Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1916-02-29
Somewhat Different.

Whether one is disposed partly to extenuate
entirely to condemn England's treatment of neu-
trail commerce it is we'll to understand the grounds
on which the English themselves justify their
course. Sir Edward Grey stated their side of the
case very interestingly in yecent speech to the
House of Commons. He said in part:
I'm view of the criticism made upon the
action of the British Government, | would
ask what would have been said by neuras if
instead of bringing cargoes into our prize
courts, with the perfectly safe, the ship
unchanged, the cargo untouched, examining it,
in some cases letting it go forward when sat
isfed that it not destined for the enemy,
even in the worst putting it into our
prize courts, so that if it turned out we had
made a mistake there could be claim for
compensation, and the whole evidence
amined-if, instead of doing that, we had
sunk the neutral vessels without regard to the
character of their cargo and the safety of the
lives of an innocent and defenseess crew.
The only answer is, of course that if England
had treated neutral ships with no more considera-
ton than Germany has. neutral sentiment and per-
haps neutral arms the world around would have
been arrayed solidly against the Allies The fact
that Germany has overridden international law and
outraged neutral rights does not excuse Englands
trespasses But neutrals are bound to admit that
as between the two offenders, England is far the
lesser. Both these belgerents insist that in
struggle for existence they warranted in taking
extraordinary measures, even though in so doing
they harm peaceful countries We may contend
that neither is justified but at the time
cannot fail TO recognize that while England has
taken an inch, Germany has taken an ell-and
miles TO boot
Germany has sunk neutral ships without
ing without pretense of visit and search, without
an effort to ascertain the vessels destination,
whether to a neutral or enemy port or the char
acter of its cargo. whether contraband or not,
without giving the noncombatants aboard any as
sistance or even chance to escape. The United
States has been interested for the most part, in
only such ofenses as touched the property or life
NJ Americans-cases like the Gulflight and the
Iusitania But those are a bare fraction of Ger
many's record of headlong lawlessness. Dutch and
scandinavian interests, so far as merchantmen are
concerned have suffered much more than our own.
This fact is worthy of note in that it suggests the
extent as we'll as the character of Germany's in
cursions upon neutral rights and her defiance of
international law.
That England has interfered with neutral COM
n,erce-at times most irritatingly-is to be
denied But England has not destroyed a single
neutral ship or jeopardzed a single neutral life.
However her policy has overstepped the law, not
once has has it forgotten humanity. Whatever it
may have cost in dollars and cents, it has cost
nothing in the lives of men, of women and
babes Compared with the policy that Germany
has pursued and that she now threatens to pursue
in her latest submarine order the English policy is
a model of mildness and consideration.
Sir Edward Greys question, which quoted
as showing the English point of view, by means
disposes of our claims against Englands interior
ence with neutral trade; but it does make plain a
difference which honest thinking and common
sense will perceive To say that the against
England is anything like as important as that
iS tn hat iOst1p tha
street corner is as serious highway robbery.