There is thus not only the broad question of avoiding war with Germany, whose people have so large a share in the life of America, a war doubly unwelcome at all times because of the innumerable links of science, invention, professional training, of commerce, and of personal friendship; but there is also the local question of peace and good-will in the daily work of America as between huge sections of her population. These visible facts not unnaturally give great weight to the argument for neutrality. No wise man on this side of the Atlantic will try to ignore them, or take exception to the dignity and correctness with which the American Executive has dealt with the grave problem before it.
Neutrality has, of course, its limits and conditions, logical and moral. Those limits and conditions, the possibility of their infringement in such a way as to make some change of policy imperative, are matters solely for the United States.
The point the present writer wishes to press is on a different plane, and is precisely this:
America does not and can not stand wholly apart from supreme European decisions.
America is as responsible as Europe for the great extensions, definitions, the strengthening and modification of international law. America stands forth as the apostle of arbitration, to widen the area within which disputed points may be determined amicably. America stands also as the chief signatory of the great world conventions which have settled new rules for the conduct of war, to mitigate its horrors, especially for non-combatants.
America has taken a noble part in framing machinery for securing peace and justice, and in moving forward the landmarks of civilization as against savagery, and of human mercy as against cruel terrorism.
Can America safely or wisely divest herself of the duty thus placed upon her, logically and morally, by her participation in this, the noblest work of our age?
And is it wise or is it safe to indefinitely postpone the discharge of this duty?
By the events of the last three months the whole of this new charter of humanity has been challenged and is at stake.
Is it not sound policy as well as an imperative duty to take some step here and now to "stop the rot" and to make good here and now as much as we can of what we have won and wish to keep?