Norwich bulletin., 1915-06-10

belligerent ships or with cargoes of ammunition.
 "Why should an American citizen be permitted to involve his country in war by travelling upon a belligerent ship when he knows that the ship will pass through a danger zone? The question is not whether an American citizen has a right, under international law to travel on a belligerent ship; the question is whether he ought not out of consideration for his country, if not for his own safety, avoid danger when avoidance is possible.
 "A one-Sided Citizenship.
 ''It is a very one-sided citizenship that compels a Government to go to war over a citizens rights and yet re- ieves the citizen of all obligations to consider his nations welfare. I do not know just how far the President can legally go in actually preventing Ameri- cans from travelling on belligerent ships, but l believe the Government should go as far as it can and that in case of doubt it should give the benefit of the doubt to the Government.
 'But even if the Government could not legally prevent citizens from trav- cling on beIligerent ships it could and, in my Judgment should earnestly ad- wise American citizens not to risk themselves or the peace of their coun- try, and l have no doubt that these warnings would be needed
 President Taft advised Americans to leave Mexico when insurrection broke out there, and President Wilson has repeated the advice. This advice in my Judgment was eminently wise and think the same course should be followed in regard to warning Americans to keep off vessels subject to attack.
 Keep Munitions Off Ships.
 T think, too, that American pass enger ships should be prohibited from carrying ammunition. The lives of passengers ought not to be endangered by cargoes of ammunition, whether that danger comes from possible ex- plosions within or from possible at tacks from without. Passengers and ammunition should not travel together The attempt to prevent American cit 1zens from mourning these risks is entirely consistent with the effort which our Government is making to prevent attacks from submarines.
 The use of one remedy does not exclude the use of the other The most familiar illustration is to he found in the action taken by municipal authorities during a riot. It is the duty of the mayor to suppress the mob and to prevent violence, but he does not hesitate to warn citizens to keep off the streets during the riots. He does not question their right to use the streets, but for their own pro- lection and in the interest of order he warns them not to incur the risks in- volved in going on the streets when men are shooting at each other
 May Make Further Attacks.
 'The President does not feel iusfi- lied in taking the action above stated. That is, he does not feel justified, first in suggesting the submission of the controversy to inVeStipa tiOn. or second, in warning the people not to incur the extra hazards in travelling on bellIgerent ships or on ships car rying ammunition. And he may be right in the position he has taken, but as a. private citizen, I am free to urge both of these propositions and to call public attention to these remedies in the hope of securing such an express sion Of public sentiment as will SUD- port the President in employing these remedies; if, in the future, he finds it consistent with his sense of duty to favor them.'