Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

III. MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE IN CONGRESS SENATOR BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS

[graphic]

IV. MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE IN CONGRESS SENATOR GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, OF OREGON, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

fighting our battles and join them in trying to defeat Germany, justifying the action. on the ground that if Germany were not defeated she might attack us later. That justification would rank on a par with the German reasons for violating Belgian neutrality. As a decent democracy, of course, we cannot act on such principles.

We could properly go to war on account of actual German injuries to us, but not on account of possible future injuries. One of the great values of democracy to civilization is that it has a strong tendency to prevent such premeditated preparation for aggressive war as preceded the Prussian declarations against Austria in 1866, against France in 1870, and the German move against the Allies in 1914.

On the other hand, one of the greatest dangers of democratic civilization is that it will not be ready to resist the sudden onslaught of prepared autocracy. By the persevering efforts of a few men France. was prepared in this great emergency, but even a little less preparation would have been fatal. England was magnificently prepared at sea but very poorly prepared on land. Italy, too, was unready and had to wait. While the Italians and British prepared under cover of the French defenses the other ally, Russia, lost a kingdom and a million men, and Gallipoli, which might have been taken bloodlessly by an Allied army in the fall of 1914, costs thousands of lives a year later.

Nor do we have to look abroad to find the blood toll of unreadiness. There is proof enough in our own past-proof so painful that our historians have omitted. it or glossed it over. But it can be seen in illuminating and sanguine detail in such authoritative works as Upton's "Military Policy of the United States" or Frederic Huidekoper's "The Military Unpreparedness of the United States."

The events of the last two years cannot help but fix more firmly than ever in the American mind that the future of civilization lies in democracy, and fix indelibly, also, the somewhat newer conception to us that so long as there are irresponsible autocracies in the world democracy must be thoroughly able to defend itself at a moment's notice.

CLOSING THE "ARABIC" INCIDENT

T

HE attack of the submarine was undertaken against the instructions issued to the commander. The Imperial Government regrets and disavows this act, and has notified Commander Schneider accordingly."

"Under these circumstances my Government is prepared to pay an indemnity for American lives which, to its deep regret, have been lost on the Arabic."

In these words the German Ambassador disavows for his Government the sinking of the Arabic.

We have passed the acute crisis which. that incident caused. The Arabic disavowal is a guarantee for the future. It does not take account of the past of the past the Lusitania. Nevertheless, it is in itself a very great diplomatic success.

Whether or not the willingness of the German Government to make the disavowal was affected by its submarine losses does not alter the disavowal from our point of view. We are not concerned with the German Government's motives but with its acts. If it is more convenient for the German Government to have its Ambassador here frame the disavowal rather than have it sent from Berlin, as were other communications, it is no concern of ours, though we are glad of it, for we had come to believe that the German Foreign Office could not, even with the best intent, write a note to the United States that would not offend. What we wanted in the Arabic case was a disavowal and an indemnity. We have the disavowal and the promise of the indemnity. The President and Secretary Lansing are to be congratulated - and Ambassador Bernstorff.

Germany now admits that American ships have a right to sail through the war zone without danger of molestation, that American ships carrying conditional contraband are not to be sunk, that American citizens, even when traveling on merchant vessels of belligerents, are not to be put in danger-and these are the rights for which our Government contended.

FREEDOM AND THE LOAN

T

HE Allies have floated their loan

in the United States, the rate of exchange has been steadied thereby, and this steadying of the rate of exchange has helped maintain our markets abroad for cotton, wheat, cattle, general manufactures, and munitions.

This loan will be a long-remembered incident in national finance, for it is the first great foreign loan ever placed in this country. It is the first time that our citizens have had European government securities offered them with the interest payable in this country in our currency. It is a most dramatic acceptance of the dollar exchange. It is the first time that Great Britain has floated a loan in a foreign country and it is one of very few loans in this country that have been offered to the public without syndicate profits. The only charge made was a charge of one-fourth of one per cent. for expenses.

The United States financially had come to be in the position of a bank with its treasury full of money and no borrowers. Then came Great Britain and France, the two best foreign credits in the world, and asked us to lend them $500,000,000 at a very favorable rate.

The United States commercially had come to be in the position of a manufacturer who had lost one good customer and whose other two best customers began to lack the kind of credit to which he was accustomed. Then came the loan and furnished these two customers with credit in this country.

Fundamentally the loan is beneficial to the United States.

[ocr errors][merged small]

threat of this kind based upon the fact that the loan was insecure and might bring disaster on the trust company would be proper enough. But an attempt at a financial boycott in the interests of Germany is not tolerable in a free country. Moreover, such practices are likely to recoil against their originators, for the men who sell wheat, cotton, manufactures, and munitions know that attempts to block the loan are attempts to curtail their markets.

In addition to the Germans who opposed the loan because they prefer the Fatherland to the United States there are sentimentalists like Mr. Henry Ford who think to oppose it because it may furnish credit for the purchase of munitions of war.

Mr. Ford is quoted as saying: "If I find any of the banks in which my company or myself have deposits taking part in the loan I will immediately close our accounts.”

It is doubtful if Mr. Ford thought this idea out thoroughly before making such a statement. A few parallel propositions may make it plainer:

Suppose the Steel Corporation were to announce that it would not deal with any bank that had a Democratic director.

Suppose Mr. Carnegie were to withdraw all funds from any institutions some of whose officers believe in woman suffrage.

Mr. Ford would probably see in these attempts an effort to buy men's opinions by an unjustifiable use of money. He would be right, and his plan is in the same category.

This is a country in which it is not considered proper for one man to try to buy and control the consciences of other people.

[blocks in formation]
« PředchozíPokračovat »