Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1916-06-04
DEFENDS
FOREIGN POLICY
Says Right of Life Has AL
ways Been Uppermost
in Dealings.
MUST HAVE RESPECT
Tells Bar Association New
Rules Of Warfare Raised
a Quandary.

WATERTOWN. n. Y, June s.
Secretary Lansing before the Jeffer-
son County Bar association here to-
night scored critics OF the admins
trations foreign policy who would
have il do more than has been done
in the negotiations arising from the
war and replied to those who com
plain the United had been more Wig
orous in its dealings with Germany
than with Great Britain.
The violation of the national right
of life is a much more serious Of
fense against an individual ana
against his nation said Secretary
Lansing. than the violation Of the
legal right Of property Can you
doubt for moment which one gives
this government the greatest con-
cern?"
That there was an influence in
America and even in congress which
put right of property and right of life
on a par. Secretary Lansing declared
showed that the great heart Of the
republic is threatened with fatty de
generacy through those who have
lost their patriotic vigor that many
Americans have become lovers Of ease
rather than lovers of national hon
Ors."
Mr.. Lansing read his address. He
said he felt compelled to do so that
he might not be misunderstood. The
principal part of his address fol-
lows:
Raised New Conditions.
THE great war has caused ST
many conditions and presented so
many questions which were never be
fore raised or even thought of THAI
il has been no easy task to meet and
answer them. The relations between
neutrals and belligerents were never
more difficult of adjustment. 1t
was never harder to preserve neutral
rights from invasion by the desperate
opponents in the titanic conflict in
which the power, if not the life, OF
the great empires of the earth Is AT
stake. The peoples and governments
at war are blinded by passion; their
opinions are unaVoidably blased
their conduct frequently influenced
by hysterical impulses which APP
proach to madness, Patience and
forbearance are essential to a neu-
tral in dealing with such nations.
Acts which under normal conditions
would be most offensive must be
considered calmly and without tenn
per. 1t is an extraordinary situation
and requires extraordinary treatment
with due regard for the mental state
| of those who are straining every
nerve to defeat their enemies and t.
! that end using every possible means
to weaken them in their industrial
as well as their military power
I'm a nutshell. the situation of our
relations with Great Britain and Ger
many. the two powers with which
we have had our principal contro-
VERSES, is this:
Believed IL Right.
Germany having developed the
| submarine as an offensive engine or
| destruction. asserts that she cannot,
on account of the resulting condi-
! tions. conform to the established
rules Of naval warfare and we should
not, therefore, insist on strict com
/ plance. Great Britain has no sym
/ pathy with the German point of view
and demands the submarines observe
| the rules of visit and search without
exception.
ION the other hand. Great Britain
| declares that on account Of the new
conditions resulting from submarine
activities and the use of mines from
the geographical position of Ger
many, she cannot conform to the es-
tablished rules of blockade and con-
raband and we should not. therefore.
hold her TO strict compliance with
| those rules. Germany insists, never
| theless, that Great Britain be made
to follow the existing law.
Both Afford Excuses.
Both governments have the same
/ arguments, based primarily on mill
| tary necessity. and offer the same ex.
cuses for their Illegal acts. but
/ neither will admit that the other IS
| in any way justified for its conduct.
| Now what is the United States TO do
in these circumstances? If we ad-
! a
/ sound-and ! am sure no one Will
deny that they are more or less rea-
| sonable-and submit to changes in
/ the rules of naval warfare we will be
/ without any standard Of neutral
rights Concedng that the rules can
be modified by a belligerent to meet
new conditions. how far could bel
ligerent go in changing the rules :
/ Would not the liberties of neutrals
on the high seas be at the mercy OF
every belligerent? As it is, under
the old rules. neutrals suffer enough
when a state Of war exists. They
should not be further restricted ir
the exercise Of their rights
The only alternative. therefore, Is
for this government to hold firmly
to those neutral rights which inter
national law has clearly defined and
to insist vigorously on their observ'
ance Dy All DellSeTents. III not Inv
slightest degree can the settled rule.
be modified unless all the parties
consent to the notifications.
We Must Stand Firm.
"If Germany finds it difficult o.
impossible to conform submarine
warfare to the international nava
code, or If Great Britain finds i
equally difficult to obey the rules o
blockade and contraband that is thef
misfortune They certainly canno
expect neutral nations to submit with
out resistance TO further invasOn
of their rights.
This has been the position of tn,
United States from the beginning o
the war. Il has twice sought to oh
tain mutual consent from the bellig
erents to certain changes in the rule
but in both cases it failed and tn