New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-23

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: On September 3, 1915, you very kindly
published on your editorial page a letter OF
the writer's, in which he suggested armed
Intervention by the neutrals, led by the
United States, on the side of the Entente Al
lies, on condition that the Allies promise TO
join the neutrals in providing for an inter
national police force
Will you be good enough to give space to
the further suggestion that since the neutrals
are anxious that an international police court
be one Of the fruits of this great conflict, and
do not wish 70 fight for it, they try to per-
suade Germany that she should meet the Al
lies terms, and that they offer as an induce
ment that they share the indemnity she must
inevitably pay.
The Allies ask for restitution, reparation
and guarantees for future peace. Never
again" is the Allies motto. Prussianism un-
broken would mean peace with the Germany
that rejected all proposals for the reduction
of ornaments at The Hague. A triumphant
Germany is not to be trusted as an armed
guarantor of world peace.
1t is easy to read between the lines OF AL
lied counsels that neither are neutral ma
tions who are not interested enough IN a
world police force to sacrifice for 1t now TO
be depended upon to any great extent 70
fight for it later on. But discussion of fut-
ure arrangements for assuring a durable
peace presupposes a satisfactory settlement
of the present conflict"
in other words the guaranteeing of the
peace of the world is not TO be left in the
hands of neutrals and stro.g pirate nations.
Neutrality is incompatible with the advocacy
of a league of nations to enforce peace.
Notwithstanding his request for profess
sion OF faith on the part of the belligerents,
there is no one who grasped the Allies posi-
ton or perceived the great moral issues at
stake better than President Wilson. He had
long since realized that neutrality had
ceased 10 be virtue; and his last note prop
erly understood means that he now believes
neutrality 20 be immoral. He had gone SC
far as to admit that this was the last great
war the United States could keep out Of, fully
conscious of the fact that such an admission
was a confession Of guilt in standing by while
small nation whose safety the United
States had guaranteed vas being destroyed.
Premiers Of the Entente Allies and British
Colonial statesmen had made the interna-
tional policeman sine qua non, so far as
the Allies terms were concerned. While Sir
George Foster, at the Pennsylvania Society in
New York, recently referred to talk OF peace
as brutal he also had this to say, that "a
peace that guarantees the international po-
liceman would be welcomed
Statements Of this kind had more to do
with President Wilson's note than Germany
offer of peace had. In fact, the writer be-
lieves that it was because the President had
finally made up his mind to do what he could
70 hasten the coming of the international po-
liceman, even to the extent of armed inter
vention If necessary, that led Germany 20
ask for peace conference at the present
time The Presidents note and Mr. Lansing's
explanation constitute declaration of war
against further international outlawry. The
German war lords knew OF the Presidents
resolve before they held out the olive branch
of peace.
The President had come TO see that so
long as number of strong nations remained
neutral the international policeman, although
an ideal deyoutly to be wished. was imprac-
ticable He saw that at best without the help
Of the neutrals the only new policeman posi-
BILE would be internally not international.
and that therefore the Indifferent attitude Of
the neutrals was driving the international po-
licemAn out Of the sphere OF practical states
manship.
I President Wilson is shrewd enought to know