A GREAT SPEECH

Grey River Argus, 12 April 1916, Page 3

A GREAT SPEECH

AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY. MR ELIHU ROOTS DENUNCIATION. XOn the 15th of February Mr » Elihu Root delivered a speech at the Carnegie Hall, New York, which stirred Ame rica. It was in the main a denunciation of President Wilson's foreign policy, and has been treated by the United States Press as indicating the issue on which the Republican Party proposes to fight the Presidential election later in the year. We print below an extract, which is of particular interest as showing the yiew held by a large proportion, probably the great majority of the American people, concerning President Wilson's attitude towards Ger many's breaches of international law and the law of humanity.] Measured and restrained cxpres sion, said Mr. Root, in \he course of his speech, backed to the full by serious purpose, is strong and respected. Extreme and belligerent expression, unsupported by resolution, . is weak and without •effect. No man should draw a pistol who dares not shoot. The Government that shakes its first and its .finger afterward falls into contempt. Our liplomacy has lost its authority a,nd influence because we have been brave in words and irresolute in action. Men- may say that the words of our diplomatic notes' were justified-, men may say j notes were justified; action may that our inaction was justified; but no mau can say that both our words and our inaction were wise and creditable. i I have said that this Government lost the moral forces of the world by not truly interpreting the spirit of the American demo' .cracy. Democracy and Human Rights. The American democracy stands for something more than beef and cotton and grain and manufactures! stands for something that cannot be measured by rates of exchange and does not rise' or fall with the balance of trade. The American people achieved liberty and schooled themselves to the service of justice before they acquir-ed wealth, and they value their country's liberty and justice above all their pvide of possessions. Beneath their com fortable optimism and apparent indifference they have a concep tion of their great Republic as brave and strong and noble to hand down to their children the blessings of freedom and just and equal laws. They have 'embodied their prin ciples of government in fixed rules of right conduct which they jcolously preserve, and with the instinct of individual freedom they stand for a government of laws and not of men. They deem that the 'moral laws which formulate the duties of men toward \ each other are binding upon nations equally with individuals. Tnforjried by their own .experi- . ence, confirmed by their obser- J vation of international life, they have come to see that the indepen dence of nations, the liberty of their peoples, justice and humanity, cannot be maintained upon the complaisance, the good nature the kindly feeling of the strong toward the weak; that real independence, real liberty, cannot rest upon sufferance; that peace and liberty can be preserved only by the authority and observance . of the principles of justice aj inanity; only by the establishment of law among nations, responsive to the enlightened public' opinion of mankind. Liberty and Justice. To them liberty means not liberty for themselves alone, but for all who are oppressed. Justice means, not justice for themselves, alone, but a shield for all who arc weak against the aggression of the strong. When their deeper natures are stir»ei'd, they have a spiritual vision' in which the spread and perfection of free selfgovernment shall rescue the humble who toil and endure from the hideous wrongs indicted upon them by ambition and lust for power, and they cherish in their heart of hearts an ideal of their country loyal to the mission of lib erty for the 'lifting -up of the oppressed and bringing in the rule of righteousness and peace. To this people the invasion of Belgium brought a shock of amazement and horror. The peo jAe of Belgium were peaceable, in dustrious, la w-a biding, self-gov-erning, and free. They had no quarrel with any one on <earth. They were attacked by overwhelming military' poAver; their country Avas devastated by fire and SAvord; they 'were" slain by tens of thousands ; their independence was destroyed and their liberty Avas subjected to the rule of an invader for no other cause than that they defended their admitted rights. There Avas no question of fact ; there Avas no question of law; there Avas not a plausible pretence of any of any other cause. The admitted rights of Belgium stood in the way of a migailer nations purpose, and Belgium was crushed. ■:".:. When • the trae nature, of these events was realised, tlie people of the United. States' did not hesitate in their feeling or in their judg meut. Deepest sympathy with downtrodden Belgium and. stern

