New Iberia enterprise and independent observer. (New Iberia, La.) 1902-1944, 1917-09-29

On the eve Of the present con.
fict our position toward other
nations might have been sum-
married. under three heads:
|. The Monroe Doctrine.-We
had pledged ourselves to defend
the New World from European
aggression, and we had by word
and deed made it clear that we
would not intervene in any Eu-
ropean dispute.
Ii. The Freedom of the Seas.
in every naval conference our
influence had been given in sup
| port Of the principle that sea law
to be just and worthy of general
respect must be based on the con-
sent Of the governed.
Il iii. Arbitration.-As we had
secured peace at home by re-
ferring interstate disputes to a
Federal tribunal, we urged ST.
milar settlement Of international
controversies. Our ideal was a
permanent world court. We had
already signed arbitration treaties
not only with great powers which
might conceivably attack us, but
even more freely with weaker
neighbors in order to show our
good faith in recognizing the
equality of all nations both great
and small.
The outbreak Of war in 1914
caught this nation by surprise,
and in the first chaotic days we
could see no clear issue that af-
fected our national policy. The
Presidents proclamation of neu-
4 trality was received by Us as
natural and inevitable.
/ The preservation Of a strict
neutrality in order that later we
/ might be Of use in the great task
1 of mediation dominated all the
Presidents early speeches.
But in the very first days Of
the war our Government foresaw
that compile ations on the seas
| might put us in grave risk of be.
! ing drawn into the conflict. And
so, on August 6, 1914, our Secre-
tary of State dispatched an
identical note to all the powers
then at war, calling attention to
the risk Of serious trouble arising
out Of the 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,
The Declaration had not been
indorsed by any power in time of
peace. and there was no legal
obligation on Great Britain to ac-
cept it. Her reply, however, was
disappointing. Great Britain
recognized as binding certain
long-accepted principles Of inter
national law and sought now toI
apply them to the peculiar and
unforeseen conditions Of this war.
Controversies soon arose be-
tween Great Britain and this ma
ton. But. painful as this diverg-
ency of opinion sometimes was, it
did not seriously threaten our po-
sition of neutrality, for the issues
that arose involved only rights Of
property.
And this controversy led to a
clearer understanding on our part
of the British attitude to ward
our ideal of the freedom Of the
seas. They were not willing to
accept our classification of the
seas as being distinct from the
Old World We had confined our
interest to matters affecting rightsI
at sea and had kept carefully
aloof from issues affecting the in
terests of European nations on
land. They explained that they
had refused to ratify the London
Declaration because 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 atten-
tion given by the United States
TO the search for ways and means ,
Of insuring at the end Of tha war
) lasting peace for all the world.
The address of our President. on {
Nav 27, 1916. before the League !
10 Enforce Peace was a milestone I
n our history.
He outlined the main principles
IN which a stable peace must