New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-20

OF an alliance with GREAT Britain ihey
could not deny it soon enough
Why should We be so anxious to placate
the Germans by assuring them that an "alli-
ance" with Great Britain is not only non
existent but unthnkablc7 Why should these
excellent EDITORS who spend columns daily
reviling the Germans, hasten to reassure them
at the expense of the feelings of our Oldest
and best friend, who has, understanding or no
understanding, proved her friendship on many
occasions? When we are celebrating hun
dred years of peace with her, why turn at the
same moment and decry close and friendly
understandings with her as crimes and abb
surdties'
Let US not forget that the English read
what we have to say with interest and that
they are taking note Of this controversy and
of the reaction of the press and public opinion
to it. Let US not be in such haste to deny
certain historical fact that we shall produce
an impression in England regarding our feel
ings toward her which will be as false as many
claim the alliance itself is We do sympathize
as nation with England. We are more
nearly at one with her than with any other
country. Why, then, at this juncture decry
and beittle the racial, political, legal tradi-
tons, the century of peaceful association and
fruitful understanding which has meant so
much to both nations? There are greater
things at stake than my veracity or knowledge
and we shall not do we'll to forget them in
pursuit Of the latter.
What now is the truth about this under
standing of 1872 Certain things took place;
ment of the Gulf of Mexico, very favorable to
us, was made which England possessed the
power to have prevented 1t is the duty of
the historian to explain, as we'll as to enumer-
ate, facts.
When one nation does something which an
other nation had always said it would not
permit and which at the time the act is ac-
compished the second nation is perfectly able
to Illustrate, it will be clear that the second
nation understood what was happening, be-
cause it did not oppose it. The treaties said
that the United States should not build a canal
without England's consent, or, in fact, do any
thing else in the Gulf without England's con-
sent.
We know of German plans for expansion in
the Gulf and South America we see an actual
attempt and know of more projected; we know
of German plans to keep the English busy in
South Africa, which materialized in the Boer
war. We now see the United States step for
ward, increase her navy, acquire island pos
sessions in the Gulf, in the Pacific and in the
Far East; begin to play part in Asiatc poll
tics as never before. We know that the Eng
fish navy was enough larger than the Ameri-
can to have stopped every movement or to
have captured every island before or after
ward. Let us not forget this control of the
sea before the extension of the German navy
after 1900. England could easily have done it.
What did she DO? Announced to the powers
Of Europe whom Germany had induced to
interfere, that she could not countenance such
a movement. Her strength was so great that
the powers Of Europe knew they could not I'M
dertake any action involving use of the sea
which she would not permit, and they re-
nounced their project. Would not that same
force which caused the concert of Europe to
pause have been sufficient to have prevented
action in the first place. Must we not
conclude that because England did not inter-
fere she knew beforehand what was to be done
and approved of it?
THE REAL ALLIANCE.
Would this not make necessary an under
standing, discussion by the diplomatists Of
the two nations of mutual aims and principles1
1t should b. clear from the logic of facts alone
that England would not have consented to any
such radical change in the situation in the
Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific and the Far East,
all of which she had controlled for decades,
unless a satisfactory understanding between
This must have taken place just before the
planning and consummaton of the events
which were undertaken in pursuance OF il.
No one knows when, but I mentioned the sum-
rner of 1897 as the tentative date which seemed
to fit most of the facts.
There is nothing very terrible about this,
and it relates entirely to events now long past
and to phase of Pan-Germanism which its
success caused TO be abandoned. 1t was after
this that the "Drang mach Osten" appeared
in the propaganda
Certainly nothing was written on paper, and
so, obviously, no treaty or formal alliance was
made; no constitutional regulations were
broken; neither nation was bound or wished
to be bound. The statesmen of the two ma
tons talked over the situation and found their
aims identical and their principles and gen.
eral purposes the same. Both were agreed
that German colonies, protectorates, influence
in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Philippines
would be dangerous to both countries. To
thwart this was the purpose Of these CONVEX
h.