New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-12-17

| Sir: You have sent me copy of your
editorial Remember the Lustania.' The
purpose is patent and comment is invited.
Candidly, consider this editorial an un-
fortunate and i'll conceived attack on the ad-
ministrstion and an unholy and insulting ap-
peal to the American people, because Of its
incomplete and hence unfair presentation Of
the facts necessary to be considered for a
fair Judgment, It's self-contrsdictory argu-
mentation and its gratuitous and uncharita-
bic imputation Of unmanly, unpatriotic and
immoral motives to both the President and
the American people as whole.
Rightly do you emphasize the first and su-
premc duty of the state to be the protection
Of the lives Of its citizens. What, then,
would you have the German government do
ever against the avowed intent Of the Brit
ish government TO starve all Germany and
the means employed to that end contrary to
international law and humanity? The sub
marine warfare, as conducted by Germany,
you denounce az violation of international
law and humanity. Correct. But so Is Eng
lands blockade, and that done in connection
Herewith TO stsrve Germany's non-comba-
tants And what have We done to stop such
unlawful and inhuman conduct on the part Of
England and her allies?
Possibly you will reply that Germany was
the first to commit breach of the law by
the violation of Belgium's neutrality. Cor
rect again. But what assurance was there
that Belgium's neutrality would be observed
either By herself or the Entente powers :?
But, say you, Germany was bound to rely on
the good faith of these powers and that OF
the other signatories to the treaty guaran-
teeing Belgiums neutrality. There's the rub.
In theory no one can gainssy this contention;
else what becomes of all international agree
ments and laws? However, studying the
question in the light Of past and recent his
tory, does it not clearly appear that no reli-
ance can be placed on such covenants being
kept by any power if by disregarding them
il may hope TO overwhem an opponent, es-
pccially in times OF war? To me 1t seems
iudisputable that the preservation OF Bel
gium's neutrality would have been Of i'm
mense advantage to Germany, so that from
sheer self-interest she must have been eager
10 refrain from any act violatiye Of that neu-
trality. and would have surely done so had
there been any good grounds 10 assume good
faith on the part Of her opponents and Bel
GUM and any manner Of guarantee that the
neutral signatores would Immediately throw
their forces against the offender.
So long az we have secret diplomacy and
secret treaties and ententes no such assur
ancc can be had, and in the absence Of such
assurance every governments attitude tow
ard neutrality and other agreements will be
determined by what its own judgment may
consider necessary for the fuhlment Of its
supreme duty, the protection OF its own coun-
try and people. In this sense | am firmly
convinced all governments will in cases Of
great need and stress follow the maxim, "Ne
cessity knows no law" Right they arc who
contend that all sgnatories 70 the treaty
guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality should
have at the first sign news OF the viola
ton of that treaty proclaimed to all the
world their determination TO Join all their
forces in compelling the observance Of Bel
gums neutrality and furnishing the power
violating il. In the absence Of any pledge on
the part Of all signatories to uphold with all
their might their joint covenants these surely
will never amount TO more than scraps OF
paper.
President Wilson has proclaimed his deter
nina ion TO maintain all the rights OF neutral
nations established by international law.
This, hold, is not enough. To insure the
rights Of neutrals under the law Of nations
all nations must hold themselves bound 70
compel obedience thereto, even b. belligerents
in the conduct OF var against their oppo-
nents. What otherwise will result the Lusi-