New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-26
What Did He Mean?

than his peace note did. Mr.. Lansing vol
unteered an explanation Of the note, but
quickly withdrew it. What he said anc
then expressed regret for saying left the
notes meaning and the implications more
obscure than ever.
Mr.. Lansing is not interpreting the
speech. He has had his lesson. But there
are many others ambitious to do for the
speech what he tried to do for the note
II will not be their fault if what the Presi-
dent said last Monday in his character
istically enigmatic manner is not made
somewhat more comprehensible-or more
incomprehensible-to the general public.
We are going to take up few interpre-
tations of the speech offered by devoted
newspaper admirers Of the President. We
discussed yesterday "The Evening Posts
explanation (for our beneft) Of what
Mr.. Wilson had in mind when he was talk
ing about the freedom Of the seas as the
sine ana non of peace. "The Post" says he
was thinking merely Of the minute extern
sion of neutral rights which might have
been accomplished if the Hague Confer
ence of 1907 had accepted the suggestion
Of the American delegates and made all
private property. not contrdband Of 1odr,
immune from capture at sea. Such
modification of the rules of warfare at sea
would, of course, have left the neutrals in
this war in practically the same unfortu-
nate position as they are now in, for the
vast extension of the blockade system and
the inclusion Of virtually all articles of
commerce in the contraband list make 1t
of little consequence whether or not pri-
vate property, other than contraband, is
exempted from capture.
This is certainly not an explanation OF
Mr.. Wilson's freedom of the seas theory
which Secretary Lansing would have put
forward if he had ventured to interpret
the speech. He has a much holder and
larger notion Of what constitutes the free
dom Of the seas. He has just contributed
TO the drafting Of an amended code of sea
law which abolishes commercial blockades.
II also abolishes the right Of search and
makes all private property, not contra
band of war, inviolable. But it does not
reach the evil Of extravagant extensions
of the contraband list and therefore falls
short of what President Wilson was APP
parently thinking of when he talked about
making 'the seas indeed free and common,
in practically all circumstances, for the
use Of mankind
We admit frankly that we have not been
able to form any clear idea of what the
President meant by what he said last
Monday about the freedom of the seas.
But has anybody else a clear idea? Can
such an explanation as "The Post" gives
help the public TO a more definite under
standing?
Take also the phrase "Peace without
victory" According to our neighbor "The
World" "peace without victory" means the
kind Of peace which followed our own Civil
War. But no analogy could possibly be
more at fault than this one is. The peace
which followed the Civil War was based
on a complete victory for the North. 1t
would be hard to find a better example
than our Civil War was of war prose
cuted unfinchingly to a definite and sue
cessful end-a war in which one political
entity absolutely extinguished another.
The war was waged to decide whether
the nation which Jefferson Davis created
to use phrase Of Mr.. Gladstone's-was
to survive. The Southern States seeded
from the Union. They set up sover-
eighty of their own They intended TO
establish their political independence. The
North's purpose in fighting the South was
TO snuff out the Southern Confederacy and
to reincorporate its territory into the
American Union.
In this purpose it succeeded. Its success
was complete. The armies of the Confed-
eracy surrendered The Confederate gov
eminent collapsed. It's territory was alb
sorbed by the conquerors. Its flag disap-
peared. Every last vestige Of It's sover-
eighty was wiped out. 1t became only a
name and a memory.
Yet "The World" calls the peace which
followed the unconditional restoration OF
the Union "a peace without victory" 1t
is hard to 90 further than that IN the way
of confusing the meaning of words. ANY
outcome of the war in Europe which would
parallel the outcome Of our Civil War
would tear the European map of 1914 to
tatters and write a completely new map
II would do exactly what Mr.. Wilson dep
recates doing. 1t would mean peace
forced on the loser, the victor's terms I'M
posed upon the vanquished.' The North
did impose its terms on the South. A
peace without victory" in our Civil War
would have meant a successful Hampton
Roads conference, followed by treaty
which would have acknowledged the Sover-
eighty and independence Of the Confeder-