The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1915. AN HISTORIC NOTE

New Zealand Tablet, 8 July 1915, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1915. AN HISTORIC NOTE

’ c HE cabled summary of the American Note to St* ii v Germany on the sinking of the Lusitania, jfc* which was published some time ago in our dailies, was very far from doing the document justice; and the full text of the Note, which is now available in our English f &S& r exchanges, goes to show that for once in w the present international crisis President Wilson has really risen to the occasion. Courteous to the point of over-politeness, and scrupulously considerate in form, it states the case against Germany in her highhanded and lawless action in respect to the Lusitania with a. skill and conclusiveness which admit of no possible valid reply. Discarding for the

nonce the diplomatic' flummery, - rhetorical t flourishes, and pious platitudes which have hitherto served as President Wilson’s chief stock-in-trade, the Note states the issues simply, plainly, and straightforwardly, in words which the humblest can-understand, and in • a way which leaves absolutely no loophole-for quibbling ,or evasion. The American case ,is based throughout on the solid rock of, simple justice and • right. . As the New*York Times aptly says : ‘ Every American citizen would be willing to affix his signature in approval of its firm but temperate tone and the indisputable'justice of its representations and demands.’ • It is the one utterance of President Wilson, since the outbreak of the great world conflict, that will have some claim to rank as historic. * L-V The main contention of the Note is in the form of an exceedingly clever argumentum ad honinem. It employs against Germany, with great adroitness and in cogent and telling phrase, the very arguments which Germany herself has again and again advanced in public and international discussions on the principles which should be accepted as just and proper for the regulation of naval warfare and for the protection of the maritime rights of neutral nations. Again and again has Germany proclaimed that, as regards naval questions, she stands for the rights of neutrals and the ‘freedom of the seas. As far back as the middle of the nineteenth century this was her cry, when the maritime Powers met in Paris in 1856 and adopted the famous Declaration of Paris. Fifty years later, at the Hague Conference of 1907, she again stood shoulder to shoulder with America on the same platform, in a demand for the protection of neutrals and a free sea.’ Ever since the outbreak of the present struggle she has announced that this was the great and sacred principle for which she —against a domineering ‘ navalism,’ and for the '* freedom of the seas.’ Thus von Bernhardi, in Germany and the Next II n?, proclaims: ‘ This victory will not lie gained merely in the exclusive interests of Germany. We shall in this struggle, as so often before, represent the common interests of the world, for it will be fought not only, to win recognition for ourselves, but for the freedom of the seas. “ This was the great aim of .Russia under the Empress Catherine IT., of France under Napoleon 1., and spasmodically down to 1904 in the last pages of her history; and the great Republic of the United States of North America strives for it with intense energy. It is the development of the right of nations for which every people craves.”’ To the same effect writes Dr. Edmund von Mach, author of What Germany Wants, in a very recent article on ‘The Free Sea’; ‘The sea is God’s gift to humanity and no nation shall have the right to close it. It represents ‘‘the lungs,’’ as Dr. Dernburg said in his splendid Portland letter, “from which humanity draws the fresh breath of enterprise, and that must not be stopped.” It is of Special interest for America that Germany considers the free sea the condition without which a permanent peace will be impossible, for the greatest of the American statesmen have contended for a free sea -from the very beginning of the nation. This contention, in fact, may, and has been called the “American idea.” . The “English idea” recognises the rights of the belligerents as paramount; the “American idea” recognises the rights of neutrals and of mankind as of greater importance. It is, therefore, natural that all the early American statesmen, with their intense patriotism and independence, should have espoused the idea of'the free sea; and that all those who to-day see no harm in America’s social, commercial, and financial dependence on England, should prefer to abide by the “English idea.” - ■* President Wilson now takes Germany at her /word, and asks the Imperial Government to stand true to its loud and lavish professions. And first,he defines precisely and plainly what America understands by ‘the principle of the ‘freedom of the seas.’ ‘American citizens act within their indisputable rights in taking their ships and in travelling wherever. their legitimate business calls them upon the high seas, and Exercise

