My difference from him is as to method, not as to purpose, and my utterances since resigning have been intended to crystallize public sentiment in support of his efforts to maintain peace, or, to use a similar phrase, "Peace with Honor." But remember that when I use the phrase "Peace with Honor" I do not use it in the same sense that those do who regard every opponent of war as favoring "peace at any price." Peace at any price is an epithet, not a true statement of any one's position or of the policy of any group. The words are employed by jingoes as an expression of contempt, and are applied indiscriminately to all who have faith in the nation's ability to find a peaceful way out of every difficulty, so long as both nations want peace.
The alarmists of the country have had control of the metropolitan press, and they have loudly proclaimed that the prolongation of negotiations or the suggestion of international investigation would be a sign of weakness—and everything is weakness that does not contain a hint of war. The jingo sees in the rainbow of promise only one color—red.
Second—Knowing that the President desires peace, it is our duty to help him secure it. And how? By exerting your influence to convince the German Government of this fact and to persuade that Government to take no steps that would lead in the direction of war. My fear has been that the German Government might, despairing of a friendly settlement, break off diplomatic relations, and thus create a condition out of which war might come without the intention of either country.
I do not ask you to minimize the earnestness of the President's statement—that would be unfair, both to him and to Germany. The sinking of the Lusitania cannot be defended upon the facts as we understand them. The killing of innocent women and children cannot be justified, whether the killing is by drowning or starving.
No nation can successfully plead the inhumanity of her enemies as an excuse for inhumanity on her own part. While it is true that cruelty is apt to beget cruelty, it cannot be said that "like cures like." Even in war, we are not absolved from the obligation to remedy evils by the influence of a good example. "Let your light so shine" is a precept that knows no times nor seasons as it knows neither latitude nor longitude.
Third—Do not attempt to connect the negotiations which are going on between the United States and Germany with those between the United States and Great Britain. The cases are different, but, even if they were the same, it would be necessary to treat with each nation separately. My personal preference has been to repeat our insistence that the Allies shall not interfere with our commerce with neutral countries, but the difference on this point was a matter of judgment and not a matter of principle. In the note to Great Britain, dated March 30, this Government said:
In view of these assurances formally given to this Government, it is confidently expected that the extensive powers conferred by the Order in Council on the executive officers of the Crown will be restricted by "orders issued by the Government" directing the exercise of their discretionary powers in such a manner as to modify in practical application those provisions of the Order in Council which, if strictly enforced, would violate neutral rights and interrupt legitimate trade. Relying on the faithful performance of these voluntary assurances by his Majesty's Government the United States takes it for granted that the approach of American merchantmen to neutral ports situated upon the long line of coast affected by the Order in Council will not be interfered with, when it is known that they do not carry goods which are contraband of war or goods destined to or proceeding from ports within the belligerent territory affected.
There is no doubt that our Government will insist upon this position—that is an important thing, the exact date of the note is not material. My reason for desiring to have the matter presented to Great Britain at once was not that Germany had any right to ask it, but because I was anxious to make it as easy as possible for Germany to accept the demands of the United States and cease to employ submarines against merchantmen.
There is no reason why any German-Americans should doubt the President's intentions in this matter. I am sure that every one upon reflection recognizes that our duty to prevent loss of life is more urgent than our duty to prevent interference with trade—loss of trade can be compensated for with money, but no settlement that the United States and Germany may reach can call back to life those who went down with the Lusitania—and war would be the most expensive of all settlements because it would enormously add to the number of the dead.
Fourth—I hope that Germany will acquiesce in the demands that have been made, and I hope that she will acquiesce in them without conditions. She can trust the United States to deal justly with her in the consideration of any changes that she may propose in the international rules that govern the taking of prizes. The more generously she acts in this matter the greater will be the glory which she will derive from it. She has raised a question which is now receiving serious consideration, namely, whether the introduction of the submarine necessitates any change in the rules governing the capture of prizes. The position seemingly taken by Germany, namely, that she is entitled to drown noncombatants because they ride with contraband, is an untenable position. The most that she could insist upon is that, in view of the introduction of this new weapon of warfare, new rules should be adopted, separating passengers from objectionable cargo.