The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1917-07-27

In the meantime, although our
neutral rights were not brought into
question by Germany as early as
by England, the German contro-
versy was infinitely more serious.
For any dissensions that might
arise, no arbitration treaty existed
between the United States and the
German government. This was from
no fault Of ours. We had tried to
establish with Germany the same
treaty relations we had with Great
Britain and 10 other nations. But
these overtures had been rejected.
And this action on the part of the
Imperial German Government was
only one example of its whole sys-
TEN of diplomacy. In both con-
fefences at The Hague it had been
the German delegates who were the
most active in blocking all projects
for the pacific settlement of dis
putes between nations. They had
preferred to limit international re-
latons to the old modes of .diplo-
macy and war. 1t was therefore
obvious from the first that any con-
troversy with the German govern
ment would be exceedingly serious;
for if it could not be solved by di-
rect diplomatic conversations, there
was no recourse except to war.
From such conversations there is
small hope of satisfactory results
unless the good faith of both sides
is profound. If either side lacks
good faith, or reveals in all its ac-
tions an insidious hostility, dipIo-
macy is of no avail. And so it has
proved in the present case.
In the first year of the war the
government of Germany stirred up
among its people feeling of resent
ment against the United States on
account of our insistence upon our
right as a neutral nation to trade
in munitions with the belligerent
powers. Our legal right in the mat
ter was not seriously questioned by
Germany. She could not have done
so consistently, for as recently as the
Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1918 both
Germany and Austria sold munitions
to the belligerents. Their appeals
to US in the present war were not
to observe international law, but
to revise it in their interest. And
these appeals they tried to make
on moral and humanitarian grounds.
But upon 'the moral issue" involved,
the stand taken by the United States
was consistent with its traditional
policy and with obvious common
sense. For if, with all other neu-
trails, we refused to sell munitions
to belligerents, we could never in
time of a war of our own obtain
munitins from neutrals, and the ma
tion which had accumulated the
largest reserves of war supplies in
time of peace would be assured of
victory. The militarist state that
invested its money in arsenals would
be at a fatal advantage over the
free people who invested their wealth
in schools To write into inter
national law that neutrals should
not trade in munitions would be to
hand over the word to the rule
of the nation with the largest arma-
ment factories. Such a policy the
United States of America could not
accept.
But our principal controversy with
the German government, and the
one which rendered the situation at
once acute, rose out of their an
nouncement of a sea zone where
their submarines would operate in
violation of all accepted principles
of international law. Our indigna-
tion at such a threat was soon rem
dered passionate by the sinking of
the Lusitania. This attack upon
our rights was not only grossly il
legal; it defied the fundamental