The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1917. A SPEECH THAT REQUIRES EXPLANATION

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2974, 11 January 1917, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1917. A SPEECH THAT REQUIRES EXPLANATION

Iflß speech mado by the United States Ambassador in Berlin requires a good deal of fPj^ 10 ?- It is not surprising that the Washington authorities havo asked tor afullcr report of this extraordinary utterance. What did Mb. Gerakd actually say? What did he mean? What purpose had he in view? Dirt he merely give expression to his -personal opinions, or did he speak as the mouthpiece of President Wilson 1 The information at present available is not sufficient to enable a clear answer to be given to these questions. Mr. Gerard's remarks are bewilderingly obscure. What is the interpretation of his reference to the "olive branch" he had brought from President Wilson? Was it a token of a desire for more cordial relations between tho United States and Germany, or was the Ambassador referring to Mr. Wilson's efforts to bring the war to an ondi His declaration that tho relations of the United States and Germany had never been better is so astonishing that one cannot help feeling that he must have been seriously misreported; but equally astonishing is tho assurance he gave that while Herr von BethmannHollweg, General von Hindenbt/rg, Admiral von and Herr Zimmermann held their present offices, the existing cordial relations would continue, and German comment on the speech indicates that this assurance was actually given. Such definite approval of the policy of Herr von BethmannHollweg has naturally made the followers of Admiral von Tirpitz oxtremely angry—so angry indeed that they are demanding that Mr, Gerard be recalled. The advocates of more reckless submarine warfare regard this part of his speech as a distinct threat, and contend that it means that America has succeeded in imposing its will on Germany as regards tho use of submarines. President Wilson has frequently declared that German methods of submarine warfare aro a gross violation of the Law of Nations. He has expressed himself very strongly on this point, and for a time a restraining hand seemed to bo placed upon "frightfulness" at sea; but there has recently been a marked rovival of this form of lawlessness. Some people havo felt that a sharp clash between Germany and America is inevitable. America would bo stultified if after all her threats and protests Admiral von Tirpitz was reinstated in office, 'and his "stop-at-nothing" submarine policy was officially endorsed by tho German Government. Count Reventj.ow, ono of the most uncompromising advocates of frightfulness, evidently thinks that Mr. Gerard's speeoh points to tho cxistenco of an understanding between tho Imperial Chancellor and President Wilson which will thwart the desire of the Tirpitz party for tho utter abandonment of the last vestige of respect for law and morality in order that German submarines may have a free hand to commit any and every enmo without limitation or restriction of any kind. Whether this interpretation is the true ono remains to bo seen. It is certainly a possiblo explanation of the American Ambassador's cryptic utterance. But it is not the only possiblo explanation. Tho prevailing opinion in America seems to be that the speech may be interpreted

by tho people of Britain and their Allies as indicating that the United States has been playing {or German friendship. The words Mr. Gerard is reported to havo used un- ■ doubtedly leave an unpleasant impression. It is difficult to imagine that the Ambassador of any civilised nation should speak approvingly of cordial relations between his country and Germany. What would we think qf a citizen who boasted of his "cordial relations" with a cold-blooded murderer 1 The idea tirat a country like America, which professes to care greatly for liberty, justice, and the rights of man, should court the friendship of an outlaw nation, gives a shock to the moral sense. President Wilson recently declared that "nothing that concerns humanity, nothing that concerns the essential rights of mankind, can be foreign or indifferent" to Americans. He also spoke about reserving the might of America to fight for the rights of mankind. Can it be possible that the man who used such words as these can now_ be seeking the friendship of a perjured Power that bruta-lly violated the neutrality of Belgium; that has disregarded tho rules of civilised warfare; that has resorted.to murder, outrage, piracy, and pillage; that cares nothing for the rights of mankind; that has become the enemy of the human race? Further particulars regarding Mrc._ Gkkabd's speech will be awaited with interest. Let us hope that tho correct account of his utterance will not bear the interpretation that tho United States Government has been playing for Germany's friendship. It is quite certain that any tendency towards a pro-German policy would be strongly resented by the great majority of tho American people.