Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
THE FATHERLAND 5
IS IT A SCRAP OF PAPER?
By E. C. Richardson
(The follouiitg article 1': from the pen of E. C. Richardson, the distitzguirlzed scholar and critic and now Librarian of ‘Princeton I
U1u'z2er.rity. Mr. Richardson, although he is a friend of President lVil.ron, does not quite agree with our Chief lllagistrate.
In this bril-
liant letter to the New York "Times" which that paper for obvious reason: did not print, Mr. Richardmn, with remarkable clarity, points
out the tremendous itzjxistiee of the American trafic in arm: and am1mmitx'on. In this eritlral hour it behoozre: all good Atucnralls to famil-
iarice tltemrelzrer ‘with those fundamental international laws which Mr. Richardson so clearly e.rplam.r.)
Princeton, N. J., June 1, 1915.
The Editor of the New York Times:
Sir: The undersigned is a diligent reader of the Times, summer
and winter, and is, nevertheless, or perhaps therefore, a firm be-
liever in a moral universe in which nothing matters very much in
the long run, save truth and justice. Antonio will, therefore, for-
give him (for “I love thee, and it is my love which speaks") if he
remarks, first, that the single and immeasurable issue before this
nation at the present moment is whether it is acting justly; and
second, that your leading editorial yesterday came near being an
incitement of the American people to lynching. Germany asked to '
have the facts established by the laws of evidence-in short, for fair
trial, and you answered, “We have facts enough; we cannot stand
for the law's delay.” By its character and its circulation the Times
is one of the strongest influences in the United States for lawful
procedure and, therefore, for righteousness, and of course -it does
not stand for the denial of lawful trial even to a criminal, but what
is the confident action on alleged facts, without giving right of re-
buttal or cross-examination but lynching? Your stand on the Frank
matter is that of the highest civilization, why not give Germany at
least her rights? ‘ ‘
President VVilson spoke nobly yesterday of national ‘duty and the
expression of untrammelled opinion, and nobody will be quicker
than he to confess that however complicated national duty may be,
the center and soul of such duty is simply to be just and do justice.
There can also be no doubt of his courage and will to do his own
duty as he sees it. In the same way there is equally no doubt of
the Times’ disposition to be just, of its will to have this nation a
just nation, and of the untrammelled nature of its opinions.
Nevertheless, no one knows better than the President or the
Times that it is possible for a right-minded man, with all his
energies bent on doing his duty justly, to be treated unjustly by
just-intentioned men or to do injustice with sincerity. Opinion is
worth only the facts on which it is based; it must be trammelled by
them for precisely the most dangerous ‘thing in the universe is an
opinion untrammelled by the facts. The one great Underlying
essential duty of a nation in controversy with another nation, is
therefore, to determine and publish the facts without fear or
prejudice. The second is to judge justly on the facts and to act
accordingly. Thus the one unmistakable overwhelming duty in these
circumstances is to get at the facts-the facts of actual happening,
the facts of treaty rights, the facts of international law; and the
great body of the American people, beyond any manner of doubt,
stands with Abraham Lincoln; it wants to go ahead, but it wants
equally to be sure that it is right first. It wants to know the facts in
order to find whether this is one of the occasions on which it is
being fooled or not. It, moreover, does not care, in asking for the
facts, one red cent whether it is being fooled by Germany, or fooled
by England, or fooled by capitalists.
Now the question of facts is, of course, too big a one‘ for the
layman to deal with, but any layman (at least, a layman whose special
work takes him into the weighing of historical evidence) can see
that the Germans have a surprisingly strong prima-facie case as be-
tween themselves and the United States, whatever may be true of
their cases between themselves and Belgiunnand themselves and
Russia, or Italy; and it must be recognized that they have strong
legal reasons for denying that the undoubted prlma-faeie right of
America to sell munitions to the Allies, which they do not dispute, is
anything more than prima-farie.
To begin with, Germany has a treaty with America which de-
Clafes, not merely that if either party grants a favor in commerce,
it shall immediately become common to the other party; but that no
prohibition shall be imposed on the importation or exportation of
any article, the produce of manufacture ofthe United States, to or
from the ports of Prussia, which shall not equally extend to other
nations. This is important if true, for it seems to lead clearly ti)
the conclusion that America must insist by force of arms, on de-
livering its copper, etc., direct to Germany, and its munitions of war,
subject to capture as contraband, to any neutral country for un-
hindered transit through to Germany; or else prohibit the exporta-
tion to ‘any of the Allies, not only of munitions of war, but of ’
copper, wheat and cotton.
This seems to be quite clear on the face of the fact, for the word
prohibition is used commonly in international law even of enemy
prohibition by blockade, but it becomes clearer still if the blockade
is an illegal or new form of blockade and seems to pass beyond
doubt if a neutral acquiesces in the enemy prohibition, for the
doctrine that the neutral must resist or give such reparation as he
can seems one of the cleverest in international law.’
It appears most clearly, however, from actual circumstances.
For example, America has a treaty with Italy enumerating certain
specified articles, which shall be considered as contraband. These
include only war material, and it expressly provides that these
articles, “anduno others” shall be considered contraband between
Italy and the United States. Instruments of copper “formed ex-
pressly to make war by sea or land" are contraband, but copper and
even other copper instruments are expressly declared not contra-
band.
portation of copper to Italy until Italy prohibited its exportation to
Germany. Both of these interfered with America's unmistakable
commercial right to profit by sending these goods to Italy and their
undisturbed transit. America, it is said, acquiesced in the pro-
hibition. Germany has thus the legal right under the ordinary rule
of international law to demand either that America make good its
rights as to neutral trade by force of arms, or “in case it could not
prevent a repulse . . . to exact reparation from the offender, for
otherwise, he would favor the one party to the detriment of the
other.” (Oppenheim, II, 441.) bVith the prohibition clause in the
Prussian treaty the matter seems to become simple and direct and
the question of reparation is expressly specified by law as counter- .
prohibition. The Unitedvstates must therefore prohibit the ex-
portation of copper, wheat and cotton to the Allies-not permit
Prussia to take as contraband. but actually prohibit exportation,
because “as we cannot, or not sutliciently, undo the wrong done, we
must exact reparation from the offender,” as laid down by the rules
of international law.
Again, if neutral goods were landcrl but prohibited export by
Italy, whether contraband or not. it violated neutral commercial
rights of both America and Germany, for they had just the same
legal right to do this that we now have to export to the Allies.’ ‘
Moreover, it called for prohibition in kind or just what the Ger-
mans ask. Their asking is in fact a treaty right, and nothing more
than America has also granted the Allies by acquiescing in embargo
by Italy, Holland or Denmark.
This is only one type of many facts which may-be alleged, and if
these are indeed facts, it means that we have been, for a long time,
unjust to Germany, with a specific injustice which has carried irrep-
arable damage.
Now what are in reality the facts-facts of events, facts of in-
ternational law, facts of treaty rights? This is the real question of
the hour. The American idea of freedom is so closely bound up
with the notion of fair play, a fair hearing, and absolute justice that,
' if it were generally known that such facts could even be alleged, the
American people would not tolerate going ahead until it was sun-
we were right. VVhen it has been -demonstrated to American coin-
mon sense that we have made due reparation to Germany, or owe
her no reparation for a previous overwhelming wrong, then by all
means exact reparation from Germany for every wrong that she
Nevertheless, it is alleged that the Allies prohibited ex- '