AMERICA AND AFFAIRS AT SEA.
IF the evidence on which we judge the mental state of the German nation is not entirely at fault, the failure to take Verdun will cause the German rulers to look about for some other kind of reclante. Reclam,e they must have, for in its present state the German nation feeds on it and is kept going by it. Now there is no doubt that a large number of Germans are inclined to point to the High Sea Fleet in the Kiel Canal, and to say that there is the limb of German bodily strength which has so far done little to justify itself. It would not be at all surprising, therefore, if the next dramatic act came from the German Navy. It is a curious fact that in the Swedish papers it is being said repeatedly that the German Fleet will " come out " within the next three weeks. We need not forget that the Germans may have some very good reason for inviting the Swedes to believe this, but on the whole we fancy that the belief comes more from the Swedes' own judgment of the situation than from external suggestion. But quite apart from any possible action by the High Sea Fleet, the German rulers are already doing what they can in the way of obtaining reclaim by their refusal to let American protests hinder them from opening their new submarine campaign. We remember that when the British seas were first proclaimed to be a war zone in which merchantmen might be sunk at sight, things fell very flat at first, and one wondered why the Germans had deliberately prepared a bathos for themselves by dramatically fixing a day and an hour for the paralysis and the slaughter to begin. But apparently the dealer in rename must work in this style. So we are back at the beginning again with the same familiar dodges. The new submarine campaign— which is, of course, the old submarine campaign, for that has never ceased or changed its methods—began at mid- night on March 1st. • We pointed out recently that a certain school of American thought is inclined to allow weight to the argument that German submarines have a right to sink merchantmen at sight, since some British merchant vessels have been armed to hunt down submarines. " How," it is asked, " can the German submarine commander distinguish between the merchantman armed offensively and the merchantman armed defensively ? If he is to take the precautions necessary to make sure, he cannot in practice use his submarine with the least hope of success. Germany is thus being asked to forfeit the advantage of her submarine arm." We showed that the answer to that was that German crime at sea, and nothing else, caused the arming of British merchantmen. Germany assassinates at sea contrary to all international law and humane custom. Then Britain says : " I must defend myself," and acts on the words. Then Germany replies : " Ah ! your merchant vessels are armed, I see. They are ships of war. Therefore I have a right to sink them." That is the situa- tion ; and since we last wrote on the subject German agents have done their best to work up feeling favourable to Germany in the United States on these lines. That they have made a considerable impression is proved by the fact that resolutions are about to be brought before Con- gress—possibly the result may be known before these words appear—advising Americans not to travel in armed merchant vessels belonging to the Allies. " Why," says the Congressman who is favourable to the resolutions, " should we not do this ? In any case, the Germans do not mean to attack unarmed liners. Nearly all the liners between America and Europe are unarmed, and it is in these that most Americans travel. The few strong-heads who insist on a right to travel in any kind of ship should not be allowed to lead us into war." That seems plausible, perhaps, but it does not in any way meet the real point. The real point is that Germany wants, for her own advan- tage, to whittle down the custom of ages. We are abso- lutely certain that if she is allowed to do this—as she would be if the resolutions were carried—there is not an American living who will not learn to repent the surrender of his country. It is not a mere convenience which will be sacrificed, but a principle. Never again will the United States be able to stand forth with a straight face as the champion of the rights of neutrals, and above all of humanity. She will have signed away her right of argument. She will have admitted that international law can be tampered with for reasons of mere expediency. And having admit `idthat principle, she will have raised up a precedent against herself which will be quoted whenever she wants to resist some new infraction of international law that may shake her own security to its very founda- tions, and make all civilization an object of scorn and contempt.
We are thankful to say that no one could possibly recog- nize the danger ahead more thoroughly than Mr. Wilson does. He has already estopped himself from accepting the principle of the resolutions by the plain language he has used in the past to Germany. And now, as though to repeat and underline and re-emphasize his intentions, he has taken some bold steps in order to place the issue beyond all doubt. He has a much clearer head than the supporters of the resolutions, and all experience tells us that his bold- ness will be very handsomely rewarded. He has, for example, written to Senator Stone words which cut off all possibility of retreat :— " For my part," he says, "I cannot consent to any abridgment
of the rights of American citizens in any respect. The honour and self-respect of the nation are involved. We covet peace and shall preserve it at any cost but loss of honour. To forbid our pooplo to exercise their rights for fear we might be called upon to vindicate them would be a deep humiliation indeed. It would be an implicit —all but explicit—acquiescence in the violation of the rights of mankind everywhere and of whatever nation or allegiance."
He followed up that letter by a still bokler demand to Congress that the resolutions shall be voted on at once in order that foreign countries may have no ground for saying that American counsels are divided. He has asked Congress, in fine, for what amounts to a vote of confidence.
What will be the result of the voting ? Mr. Clark, the Speaker of the House, has told Mr. Wilson that there will be a majority for the resolutions. Mr. Wilson refuses to believe it, and so do we. The Democrats cannot well throw over the President at such a crisis, and as for the Republicans, they have all along wanted more firmness, not less. Is it likely, therefore, that for the sake of personally discomfiting Mr. Wilson they will be false to what they conceive to be the interests of their country Again we do not believe it.
Previous page
