The Brandon news. (Brandon, Miss.) 1892-1961, 1917-09-20
SHOULD WE FIGHT


ment, in utter disregard of inter-
national law, with barbarous con-
tempt for the rights of our peo-
pie, persisted in the murder of
our citizens and sin the destruc-
ton of their property.
Under international law, neu-
trail nations have the right to
continue it's commercial relations
with a nation engaged in war so
long as contraband isn't attempt
ed to be transported. Contra
band is certain articles of com
merce useful to one of the war
ring nations as against the other.
Even the right to stop contra
band, although it may be exer-
cised by international law, is an
infringement upon the strict
rights of the neutral nation, and
the more one is against war the
more he must be ready to admit
that. While we do not agree
that war is wrong, if such a
statement means that both par
ties thereto have no right to be
at war, yet we do believe that,
although one nation is involved
in war solely and only in self-de-
tense, yet that nation has no mo-
raj or legal right to make a neu-
trail nation suffer by reason of it's
misfortune in being so engaged.
tits the Pacifist who believes
that we should not be engaged
in this war. He must believe
that war is wrong. He must
therefore believe that Germany
and England were in sthe wrong
in warning each other. He must
also admit that we had nothing
to do with this war until recent
ly. Then, what right did Ger
many have, itself in the wrong,
to say to us that by reason of its
own wrong, we should stay off
the seas? The seas are the God
given highways, belonging to all
the nations, and surely more to a
nation engaged in a proper COM
n1erce than to a nation engaged
only in war. Our rights were
superior on the sea to Germany's
so long as we were engaged in
right doing and Germany was
engaged only in wrong doing:
Then, whether Germany was and
is right or wrong in her quarrel
with Europe, under the no war
idea, war is wrong, and whether
right or wrong, we certainly
were within our rights in send
ing our commerce and people
over the seas, how comes the
right of Germany to say to us
''Stay off, or / will destroy your
people and your goods. If you
insist on exercising your right,
I shall slip upon you like a cow
ardly assassin, and murder even
your women and little children!"
What we can't understand is.
how does any one believe that
Germany ever acquired a right
to order a mighty nation like
ours to give up it's most cher
ished, most certain God-given
right. Does any American be-
lieve that we should, like poor
helpless China, obey the orders
of nations? England was never
so arrogant, yet we revolted
against an authority she actually
possessed. We fought and COM
pelled her to give us independ-
ence, and to what end, if we
now allow an alien nation to say
which of our rights we may and
which we may not exercise.
What if we had meekly obeyed
this arrogant people? What if
we had kept our commerce off
the seas? Today. and for so
long as the war continued, our
products would be practically
without value. We should have
suffered more even than most of
the warning nations. We should
be a nation of bankrupts. That
is the commercial side of it.
What of American pride?
What American would be proud
he was such if his government
was such that any barbarous
people might take his life and
destroy his property at will, re-
CARELESS of right or wrong. Does
the picture appeal to an Ameri-
can? We hope not. What if
America cringed and obeyed
each time some arrogant nation
spoke?
But the pro-German says: by
means of our commerce England
and France were fed. Germany
had the right to see that these
enemy countries were not fed. /"
Grant that the statement is true.
This does not say they had a
right to destroy passenger ships
which carried no goods, and with
such ships. sink to the bottom of
the sea helpless, innocent women
and babes, to say nothing of
o., x,yL0 hxy %ho wow IN shin