The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1915. THE AMERICAN ATTITUDE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 82, 7 April 1915, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1915. THE AMERICAN ATTITUDE.

for ttm mum ifctt lank* mtmittanee, For the tufang that need* re»i*t<moe, .For the future in the ditUmoo, Ami the good thai we oo* fe,

The formal reply of the United States to the British A T ote on the blockade question should relieve the whole UrnI pire of any suspicion or apprehension about the attitude of the American Government towards us. The tone ot this message is in every way amicable and' conciliatory, . and it states with commendable moderation and dignity the real point at issue between England and the neutral countries. By attempting to prevent neutrals from shipping even "innocent" or non-eontrabamt goods to enemy ports, England ha s certainly claimed for herself a right which has never yet been asserted in civilised warfare. It is true that, from the standpoint of the Allies, the outrageous conduct of Germany and her persistent (lsregard of all the established rules of international law as well as of the fundamental principles of humanity and civilisation seem to have left us no choice in the matter. But the fact remains that as the United States Note puts the case, the action of England "constitutes a practical assertion of unlimited belligerent rights over neutral commerce, and an almost unqualified denial of neutrals' sovereign rights." England may plead that ehe has been forced to adopt this policy because (lermany has transformed naval warfare into piracy and assassination. But the American Government suggests tactfully enough that the illegality of Germany* actions would not justify Knglnnd in

committing, by way of reprisal, breaches of international law that would injure neutral countries and their trade. Indren , , to admit England's elnirn to pursue such a ■policy would.be. from the American standpoint, to surrender neutrality altogether, and to range the United States definitely on the side of the Allies, in open conflict with many.It should be observed that this Note differs very substantially both in matter and manner from the firet protest addressed b y Washington to London against the interference of 'British warships with American trans-Atlantic trade. For the American Government, having done its duty to ite subjects by protesting against any needless delay in enforcing the right of search, now frankly etaters that belligerents must concede the right of search, and of capture, if contraband. is found. iklt £ho r Tvholc tone 'joi their Note suggests that President Wilson and his advisers are chiefly interested in diecharging their obligations to their own people by entering a formal protest against what they regard, with some show of reason, as a distinct infringement of their sovereign rights. Having regard to the strict theory of international law, it cannot bo contended that England hae a right to blockade neutral ports, even if her blockade of the German coast were close enoaigh to bo technically "effective"; and not even the much-debated doctrine of "oonltlnuous voyage" could justify England's decision to etop noncontraband cargoes from clearing or entering neutral ports on th« plea that tlhcy might ultimately be destin-ed for the enemy. Besides stating the American case thus clearly, the Note goes so far ac to suggest a compromise which would ■permit the passage of neutral vessels through the blockading cordon, so long as they are not carrying contraband. This plan has been favourably commented upon by eeveral leading British newspapers, but whether it is adopted or not, it shows that the American Government is in a very reasonable frame of mind, and that it is anxious to find some way out of a situation that is difficult and dangerous for all parties concerned. Whatever may have been thought of the first American protest against the enforcement of the right of search, no ■objection- can reasonably be taken to the way in which President Wileon has now put life case; and this Note certainly appears'to indicate that the American Government, having done its duty to its people and their commercial interests by recording this protest, will do do more.

To summarise all this briefly, it seems that the Americans are now in a more reasonable frame of mind than they were in the earlier stages of the war, as regards the assertion of their commercial rights. Of course this does not mean that they are prepared to go as far as most of us might desire in the way of assisting England or condemning Germany. When'all is said that can be said to extenuate the American attitude, the fact remains that the American Government has never protested even formally against the outrageous violation of international law which Germany has committed, and that it has protested against the relatively small

injury to its trade due to the efforts 61 England to crush an unscrupulous and barbarous foe. Thie is, > doubt, quite consistent with President Wilson's d.eeire to maintain a strictly neutral attitude and to keep the United States clear of all international complications. But many representative Americans take a very different view of the situation. It is not always safe to regard Mr. Roosevelt as typical of hie nation, 'but there is reason to believe that a very large number of his compatriots share his view that the United States, having signed the Hague Conventions, should not have been content to stand idly by while Germany was affronting international law and. outraging civilisation by a long eeries of barbarous

"It will never be poseible in any war," as Roosevelt has said, "to commit a clearer breach of international'morality than that committed by Germany in the invasion and subjugation of Belgium." And, enthusiast though he is, Rooeevelt wisely prefers not to rest his argument for intervention on the reports of atrocities perpetrated by the Germans, however well authenticated these may be. His argument is that the United State* was a party to the adoption and acceptance of certain rules that were supposed to restrict the action of belligerents, and that when these rules weje broken all the contracting parties' ought' to' have taken action to uphold them. 'Tf the Hague CQnYeAtlpns.. represented nothing but the expression bF feeble aspirations toward decency, uttered only in time of profound peace, and not to be even expressed above a whisper when, with awful bloodshed and (suffering, the conventions were broken, then it was idle folly to enter into them." What the United Ptates ought to do or to have done, under these circumstances, is, as Roosevelt admits, still a matter for discussion. Hut the great majority of the American people appear to agree with him that it wag simpty fatuous to do or say nothing by way of protest against Germany's breaches of international law, and that the inaction of the United States has seriously discredited her in the eyes of the civilised world. It is, of course, °J>eiv_ to • "President Wilson to argue that Roosevelt's comments are quite irresponsible, whereas he himself has the enormous responsibilities of peace and war upon his hands. And f° r the time we must console ourselves with the reflection that within the limits that President Wilson has marked out for himself this last Note, in reply to Sir Edward Grey's communication, is definitely friendJy in tone, and ig in no wny calculated to strain the relations behvecn England and the United States.