PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3212, 6 October 1915, Page 78

PATER'S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

“ AMERICA FIRST : SUIT THE ACTION TO THE WORD.” This is the title given pride of place in the one hundredth anniversary number of the North American Review. And a scathing criticism it is of Germany’s actions, and equally so of the attitude the President of the United States has taken up. In the opening paragraph the writer —presumably the editor—says : “ Our nation is now at the parting of the ways. One path points to honour and self-respect, the other to obloquy and shame; one to maintenance of free democracy, the other to craven submission to arrogant monarchy; one to America First in reality as well as in words, the other to America Last in the consideration of their own government.”

Then the editor takes up the President’s address delivered on April 20, when he asked who was more respected—the irritable man, who will fight at the drop of the hat, or “ the self-mastered man, who watches you with calm eye, and comes on only when you have carried the thing so far that you must be disposed of?” ‘‘This is all very well,” says the editor; “ but what we want to know is how much farther the disdainful Kaiser must carry this particular thing before the selfmastered man with the calm eye will ‘ come on ’?” y “LEST WE FORGET.”

What might be called the second part of the editor’s article commences with the words Kipling has made so familiar. He recapitulates a few prominent “notes ’ and events following that of February 4, when Germany “in brazen violation of international law and usage, declared the waters surrounding the British Isles a ‘ war zone,’ and threatened to destroy every enemy merchant ship ‘ without its being always possible to avert the dangers threatening the crews and passengers on that account.’ ” The United States reply was a protest against the abridgment of the “acknowledged rights” of American citizens on the high seas, and declared that not only would the German Government be held to a “strict accountability” for any infringement of the rights of Americans, but that the United States “would take any steps that might be necessary ” to safeguard American lives. And Germany’s answer was?

The Hun Kingdom wasted no words, but on 'May 7 sank the Lusitania, “ an act unparalleled for barbarity in modern history.” “On May 13 the United States ‘ a confident expectation ’ that Germany would 4 disavow an act obviously subversive of the ‘ principles of warfare, and firmly declared her intention ‘ not to omit any word or act ’ necessary to the performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of her citizen's* * And Germany’s answer was?

An expres ion of “deep regret to neutrals that subjects of those countries lost a holiday for general rejoicing was decreed by municipalities, and the Kaiser decorated Lieutenant Hersing for his infamous work.

And the bandying of words went on and the ignoring of the dictates of humanity. The President was told that there wore munitions on »board, masked guns, and Canadian troojis. False statements, the editor says. Any excuse to justify an action in her favour and against her enemies; but on no account must her enemies be given the same liberty of action. Why, the German Government actually makes it seem that Britain or France must be held responsible for the drowning of ICO babies and. perhaps, hundreds of inoffensive women. “ The case of the Lusitania shows with horrible clearness. to what jeopardising of human lives the manner of conducting the war em- • ployed by our adversaries leads.” Then, too, the ship should have been strong enough to keep afloat to allow all boats to be launched I “ After the experience in sinking much smaller and less seaworthy vesrels, it was to bo expected that a mighty ship like the Lusitania would remain above water long enough, after the torpedoing, to permit passengers to enter the ship’s boats.” Again, if the German submarine had given time for the boats to be launched the submarine would have been endangered! Supposing all this reasoning following the torpedoing of a German ship had been used by us, what would the Germans have said? The more we think about German methods the more we are convinced that all done by the Germans must be right; but if the identical is done by us, it is all wrong. Are we super-demons, or they? THE SUMMING UP. A series of quotations, extended and brief, concludes with this: “If in the present war the principles which should be the ideal of the future have been traversed more and more, the longer its duration the German Government has no guilt therein.” From the German point of view the traversing of humane principles has been the work of the Allies. The editor, however, thinks otherwise, and this is how he sums up when he has got hardly half through his article: “So the Imperial Government absolve themselves in advance. Me (positively) tjnd Gott (reservedly) can do no wrong. And the United States of America and her President, her Congress, and her people can go to hell. “For that is what Germany says to us—just that, nothing more nor anjdhing less. She disavows none of her crimes; she makes no suggestion of reparation; she reoognires no rights of neutrals; she reiterates her repudiation of all treaties and of all laws, -whether among nations or of civilisation or humanity, which may conflict with her own conception of military necessity; she apologises for nothing; she concedes nothing; she acknowledges nothing ; she seeks only to secure our approval of her lawless practices through our acquiescence in her proposal that we waive our unquestioned rights upon the high seas, and sail so many of our ships as she may permit under her surveillance and subject to her dictation; having injured us, she would wrong us; having insulted us, she would humiliate us; that is all there is of this insolent declaration. “ Not one of our moderate demands is accorded even the courtesy of frank recognition ; all are in effect denied; each and every one is either tacitly spurned or impudently ignored. “Never before has this country, and seldom, if ever, has any country, been treated so contemptuously. Why is this? What has happened to convince even a truculent autocracy that this Republic can be flouted with impunity,?” etc. Such is the opinion of an American editor of a review of standing, and this is backed up by most of the American press of weight. Even the cartoons are nearly all in our favour. An amusing one in the Baltimore Sun shows Uncle Sam standing over and glowering at a boy, the Kaiser, and saying with emphasis, “ Are you going to quit it—that’s what I want to know ! Are —totj—going—to —quit —it?” And the answer comes from the quaking boy as he holds his hands out piteously; “I love you—mine Gott, how I love you! But Chonny Bull, he makes me did dose dings.” Did he? This fits in with a portion of one of the replies to America, in which Germany says: “ The American Government will also understand and appreciate that in the fight for existence, which has been forced upon Germany by its adversaries and announced by them, it is the sacred duty of the Imperial Government to do all within its power to protect and save the lives of German subjects.” Forced upon Germany ! And if Germany can do what she has done to protect the lives of her subiects, presumably we can do the same. To what extent should wo follow German methods?