The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1917-07-20

foretell what violations of its vital
interests at sea might be attempted
by the belligerents. And so, on Aug
ust 6, 1914, our Secretary of State
dispatched an identical note to all
the powers then at war, calling at
tention to the risk of serious trouble
arising out of this uncertainty of
neutrals as to their maritime rights
and proposing that the Declaration
of London be accepted by all nations
for the duration of the war.
But the British Governments re-
sponse, while expressing sympathy
with the purpose of our suggestion
and declaring their "keen desire to
consult so far as possible the inter
ests of neutral countries" announced
their decision ''to adopt generally
the rules of the Declaration in ques-
ton, subject to certain notifications
and additions which thief judge in
dispensible to the efficient conduct
of their naval operations" The De-
claration had not been indorsed by
any power in time of peace, and
there was no legal obligation on
Great Britain to accept it. Her re-
ply, however, was disappointing, for
it did nothing to clarity the situa-
ton. Great Britain recognized as
binding certain long accepted prin-
ciples of international law and
sought now to apply them to the
peculiar and unforeseen conditions of
this war. But these principles were
often vague and therefore full of
dangerous possibilities Of friction.
Controversies soon arose between
Great Britain and this Nation. In
practice their ruling sometimes
seemed to our Government inconsis-
tent with the spirit of international
law, and especially with the estab-
lshed precedents which they invoked.
But painful as this divergence of
opinion sometimes was, it did not
seriously threaten our position of
neutrality, for the issues that arose
involved only rights of property and
were amply covered by the arbi-
tration treaty signed only a short
time before bf Great Britain and
the United States.
And this controversy led to a
clearer understanding on our part of
the British attitude toward our ideal
of the freedom of the seas. They
were not willing to accept our clas-
sification of the seas as being dis
tinct from the Old World. We had
confined our interest to matters af-
fecting rights at sea and had kept
carefully aloof from issues affect
ing the interests of European ma
tions on land. The British were in
terested in both. They explained
that they had participated in the
London naval conference in the hope
that it would lead to a sound and
liberal entente in the interest of
the rights of all nations on the sea
and on the land as WELL and that
they had refused to ratify the Lon
don Declaration because no compen-
sating accord on the Continent had
resulted They could not afford to
decrease the striking power of their
navy unless their powerful neighbors
on land agreed to decrease their
armies.
That this attitude of England
deeply impressed our Government is
shown by the increasing attention
given by the United States to the
search for ways and means of in
suring at the end of the war, last
ing peace for all the world The
address of our President, on May
27, 1916, before the League to En-
force Peace was a milestone in our
history. He outlined the main prin-
ciples on which stable peace must
rest, principles plainly indicating
that this Nation would have to give
up its position of isolation and as
sumo the responsibilities of a world
power. The President said:
$50 sincerely do we believe these
things that l am sure that | speak
the mind and wish of the people of
America when l say that the United
States is willing to become a part
ner in any feasible association of
nations formed in order to realize
these objects and make them secure
against violation"
1t was a new and significant
note in our foreign policy But the
mind of America had learned much
in the long bitter months of war
Future historians will make charts
of this remarkable evolution in our
public opinion: the gradual aban-