New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-10
I'VE, AND THE ENGLISH
70 the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: | am British subject Of American
birth and have human pride in both these
facts At present traveller in the land of my
birth, my home is in Canada and my edu-
cation is American, both in origin and sym
pathv. | am moved to write by the leading
editorial in your number Of July 20, an
article which, while it no doubt reflects
the sentiment, and in many cases the well
defined opinion, Of sarge section Of the
American people, seems to me, none the
less, to overlook one Of the cardinal moral
issues of this brutal, beggarly war, In
that article you seem to join issue with
the British claim Of right, implied in her
present blockade, to adopt any method in
the nature Of reprisals against German vio-
lations of international law, should those
measures be themselves contrary to the
strict letter Of international law and in
derogation of the trading interests of neu-
trail nations.
In the first place let me sug(est this sim
pie rule of conscience, that where moral
issues are at stake economic arguments have
little weight; where human lives and human
freedom are at issue rights of property
have no meaning Let me also suggest this
other simple fact, that the method of naval
blockade is the most humane of all recog-
nized methods Of warfare, and that for the
simple reason that it is always more humane
to disarm an opponent than to stab him
through the heart or dash his brains out
with club. But, moral categorical i'm
peratives aside for the moment, what is the
issue? Let us see
In the controversy between two belliger-
ents and a neutral nation where are the
equities? If one belligerent violates the
rules of international law, as you admit
Germany has fagrantly and persistently
done, what then becomes the duty of the
neutral nation, in this case the United
States? 1t seems to me that she has only
two alternatives: she must either do every
thing in her power and by all means at her
disposal to resist the offender, or she must
allow the other belligerent to take whatever
steps she, on her part, may think reason
ably necessary to do so. This, it seems to
me, is but the simple rule of self-defence,
sound in all systems of civil law, and if
sound in civil law why not in international
law? In other words, the very law by which
the United States maintains her own neu-
trality is the law by which Great Britain
becomes justified in adopting reprisals
against Germany.
We are in danger, I fear, of forgetting
that the real issue turns solely upon the
question who has been the first offender.
Which nation was the first offender in this
war? need not say. Your readers know.
Your readers know that this war is for Great
Britain purely a war of self-defence and for
the defence of Belgium. and France Who
wanted the war? Not Italy Italy chose to
break her alliance rather than 20 TO war. Not
France France was unprepared and at frst
almost panicstricken at the prospect. Not
Great Britain. Great Britain was equally UNI
prepared and had, and has now, nothing to
gain. Not Russia. Russia Joined with the
rest of the Allies in demanding a peace set
Element. Which nation caused the war? Let
it be granted that that question, like all
questions of abstract causation, may be diff
fcult TO answer. But one thing we do know,
and know for certainty, and that is that
there was only one nation who could have
prevented the war, and that nation was
Germany.
There is one other salient fact which I
cannot forbear to mention. The American
people were incensed at the sinking of the
Lusitania. They justly regarded it as one
Of he foulest crimes, if not, as they probably
thought, the very foulest crime, in the his
tory Of international war. And yet that
crime is not a tthe compared to the rape
of innocent, little, unoffendpg neutral