New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-09

London. Oct. 20.-How an offer OF
mediation from the United States would
be viewed from the point Of view oil
international law has just been given
me by Sir Erie Richards, X. C., X. e.
s. l.. professor Of international law at
Oxford, for five years member OF the
Viceroy's Council in India and British
representative at The Hague in the
Samoan. Venezuelan and North Ameri-
can fisheries cases.
ave all want peace" said Sir Erie,
"but the question Is whether at this
stage an offer of peace would do any
good TO international law or the future
relations OF the nations. In my judg-
ment. no good can come through peace
to international law until it's principles
have been clearly established, and no
inconclusive peace, no compromise,
would be other than harmful TO pres
ent circumstances. Americans are much
too good lawyers to think neutrals
have any right to intervene. There is,
of course, no right in neutrals to de-
clare war must stop.
"Here we had war initiated by the
breach Of a clear principle OF interna-
tonal law and by the violation OF an
express treaty to which all neutrals
were parties-the Hague Convention.
No neutral made any protest. We have
had attacks on non-combatants, con-
trary to the principles which interna-
tonal law has for years upheld; but,
except in cases where Its own subjects
were injured, no neutral protested.
How. then. can neutrals claim they have
a voice in saying when war should
cease? l mako no complaint OF neutral
inaction; there is no obligation TO do
more. as things are 1t present II may
be that some day the duty OF neutrsls
will be put higher than thisj some day
neutrals may have the right to prevent
war; neutrals may some day accept the
duty of enforcing the principles Of In
ternational law. That time has not yet
come. When it does perhaps they will
have a voice in saying war must end
But there is another consideration.
ITO interfere now would be an I'M
neutral act Most games could be won
II one side had the option Of declaring
IL finished when they chose. At one
time the Central Powers were In the
better position; now It is the Allies
turn. To try to stop the Allies when
tho game Is in their favor would be an
unneutral act because 1t would DO IA
voring one side. There was no talk OF
making peace as long as the fortune OF
war was in favor of the Central Powers.
Mediation is laudable thing. The
time may arrive-and we hope soon ar
rive-in this war when neutrals can
mediate; but mediation takes place
only with the consent OF tho parties
concerned. The parties are not yet near
enough to be willing to mediate.
at is said Germany deserves some
protection because she is on the de-
fensive. Well, she still holds Belgium;
but we are convinced that Germany has
been the aggressor throughout. It is
not necessary to refer to documents;
there Is one simple test which is al
most conclusive. Who was prepared
for war? Nations do not willingly en-
bark in war unless prepared. Germany
was ready in August 1914. Great
Britain and Russia are not fully ready
yet
"But returning to international law,
say that an inconclusive peace, based
on compromise, before the grave qucs-
tions of principle raised by this war
are settled, would do the greatest pos
sible injury to the cause Of interna-
tional law. Questions Of the rearrange-
ment Of territory, indemnitie,, trading
rights, are Of less consequence to in
ternational law. But it Is vital the war