AMERICA'S NEUTRALITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 May 1916, Page 4

AMERICA'S NEUTRALITY.

Neutrality is never moral, and it may be a peculiarly mean and hideous form of immorality. It is in itself merely unmoral; that is, neither moral nor immoral ; and at times it may be wise and expedient. But it is never anything of which to be heartily ashamed. It is a Wiek«d thing to be neutral between right and wrong. Impartiality does not mean neutrality. We take these words from a book recently written by Mr. Roosevelt and entitled "Fear God and take you own Part." He does not spare his country—and he does not spare the Huns. It is refreshing to hear him after the too-proud-to-fight vaporings of the President. He says: "Wo have so acted as to convince other nations that in very truth we are too proud to fight; and the man who is too proud to fight is in practice always treat- I ed as just proud enough to be. kicked. It is sickening to have to recapitulate the dreadful deeds that have been done during the last, year and a quarter, while the Unift>d States sat tamely by. Miss Cavell was killed for deeds such as were committed by literally thousands of women, North and South, during the Civil War in this country; and if either Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis had ever dreamed of putting any of these women to death, a deafening roar of execration would have gone up from the men of both side.s But there was no hesitation in killing Miss Cavcll, and there was no disapprobaton expressed by our Administration. Belgium was blotted out from the list of nations by an act which was a more flagrant instance of international wickedness than any-; thing that has occurred since the close of the Napoleonic struggles; but this Administration did not venture to speak about it. Remember, there is not the slightest room for honest question either as to the dreadful, the unspeakably hideous, outrages committed on the Belgians, or as to the fact that these outrages were methodically committed by the express command of the German Government, in order to terrorise both the Belgians and, among neutrals, those men who are as cold and timid, and selfish as our Governmental leaders have shown themselves to be. On February 12 it was a year since the time when we notified Germany that in case any of our citizens were killed, we would hold her .to a strict accountability; and during tho:.e eleven months the passenger ships sunk by German or Austrian submarines in defiance of our warning have included, among others, the Falabn. Lusitania, Arabic, Hesperian, Ancona, Yasaka. Ville de la Ciolat, and Persia. Many hundreds of Americans were among the passengers, and a eonple of hundred of these, including many women and children, were killed. The total deaths on these ships since March last amount to between 2000 and 2100. The, campaign against them has been a campaign of sheer murder/on a vaster scale than any indulged in by any of the old-time pirates of the Indian Ocean and the Spanish Main. The invasion of Belgium by Germany, in defiance of The Hague Convention, made the neutrality of the United States, in the ex-President's view, immoral, because it was a breach of a treaty to which America was a party. It is the Allies who are dedicated to the cause and are fiahting for the principles set forth m

fundamental in the speech of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg. It is they who have highly resolved that their dead shall not have died in vain, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth." Immediately Mr Roosevelt adds the bitter charge against his own countrymen, "And we have stood aside, and, as a nation, have not ventured even to say one word, far less to take any action, for the right or against the wrong. It is odious hypocrisy to do as this Administration has done, and refuse to stand for the rights of neutrals when, as in the case of Belgium, these rights were most flagrantly trodden under foot, but when we had no pecuniary interest involved; and yet promptly to clamor on behalf of the rights of neutrals when the cvcrcise of these rights would rebound to our own pecuniary advantage. This is to put the body above the soul, the dollar above the man. Moreover, when we thus, in the first and greatest case of the violation of neutral rights, flinched from our duty, we rendered it impossible with effect', or, indeed, with propriety, to protest about subsequent and lesser violations of neutral rights. With colossal effrontery Germany, the first and infinitely the greatest offender against humanity and the rights of neutrals, has clamored that we should take steps to 'secure neutral rights on the seas,' to 'establish the freedom of the seas,' 'to secure the neutralisation of the ocean.' The proGermans on this side of the water have repeated these words with parrot-like fidelity of phrase. In the first place, ell offences against the freedom of the seas that have, been perpetrated in this war are unimportant compared with the infamy committed on Belgium—save only those offences committed by the German and Austrian submarines, which resulted in the murder of over two thousand non-combatants. In the next place, until the civilised world which is at peace, and more especially the United States, in gome way takes effective action to rebuke the violation by Germany of the neutralised territory of Belgium, it is utterly useless to talk about the neutralisation of the seas. If the United States had promptly and effectively interfered on behalf of Belgium, it would have been its clear duty to interfere against all the nations who, on sea or on shore, have subsequently been guilty of violations of international law. and of the rules laid down in The Hague Conventions, the Geneva Convention, and other similar conventions. But until the first duty has been efficiently performed, and the major offender dealt with, it is a proof of cowardice and of bad faith to deal with minor offences."

Tiiese words should burn into the minds of every self-respecting American, and encourage Britain and her Allies to go forward with greater determination, confidence and hope in the subjugation of the enemies of mankind. Incidentally, they afford a most convincing reply to the vaporings of Bethmann-Hollweg and the gang of malefactors associated with him as to Britain being at the bottom of the war. We have only to turn to President Wilson's, latest exposition *bf fundamental principles as set forth in to-day's cables in order to find an emphatic endorsement of Mr. Roosevelt's words. '"America," says Mr. Wilson, "is ready to join any feasible association of nations to preserve the peace of the world against political ambition and selfish hostility." This means that, according to the president's translation of American greatness, it is a myth, and that of herself she must be a nonenity, only taking action in conjunction with an "association of nations." It must be the opinion of the w&rid that must deal with disturbers of the world's peace. A very convenient theory, but one which humiliates the great American nation by its utterance. Every one,of the fundamentals of a lasting peace that Mr. Wilson puts forward has been rent asunder and trampled underfoot by the iron heel of Prussian militarism without a word of protest from America's president, vvhose sphere of action is limited (so he tells the world), to willingness to become a partner in any feasible association or nations formed to control such military powers as Germany by diplomacy instead of the sword. What nations are there to join in such a Quixotic association? This latest act of folly of the American president lends added power to the trenchant strictures of the outspoken and virile Roosevelt.