 act and word and thought and sentiment. We 
 were to be not merely neutral as to the quarrels of 
 
 31 
 
Europe, but neutral as to the treatment of Belgium ; 
 neutral between right and wrong ; neutral between 
 justice and injustice; neutral between humanity 
 and cruelty; neutral between liberty and oppres- 
 sion. Our government did more than acquiesce, 
 for in the first Lusitania note, with the unspeakable 
 horrors of the conquest of Belgium still fresh in 
 our minds, on the very day after the report of the 
 Bryce Commission on Belgian Atrocities, it wrote 
 these words to the Government of Germany : 
 
 ** Recalling the humane and enlightened 
 attitude hitherto assumed by the Imperial 
 German Government in matters of inter- 
 national right, and particularly with re- 
 gard to the freedom of the seas, having 
 learned to recognize the German views 
 and the German influence in the field of 
 international obligation as always engaged 
 upon the side of justice and humanity," 
 etc., etc. 
 
 And so the Government of the United States 
 appeared as approving the treatment of Belgium. 
 It misrepresented the people of the United States 
 in that acquiescence and apparent approval. It 
 was not necessary that the United States should 
 go to war in defense of the violated law. A single 
 
 32 
 
official expression by the Government of the 
 United States, a single sentence denying assent 
 and recording disapproval of what Germany did in 
 Belgium, would have given to the people of America 
 that leadership to which they were entitled in their 
 earnest groping for the light. It would have 
 ranged behind American leadership the conscience 
 and morality of the neutral world. It would 
 have brought to American diplomacy the respect 
 and strength of loyalty to a great cause. But it 
 was not to be. The American Government failed 
 to rise to the demands of the great occasion. 
 Gone were the old love of justice ; the old passion 
 for liberty; the old sympathy with the oppressed; 
 the old ideals of an America helping the world 
 towards a better future; and there remained in the 
 eyes of mankind only solicitude for trade and 
 profit and prosperity and wealth. 
 
 The American Government could not really have 
 approved the treatment of Belgium, but tmder a 
 mistaken policy it shrank from speaking the truth. 
 That vital error has carried into every effort of 
 our diplomacy the weakness of a false position. 
 Every note of remonstrance against interference 
 with trade, or even against the destruction of life, 
 has been projected against the background of an 
 abandonment of the principles for which America 
 once stood, and has been weakened by the popular 
 
 33 
 
feeling among the peoples of Europe, whose hearts ' 
 are lifted up by the impulses of patriotism and sac- 
 rifice, that America has become weak and sordid. 
 
 Such policies as I have described are doubly- 
 dangerous in their effect upon foreign nations and 
 in their effect at home. It is a matter of universal 
 experience that a weak and apprehensive treat- 
 ment of foreign affairs invites encroachments upon 
 rights and leads to situations in which it is difficult 
 to prevent war, while a firm and frank policy atl 
 the outset prevents difficult situations from arising 
 and tends most strongly to preserve peace. On 
 the other hand, if a government is to be strong 
 in its diplomacy, its own people must be ranged 
 in its support by leadership of opinion in a national 
 cause worthy to awaken their patriotism and 
 devotion. 
 
 We have not been following the path of peace. 
 We have been blindly stumbling along the road 
 that continued will lead to inevitable war. Our 
 diplomacy has dealt with symptoms and ignored 
 causes. The great decisive question upon which 
 our peace depends, is the question whether the 
 rule of action applied to Belgium is to be tolerated. 
 If it is tolerated by the civilized world, this nation 
 will have to fight for its life. There will be no 
 escape. That is the critical point of defense 
 for the peace of America. 
 
 34 
 
When our government failed to tell the truth 
 about Belgium, it lost the opportimity for leader- 
 ship of the moral sense of the American people, 
 and it lost the power which a knowledge of that 
 leadership and a sympathetic response from the 
 moral sense of the world would have given to our 
 diplomacy. When our government failed to make 
 any provision whatever for defending its rights 
 in case they should be trampled upon, it lost the 
 power which a belief in its readiness and will to 
 maintain its rights would have given to its dip- 
 lomatic representations. When our government 
 gave notice to Germany that it would destroy 
 American lives and American ships at its peril, 
 our words, which would have been potent if 
 sustained by adequate preparation to make them 
 good, and by the prestige and authority of the 
 moral leadership of a great people in a great cause, 
 were treated with a contempt which should have 
 been foreseen; and when our government failed 
 to make those words good, its diplomacy was 
 bankrupts . 
 
 35 
 

 , "* > 
 
UNIVERSITY or CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed 
 This book is DUE or» the last date stamped below. 
 
 MAR 23 194f 
 
 APR 15 '68 -11 ftM 
 
 LOAN OfEr'A. 
 
 MAR 2 9 2001 
 
 MAR 2 9 2006 
 
 LD21 
 
 _l00m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 
 
33 ISO'S 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY