The Tupelo journal., 1917-08-24

on April 20, 1915. I'VE are COM
pounded Of the nations Of the world;
we mediate their blood, we mediate
their traditions, we mediate their
sentiments, their tastes, their pas
sions; we are ourselves compounded
Of those things. W. are, therefore,
able to understand them in the COM
pound, not separately as p~artisans,
but unitedly as knowing and COM
pretending and embodying them all.
1t is in that sense that ! mean that
America is a mediating Nation"
American neutrality, in those first
months of the great war, was beyond
any question real.
But the spirit of neutrality was not
easy to maintain. Public opinion
was deeply stirred by the German in
vasion of Belgium and by reports OF
atrocities there. The Royal Belgian
Commission, which came in Septem-
Der, 1914, to lay their country's
cause for complaint before. our Ma
tional Government, was received with
sympathy and respect. The Presi-
dent in his reply reserved our de-
cision in the affair. 1t was the only
course he could take without an alb
rupt departure from u most treas
ured traditions of noninterference in
the Old World disputes. But the
sympathy of America went out to the
Belgians in their heroic tragedy, and
from every section of our land money
contributions and supplies of food
and clothing poured over to the Com
mission for Relief in Belgium, which
was under the able management of
our fellow countrymen abroad.
Still, the thought of taking an act
i've part in this European war was
very far from most of our minds.
The Nation shared with the President
the belief that by maintaining a
strict neutrality we could best serve
Europe at the end as impartial me-
diators.
But in the first days of the war our
| Government foresaw that complica-
tons on the seas might put US in
grave risk of being drawn into the
conflict. No neutrj, nation could
foretell what violations Of it's 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 atten-
ton to the risk of serious trouble
arising out of this uncertainty of
neutrals as to their maratime rights
and proposing that the Declaration of
London be accepted by all nations
for the duration of the raj
But the British Governments re-
sJonse, 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 they judge indis-
pensableato the efficient conduct of
their naval operations The Dec
laration had not been endorsed 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 situation.
Great Britain recognized as binding
certain long accepted principles of
international law and sought now to
apply them to the peculiar and un1
| foreseen conditions of this war. But
these principles were often vague and
therefore full of dangerous possibil-
tiles Of friction.
Controversies soon arose between
Great Britain and this Nation. In
practice their ruling sometimes
seemed to u Government lnconslS-
tent with the spirit of international
law, and especially with the estab-
lished precedents which they invoked.
But painful as this divergence of
opinion sometimes was, it did not Sc
riously threaten our position of neu-
trality, for the issue that arose in
volved our rights of <property and
were amply covered by the arbitra-
ton treaty signed only a short time
before by Great Britain and the
United States.
And this controversy lead to a
clearer understanding our part of
the British attitude t1#asl our ideal
of the freedom of TIC a They
were not willing to accept our clas-