The Washington herald., 1917-02-28
u. S. Accused of One-Sided Neutrality
In Spirited Address by Chancellor

Oy SA401lOCuOI
Wilson on February 8 to the Congress Of
the United States.
In this version the President is re-
ported to have said that our note Of Jan
uary 81 suddenly and without previous
indication deliberately withdrew the
solemn promises made in our note Of May
ID. 1916. To the United States govern
ment, therefore, no other choice COM
patible with its dignity and honor was
left, the version further said. than the
way which 1t had announced in its note
of April 20. 1916, in the event that Ger
many did not want to give I'D her SUBJ
marine methods.
IF these arguments are correctly re-
ported by Reuter-, then l must decidedly
protest against them.
For more than a century the friendly
relations between us and the American
nation have been carefully promoted. We
have honored them-as Bismarck once put
it-as an heirloom handed down to us
by Frederick the Great. Both countries
benefit by them, both are giving and tax
Ing.
"Since the beginning Of the war
things have changed on the other side
of the water. Old principles have been
overthrow.
"On August -, 1918, during the
Mexican troubles, President Wilson in
a solemn message to Congress declar-
ed that he Intended to follow the best
usage OF international law by prohibit
ing the supplying of arms to both
Mexican factions Mt war against each
other.
"One year later, In 1914. these
usages were apparently no longer con-
sidered good.
"COuntless shipments of war ma
terial have been supplied by America
to the entente, and while the right of
hindrance TO the entente countries and
his right to trade without hindrance
with France and England, even
through the midst OF the battlefield,
have been declared sacred-eyen the
right of such trade which we had to
pay with German bIoOd-while all
these right have been jealOusly guard
ed, these same rights of American
citisens toward the central powers
did not seem to be as worthy of pro-
lection and rs valuable"
Submitted to Measures.
"They the Americans) protested
against some measures of England
which were contrary to international
law, but they submitted to them. Un-
der conditions of this kind submission
creates a strange Impression. And
with equal decision must protest against
the objection that wet. by the way in
which we withdrew the assurances given
in our note of May 4. offended the honor
and the dignity of the United States.
From the very outset we openly and
expressedly assert that these assurances
would be invalidated under certain con-
ditions."
The chancellor then recalled the con-
cluding paragraph of the note OF May
4. 1916. which he read verbatim. The last
clause of this paragraph was as follows
Should steps taken by the government
of the United States not attain the OBJ
ject 1t desires. namely to have the laws
of humanity followed by all belligerent
nations, the German government would
then be facing a new situation In which
It must reserve for itself complete liberty
of decision"
Full Liberty of Decision.
The chancellor resumed.
Since the American answer given to
that German note was so absolutely con-
trary TO what we in our note had said
clearly and without any possibility OF
misunderstanding, a reply on our part
would have altered nothing in the stand
pOlIllS maintained Dy either side,
But nobody, probably even in America
could and can doubt that already long
ago the conditions were created upon
which according to our declaration we
considered ourselves entitled to full lib
erty of decision.
England did not abolish the isolation
of Germany, but, on the contrary, inten-
sihed 1t in the most reckless fashion. Our
adVersarieS were not made to respect the
principles of international law universal
ly recognized before the war, nor were
they made to follow the laws Of human
ity.
THE freedom of the oceans which
America wanted to restore in co-opera-
been still more completely destroyed by
our adversary and America did not him
der this
"One-Sided Enforcement"
The chancellor continued:
"i could fully understand IL the
United States as protector of inter
national law had treated for the re-
establishment of these conventions In
an equal fashion with all belliRerent,
and II, wishing to restore peace tc
the world, Ii had taken measures en-.
forcing the end of the bIodshed. But
L cannot possibly consider 1t a vita
question for the American nation te
protect international law In a one.
sided fashion only against us.
"Our enemies and American circles
who are unfriendIy toward u,
thought that they could point GU,
an Important difference between oul
course of action and that of the Eng.
Iish.
"England-it has been asserted-de.
strOyed only material values which car
be replaced, hut Germany destroy,
lives which 1t L. impossible to re.