Washington Journal., 1916-07-21
NEUTRALITY AND
SUBMARINES.
-
BY JAN VAN VE1THus.
(Special-C orr espondence)
BY JAN VAN VELrHus.
(special-C c rrespondence)

The pro-ally papers have been work
ing very hard in the service OF their
British masters in order to counterfeit
the effect wrought upon the public mind
by the exploit of the German U-boat.
In doing so, they are obliged to go
through wonderful c%ontortions.
Thus one of the Washington papers
"a few days ago suggested that after all
Americans did it first"
Then it told how a whole hotilla OF.
American-buil submarines made the
trip across the Atlantic, and went on:
1.-THE American vessels we're con-
structed in this country and the parts
shipped to Canada to be assembled in
order to avoid technical violation of
neutrality"
This sentence is remarkable for a
number of reasons. First, it seems that
according to this editorial writer ships
in the service of the British are "Ameri-
can" ships. Obviously, the inference
must be that America is a part of the
British Empire. Not only a large mum
Der of unpatriotic individuals, including
many newspaper editors have acted or
that principle for some time. And
some say that the Wilson administration
has done likewise.
Next, we are informed by this extra
ordinary american newspaper writer
that it would have been a merely tech
nical' violation of neutrality if these
British-(pardon me D-"American ships
of war had gone directly to the war
zone from an American port. 1t is not
to be expected from a, British newspaper
man, writing editorials for an "Ameri-
can" newspaper, that he should be
familiar with American history. He
may be mildly interested, however, to
learn that one of the greatest triumphs
of American diplomacy is known as the
Geneoa Arbitration, by which Great
Britain was obliged to pay many mil
lions to the United States. And the
reason for this unwelcome necessity ?
The British government had allowed
ships to be constructed and equipped in
British ports, and to sail from those
ports in order to prey upon American
commerce. No doubt the British states
men then thought that such conducs
was a merely technical violation of
neutrality, just as the British news
| papers published in America now think
that constructing submarines in America
and sending them from American ports
to fight the Germans would be a mere
technical" violation of neutrality.
Evidently the Geneoa Court of Arbi-
tration thought quite differently, and
does any reasonable person doubt that
a similar tribunal would not listen for
a moment to an argument that the la
bility of the United States to the Ger
mans could be avoided because the parts
of the ships were sent to Montreal to
be sent from there on their errand of
| dNoli uNtiODs
The President in whose administra-
ton Great Britain was condemned for
its attempt to destroy the United States
while pretending to be neutral, was
U. S. Grant, and the Secretary of State
was Hamilton Fish. Now, however, we
have fallen upon evil times, for instead
of those true Americans, we have for
President Woodrow Wilson and for
Secretary of State my dear lansing
Could a greater contrast be imagined ?
However, one must give wei this adj
mimstration its due where it is deserved.
In n respect they have shown unsur-
passed ability. What police-court shy
ster in the country could have been in
genious enough to invent the argument
that building submarines for the Brit
ish did not constitute a breach of neu-
trality, provided that the parts were
not Assembled" until after they had
passed the frontier: