The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-01

I
have its own solvent energy, that I am
asking your opinion.
We have seen that in finding words
for this treaty each party would be
struggling for each word that might In
sure 10 1t o full protection. Each party
beat It's brains, II may say SO. to find
the words that would best protect IL
the other party would permit them to he
used. The British found that the word
'all" would protect the Germans against
the Norwegians, and we found We had
| no objection. Protection to the Ger
mans was kind Of protection to the
British and to the Americans as well.
All nations, perhaps, desire sometimes
fairness, but at all times assuredly
reputation for fairness, irrespectively or
whether they deserve 1t. Such a reputa-
| ton may at some time prove an advan-
| tage, prove some protection to the ma
| ton that has the reputation. 80 the
| Americans and the British both insisted
| upon the word ALL" for by the use OF
| that word the Germans would be pro-
| tected against the Norwegians. This
would be generous. Neither OF these
nations was a party TO the contract.
Besides this, the British saw that the
word "all" would protect themselves.
| the British against the Germans. With
| this word In the treaty the Germans
would never be able to run the British
| of that route. Here was n much more
| important use for the word all" Here
| the word would serve, and with COM
plete directncss, the interests Of one OF
| the parties TO the contract, the British,
for protection against the Germans, the
Germans not being parties to the con-
tract. Here II was an advantage to be
one OF the parties to the contract
Is II now possible put this ques-
| ton in no very well worded fashion, and
yet perhaps intelligibiy--is II possible,
/ ask, that in the drawing up of this
contract between the British and the
Americans both parties to the engage
ment had in mind a third species OF
protection which we have not yet con-
| sidered?
We see that the British held out for
the word all" because all" would pro-
| tect the Germans against the Nor
wegians. neither OF whom were parties
to the contract. And the Americans
consented.
| We see that the British held out for
the word "all" for the further reason
that "all' would protect the British, one
|
the Germans, who were not parties to
1t. but against whom the British de-
sired, and not without reason, to protect
their trade in respect OF the destruction
which we might bring aboR by dis
eliminating In favor OF the Germans as
against the British. And the Ameri-
! cans consented.
Now what We do not yet see clearly,
and what your opinion will perhaps
help us to see clearly. IL this, namely,
whether In holding out for that word
"all' the British had any thought that
the word might protect their trade as
against the Americans by preventing
us from destroying II through a dis
elimination again~ them and in our
own favor in letting our own ships
through at a lower charge than we
made to British ships. II In true this
case is different from the two other
cases. The first case concerned two
nations neither N which was party TO
the contract. The second case con-
cerned two nations. only one OF which,
the British, was a party to the con-
tract, the other being the German ma
ton. The third case concerns the two
parties to the contract. the British and
the Americans. IL this difference. the
circumstance that the parties were bind
ing each with regard TO conduct toward
the other, and not with regard to con-
duct toward third parties, is this DIFF
ference on the whole such AZ to make a
difference in the principle? Prima facie
the principle SENS to be the protection
, of a nation from having its trade de-
stroyed by discrimination. Clearly II
would be one thing for British trade 10
be destroyed by the Germans and quite
another for II to be destroyed by the
! Americans. Some persons will contend
, IL would be as bad for the British "a
have their trade destroyed by our dis
elimination in favor Of American ves-
sells az TO have 1t destroyed by our dis
elimination in favor Of German vessels
: and that this may perhaps have oc-
CURED to both parties when they agreed
upon the word "all" We might realty
, have meant To promise that the British
trade should be protected from destruc'
ton by ourselves as well as by the Ger
mans. do not say these persons are
, right in their contention. l do not say
they are wrong. What I might say
would have no effect upon anybody
, What you, sir, might say would have
great effect and this without much dis
tinctlon in respect OF party. Therefore
: wish you would say something.
Alleging nothing that calls for per
sonal reliance. 7 take II my signature
would be irrelevant. l esteem you yer!
highly. NJ. n.
\ ToPsHAM, Me, May rs.
--------