The Washington herald., 1915-11-09
The Note to Great Britain.

ships into port for examination "on suspicion" In
either case Mr.. Lansing's contentious may be cor
rect they may not. The majority of Ameri-
cans will believe that they are. 1t must be clear
however to every thinking that here is a
highly complex legal alteration that only highly
trained minds can be trusted to pass upon. and
that after the gravest deliberation and the most
searching consideration of the facts. 1t is the
case of United States Pocketbook, Plaintiff, vs.
British Liberty, Defendant" Mr.. Lansing is coun-
sci for the plaintiff Sir Edward Grey is counsel
for defendant. Which is in the right? We cannot
pretend to say, though favor the views of Mr..
Lansing, he being attorney, it were. 1t
would be most desirable thing if counsel can
get together and settle the out Of court But
it is not very likely. On the other hand, it is
quite certain that Great Britain will not permit
Mr.. Lansing to assume the role of judge as well
counsel for plaintiff, any more than we would
permit Sir Edward Grey to act as judge as well
as legal representative of the defendant. What,
then, is to be done? Only one course is open, and
that is a settlement of the dispute by The Hague
tribunal. But Mr. Lansing will have none of The
Hague tribunal, if we read the note Alright. In
fact, the United States pledged as it is to arbi-
tration in theory, has always fought shy Of The
Hague tribunal as witness our attitude in the
Panama Canal tolls controversy. What, then, is
to be done, assuming, we must if we have our
eyes open that Great Britain will refuse to modify
her blockade to any substantial extent? The
note intimates that there will be action. What
action? 1t does not matter what for we ad
to compel by recourse to "vis major" what we
are not willing to go to court for. But perhaps
such step part would involve US in moral
turpitude Let the thoughtful of the coun-
try-not the demagogue politicians-speak upon
that point. Whatever step we take in the diree-
war And do not want to go to even to
that extent lightly or unjustly, particularly we
previously refrained from going to war when. &C
cording to many of our leaders of thought, it
was not only our right but also our duty to do So
Our imports in the first year of the war fell off
only IL per cent. Our exports in that time in
26 per cent. 1t is true, of course, that
by compelling a cessation of the British blockade |
and opening German markets for our traders
hereby incidentally prolonging the bloody strug-
gle in Europe many months and requiring the
slaughter of additional thousands of men-we
could increase the percentage of export consider
ably. Would that extra profit be welcome, or
would it be blood money? These are questions
hat we must ask ourselves before demanding that !
he administration take peremptory action in in
orcing its own views of international law.
But it is inconcevable that the cordial relations
between this country and Great Britain could be
iislocated on account of a little profit for the
endors of tape and tripe. Our good relations
With Germany survived the sinking of the Lusi-
ania and some other things. 1t is not true, ex-
ept in the eyes of our traducers. that our moral
ense is less vulnerable than our money sense.
But just because the American nation, like every
'ther nation, has many chauvinists many who by
entiment or for profit are Anglophobe, many who
lave been taught to believe from childhood up
hat Britain is the hereditary enemy and the
vould-be oppressor, many who do their best to
oster any sentiment in the United States that will
lelp Germany by hurting England, many who
,elieve that the ultimate doors of Justice have
lready been knocked upon in vain-just because
# these things the somewhat arbitrary tone of
he note is little dangerous. For having threat
ned to be our own judges it will be hard in face
# popular camor to revert to the less satisfactory
'osition of litigants. l.
1t is not as if it were plain case of injustice
IT a violation of the laws of humanity that we
re dealing with. To just and legal mind Mr.
Iansing makes out a good case, but not an un-
one. The Sprngbok case which our
supreme Court decided with excellent logic, can
ot, now that it initiates against US, be waived
side by Mr. Lansing with the cheerful statement
hat during the civil war mistakes were made"
Jor is his reference to "* the established
ules of international conduct upon which Great
Britain in the past has held the United States to
ccount when the latter nation was belligerent
ngaged in struggle for national existence
fortunate. For if Great Britain had
eally held to account suggested she would
ave repudated our paper blockade of the South
well as the Doctrine of Continuous Voy,oe