Der Deutsche correspondent. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1841-1918, 1917-02-20
"BENOVOLENT NEUTRALITY" /"
(From the New Rcpublic.)


We arc being drawn into the war
as a consequence OF Mr. Wilson'S pol
icy OF benevolent neutrality toward
the allies. Both groups Of bclliger-
enrs have been ignoring and violat-
ing the body Of ambiguous prece-
dents which composed the law Of
nations at the outbreak Of the war
Their illegalities have been officially
explained as necessary and per-
missible measure of reprisal
When the British embargo began
TO cut off that part~of German trade
with ncutrals which was legal the
Germans had two alternative meth
ods Of warding Off the blow Either
neutral trading nations like the
United States might be induced to
insist upon reading of sea law such
as the Declaration of London, which
would permit the Germans to obtain
some OF their needed supplies from
abroad. or the Germans could try to
repay Great Britain in the same coin
by using the submarine as a fair
measure OF retaliation against the
Illegal suffocation Of their commerce.
Our benevolent neutrality has de-
nrivcd Germany Of the use of both
these weapons. We have allowed
| Great Britain. in defiance of our own
traditional policy of a strict enforce
ment Of neutral rights, to execute the
most comprehensive and inexorab1e
interdict on trade i'm the history of
marine law. Yet we have insisted
that GERMANY obey part Of the
same body OF law which Great Brit
ain was violating, and as conse-
quence of such insistence we have
donc what we could to emasculate
the submarine as commerce de-
stroyer.
Thus we have already been play
ing a part in the war and behaving
SO as to promote tho success Of ono
group of bellieerents and the failure
Of another. We have been conniving
all British illegality and penalizing
that Of Germany.
The policy Of benevolent neutrality
was, we believe. wholly justiflable;
4 but by following 1t we were not vim
dicating the existing system Of MAJ
rine law, and 1t is unpleasantly hypo-
| critical to flourish any such pretense.
| If we had not Disseminated against
| Germany she would have been de-
| prived of her present excuse for
using her submarines as commerce
destroyers and probably would never
have done so.
If the United States, that is, had
been disposed to be really neutral.
In the sense of being really impartial
I'VE should have enforced interna-
tional regulations against both
| groups of belligerents or against
neither, and in this case we should
not now be headed directly toward
participation in the war.
In q deeper sense the American
nation has already been waging war
on Germany. An actual outbreak OF
hostilities will confirm and develop
q prc-eXsting disposition to aid the
allies and to injure Germany rather
than bring into existence a wholly
novel fact.
Our German-American fellow citi-
zcns have recognized this condition
and have struggled furiously and
vainly against it. Their disloyaity,
in SO far as il exists, Is the natural
product Of American unneutrality.
In SO far as the issue between the
two governments is legal, the Ger
| mans have grievance for which full
allowance should be made in our
attitude toward them.
The Germans are right in one
respect, The sovereignty Of the sea-
carrying with it ais 1t does the power
Of life and death over nations, should
not he used in the interest Of ey-
elusive national purposes in SO fai
as 1t Is used in this way, Germany
has genuine grievance, in the in
crcasng provocation Of which II
would be ruinous for the United
States to share. AS the New Re
public" said on May 27, 1916:
"Sea power must not be deprived
of it's right to destroy commerce, be
cause If ii were deprived Of the
right. tho most effective weapon O
resistance against aggressive militar
ism would be fatally weakened; bu
the power must be exercised only I'M
der conditions and on behalf Of poll
cies which can obtain official inter
national approval"
0N,c N,crAe IN Rtirocr2