those rights in what should be a welhjustified confidence that -their lives will not be endangered by acts done in violation of universally acknowledged international sobligations and certainly in-. the. confidence that their own - Government will * sustain them in the exercise of their rights.’ Then he presses home Germany’s obligation, as a matter of principle and consistency, to now recognise those rights. " ‘ Long acquainted as this Government has been with the character of the Imperial ■ Government and the high principles ,of equity with which they have in the past been actuated and guided, the - Government of the United States cannot believe that the commanders of the vessels which committed these acts -of lawlessness did so except under misapprehension of the orders issued by the Imperial German naval -authorities. It takes it “for granted that, at least. within the practical possibilities of every such case, the commanders even of submarines were expected to do nothing that would involve the lives of non-combatants or the safety of neutral -ships- even at the cost of failin y of their object of capture, or destruction. It confidently expects, therefore, that the Imperial German Government will disavow the acts of which the United States complains, that they will make reparation as far as reparation is possible for injuries which are without measure, and that they will take immediate steps to prevent the recurrence of anything so obviously subversive of the principles of warfare for which the Imperial German, Government in the past so wisely and so firmly contended. The Government and people of the United States look to the Imperial German Government for just, prompt, and enlightened action in this vital matter with greater confidence because the United States and Germany are bound together not only by special ties of friendship but also by the explicit stipulations of the Treaty of 1828 between the United States and the Kingdom of Prussia.’ There is, moreover, in the present Note an element of firmness which has been conspicuously wanting in some of President Wilson’s previous utterances. ‘ Expressions of regret and offers of reparation in the case of the destruction of neutral ships sunk by mistake, while they may satisfy international obligations if no loss of life results, cannot justify or excuse a practice the natural necessary effect of which is to subject neutral nations or neutral persons to new and immeasurable risks. The Imperial German Government -will not expect the Government of the United States to 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 safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment. * The American Note effectively disposes of Ger- . many’s apology for its procedure in the Lusitania case. The German defence is that as a submarine cannot' hold ' up a merchant liner until her passengers shall have opportunity of escape, it is justified in destroying her without warning. The Note admits the fact as to the practical inability of the submarine to follow the procedure prescribed by the law of nations, but roundly and logically declares that, for nations that are governed by* the recognised principles of humanity, that constitutes a conclusive reason why the submarine should let merchantmen alone. ‘ The Government of the United States therefore desires to call the attention of the Imperial German Government with the utmost earnestness to the fact that the objection to their present method of attack against the trade of their enemies lies, in ’ the practical impossibility of - employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding those rules of- fairness, reason, justice, and humanity which all modern opinion regards as imperative. It is practically impossible for officers of sub- ; marines to visit a merchaxxtmaxx at sea and exa'xxxixxe . her papers and cargo. ( It is practically impossible for • them to make a prize 'of her, and if they cannot put a prize crew on board they cannot sink her. without • leaving her crew and all on board "her to the mercy of.the sea in her small boats. . . . These facts, it is .understood, the Imperial German Government. frankly •admits.- -We are informed that in - the instances of

which we have spoken time enough for even that poor" measure of safety was not given, End in at least two of the cases cited not so much as a warning was received. Manifestly; submarines cannot be used against merchantmen, as-the, last few weeks have shown, without an inevitable violation of many sacred -principles of justice and : humanity.’ . The Note makes it perfectly plain also that America cannot recognise the so-called warning , to. —consisting of an advertisement in American papers—as a justification for the destruction of the vessel. This Government-has .already, taken occasion to inform the Imperial German Government that it cannot admit the adoption of such measures or such a warning of danger to operate as in, any degree in abbreviation of the rights of American shipmasters or American citizens bound on lawful errands-as passengers in merchant ships of belligerent nationality, and that it must hold the Imperial German Government to strict accountability for any infringement of those rights, whether intentional or incidental.’ Finally, the Note condemns, without qualification or reserve, the whole principle of the method of naval warfare adopted'by Germany in such cases, as being in flagrant and unmistakable contravention of the recognised canons of international law. ‘ Recalling the humane and enlightened attitude hitherto assumed by the Imperial German Government in matters of international right, particularly with regard to the freedom of the seas having learned to recognise German views and German in-, fluence in the field of international obligations as always engaged upon the side of justice and humanity; and having understood the instructions of the Imperial German Government to its naval commanders to be upon the same plane of human action as those prescribed by the naval codes of other nations, the Government of the United States is loth to believe— cannot now bring itself to believe—-that these acts, so absolutely contrary to the rules and practices and spirit of modern warfare, could have the countenance or sanction of that great Government. . . . It does not understand the Imperial German Government to question those rights, but assumes on the contrary that the Imperial Government accept as a matter of course the rule that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be of neutral

citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot lawfully or rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction of unarmed merchantmen, and recognise also, as all other nations do, the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and search to ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in fact of belligerent nationality or is in fact carrying contraband under a neutral flag.' * . It would be too much to hope that this document, firm and uncompromising and in every way admirable in tone though it is, will effect any practical result, for Germany is only too well aware that there is neither armed force nor a strong personality behind it. It is, however, something to have on record so strong a protest, against German methods, and so clear and definite a'declaration, from the greatest of the neutral Powers, of those principles of justice and humanity which it is the interest of the whole civilised world to proclaim and maintain.