New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-09
GERMAN AND BRITISH SINS
Deliberate Murder Compared with
Sharp Practice in Law.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: | have read with much interest Mr..
". T. Osborn's we'll written though mis-
guided criticism Of The Tribune. 1t appears
that Mr. Osborn's reasoning must be classed
with those hvphenated ones whose twisted
and warped arguments are the despair OF the
readers of The Tribune. We all have right
10 our own opinions, and we must admire the
man with sufficient strength OF character TO
oppose the popular mind. But there are GER
tain rules of Christianity that brook no OPP
position, and he who runs counter to them
is outside the pale.
Mr.. Osborn in the usual hyphenated man
ner has confused cause and effect in the mat
ter of the British and German blockades.
If England must be blamed for an illegal
blockade Germany must be blamed still more
for allowing civil supplies to be requisltloned
for military purposes-tho cause oil Eng
lands blockade.
II England's illegal blockade, threatening
property, calls for protest, how much more
should we protest against Germanys lllegal
blockade threatening both life and property.
Englands offence is hedged about by leBa'
.echnicalities and precedents. Germany 5
course was direct and its result a crime so
made Immediately. There was no need to
wait for facts; the intention was ayowed ana
The act acknowledged on the same day.
murderer confessng his guilt Is tried only
a, matter OF form the law takes It's
course. No need TO argue on legal questions
no need to ask whether there was any prece-
dent for such deed The same day the
rhine was committed, the same day was
o. 4 b.ta oil Ghrisffans
Grounds there certainly are for strong
protest against England's interference
with neutral shipping but there are points
involved which do not show themselves on
the surface Il may be months more before
all the facts are established, and very likely
the whole matter will end in court OF arpl-
tration Not because we are BIASED In favor
Of England. but because her action lnvoFed
not human lives, but property; because there
is room to doubt or at least argue, the legal
ity of her course.
As TO Mr. Osborn's belittling Of the IN
vasion Of Belgium" / believe it is true that
The Tribune did not call on the President TO
protest against it at the time. But | think
he United States was too stunned to realize
that was being done. The Tribune has since
~rasped the fact that an opportunity OF up
holding national honor has been allowed 70
20 bv. mistake which gave Germany, VITA
its twisted perversion, the idea that we ola
not care. Az to our right to protest without
Quitting in" Of that there is no question.
As one of the signatories of the Hague treaty
our right to protest against that treaty be
ing regarded as a "scrap Of paper Is un-
doubted. As to the fact that other countries
have allowed themselves to be used as con-
veniences against their neghbors during
war. that does not affect Belgium's case at
all. If Luxembourg allowed herself through
fear Of destruction to be bought, that does
not make it reasonable that the guarantors
Of Belgian neutrality should look with indif
ference upon Belgian destruction.
Mr.. Osborn is evidently in sympathy with
the might makes right" element.
w. c. SYMONS.
FImhurst l. l. Oct |, 1915.