I condemnation of the invader were 'practically universal. Wherever .there was respect for law it revolted against the wrong done to Belgium. Wherever thene was humanity it mourned for Belgium As the realisation of the- truth spread it carrie da vague feeling that not merely sentiment but loy alty to the .eternal principles of right was involved in the attitude of the American people. Moral Treason. And it was so ,f or if the nations wene to be indifferent to this gneat concrete case for a centry of military power trampling under foot at will the independence, the liberty, and the life of a peace ful and unoffending people in repudiation of the faith of treaties and the knv of nations and of mor ality and of humanity — if the pub lie opinion of the world was to remain silent upon that, neutral upon that, then all talk about peace and justice and international law and the rights of man, the progress of humanity, and the 1 spread of liberty, is idle patter — • mere weak sentimentality; then opinion is powerless, and brute force rule and will rule the world. If no difference is recognised between right and wrong, then there ; are no moral standards. There ■ ; come times in the lives of nations ■ as of men when to treat wrong ; jas if it were right in treason to 1 the right. The American people were entit led not merely to feel but to speak j concerning the wrong done to Bel jgium. .It was not like interferj ence in the internal affairs of Mcx I ico or any other nation, for this "I was an international wrong. The law protecting Belgium which was violated was our law and the law of every other civilised coun- ] try. For generations we had jbeen urging on and helping in its j development and -.establishment. ; We had spent our efforts and our money to that end. In legislative resolution and exccuative declaration and diploma tie correspondence and special treaties and international confer ■ ences and conventions we had ■ j played our part in conjunction ■ with other civilised countries inmaking that law. We had bound \ ourselves, by it, we had regulated - our conduct by it, and we were entitled to have other nations obt serve it. 5 That law Avas the protection of ' oirr peace and secm*ity. It was ' ! our safeguard against the neces- [ jsity of maintaining great anna- : jments and wasting our substance ■ . in continual readiness for war. ; | interest in having it maintained ' j asthc law of nations was a sub1, stantial, valuable permanent inter 1 j est, just as real as your interest ■ and mine in having , maintained and enforced the laws against assault and robbery and arson which protect our personal safety and property. Duty of the United States. Moreover, that law was written I into a solemn and formal convention, and signed and ratified by j Germany and Belgium, and France, and the United States, in which those other countries agreed with us that the laAv should be. observed. When Belgium -was invaded, that agreement was binding not only morally but strictly and technically, be cause there was then no nation a party,, to the war which was not also" a party to the convention. The invasion of Belgium was a breach of contract with us for the maintenance of a law of nations which was the protection of our peace, and the interest which sustained the contract justified an objection to its breach. ! There was no question here of interfering in the quarrels of Europe. We had a right to be neutral, and we were neutral as to. the quarrel between Germany and France, but when as an incident to the prosecution of that quarrel Germany broke the law which we were entitled to have preserved and which we were entitled to have preserved and which she had agreed with us to preserve, we were entitled to be heard in the assertion of our own national right. .. With the right to speak came responsibility, and with responsibility came duty — duty of Govern inent towards all tlie peaceful men and women in America not to acquieses in the destruction of the law which protected them, for if the world assents to this great and signal violation of the law of ■nations, then the law of nations no longer exists, and we have no protection save in subservency or in force. And with the right to speak there came to this, the greatest of neutral .nations, the greatest of free democracries, another duty to the cause of liberty and justice for which America stands — duty to the ideals of America's nobler nature, duty to the honour of her past and the hopes of her future; for this law was a bulwark of peace and justice to the. world, it was a barrier to the spread of war it was a safeguard to the indepen dence and liberty of all small, weak States. It marks the prograss of civilis ation. If the. world consent* '-to its destruction, the world turns backward towards savagery,- and America's assent would be America's abandonment of the mission of democracy. False Neutrality. ' Yot the American Government acquiesced in the treatment of Bel gium and the destruction of tha law of nations. Without one ] word of objection, or dissent to 1 the breach of-.^ur.'ti'cjy.-or the vio-

-2 lation of justice and humanity in [• the treatment of Belgium, our - Government enjoined upon the ) people of the United States an un-. discriminating- and all-embracing neutrality, and the President ad-" monished the people that they: must be neutral in all respects, in act and word and thought and sentiment. We were to be, not merely neutral as to the quarrels of Europe, but neutral as to the treatment of Belgium, neutral between right and wrong, neutral between justice and injustice, neutral between humanity and cruelty, neutral between libert.y and oppression. Our oGvernmcnt did more than acquiesce, for in the first Lusitania Note, with the unspeakable horrors of the conquest of Belgium still fresh in our minds, on the very day after the report of the Government of Germany: the Bryce Commission on Belgian atrocities, it wrote these words to "Recalling the humane and enlightened attitude hithetro assum ed by the Imperial German Gov eminent on .matter* of internation al right, and particularly with re gard to the freedom of the seas, having learned to recognise the German views and the German influence in the field of internation al obligation as always 'engaged upon the side of justice and humanity, etc' And so the Government of the United Spates appeared at approving the treatment of Belgium. It misrepresented the people of the United States in that acquies misrepresented the people of th ence and apparent approval. lz was not necessary that the U.ui- ! ted States should go to war in do fence of the violated law. Are We Weak and Sordiu? A single official egression by the Government of the United Sta tes, a single seaitence denying assent and recording disapproval of what Germany did in Belgium, Avould have given to the people of America that leadership to which they wene entitled in. their earnest groping for the light. It would have ranged behind American Leadership the conscience and morality of the neutral world. It would have brought to American diplomacy the respect and strength of loyalty to a great cause. But it was not to be. The Ame rican Government failed to rise to the demajids of the great occasion Gone were the old love of justice, tine old passion for liberty, the old sympathy with the oppressed, the ideals of an American helping the world toward a better future, and there remained in the eyes of man ' kind only solicitude for trade and profit and prosperity and wealth. The American Government could not really have approved the treatment of Belgium, but under a mistaken policy it shrank ft'om speaking tlie truth. That vital error has carried into every effort of our diplomacy the weakness of a false position. Every Note of remonstrance against interference with trade.; or even against the -destruction of life, has been projected against the background of an abandonment of the principles for which America once stood, and has been weakened by the popular feeling among the people of Europe, whose hearts are lifted up by the impulses of patriotism and sacrifice, that America has become weak and sordid. Such policies as I have described are doubly dangerous in their effect upon foreign nations, and in their effect at home. It is a matter of universal experience that a weak and apprehensive treatment of foreign affairs invites encroachment upon rights, rights, and leads to situations in which it is diffcult to prevent war while a firm and frank policy at the outset prevents difficult situa tions from arising, and tends most strongly to preserve peace. On the other hand, if a Government is to be strong in its diplomacy, its own people must be ran ged in its support by leadership of opinion in a national cause worthy to awaken their patriotiism and devotion. Stumbling 1 Towards War. We have not been following the path of 'peace. We have been blindly stumbling along the road that, continued, will lead to inevitable war. Our diplomacy has dealt with symptoms and ignored causes. The great decesive ques tion upon which our peace depends is the question whether the rule of action applied to Belgium is to be tolerated. If it is toldra ted by the civilised world, this nation will have to fight for its life. . There will be no escape. That is the critical point of defence for the peace of America. Lost Leadership. When our Government failed to tell the truth about Belgium, it lost the opportunity for leadership of the moral sense of the American people, and it lost the power which a knowledge, of that leadership and a sympathetic response from the moral sense of the world would have given to our diplomacy.