Now to prohibit and prevent the shipment of munitions of war by an affirmative act on our part, at the behest and for the exclusive benefit of one of the countries now at war, without the consent of the nations adversely affected thereby, would be a violation of international law and would constitute a breach of neutrality on our part which would be indefensible from the standpoint of good faith and good friendship to all on our part. Now it must be remembered that the United States government is not engaged in the shipment of munitions of war to other countries. A good many misguided and uninformed people have been led to believe that this country as a nation is thus engaged. It is true, that citizens of this country as a matter of business are engaged in manufacturing and selling to individuals, from whatever country they may come, munitions of war, as citizens of Germany, Austria, and other belligerent countries have done since time immemorial. President Wilson has not approved such shipments. It is entirely probable that, from a moral standpoint, he abhors the manufacture and sale of instruments and commodities to be used in the slaughter of human beings. He is a man of peace, and, if he had his way, wars in the future would be an impossibility.
But, as President of the United States,—a country which is in no sense responsible for this war—a country whose sole and passionate desire is to keep out of this conflict—Woodrow Wilson must execute the laws as he finds them and must maintain the neutrality of this country in accordance with the law of nations. This he has done patiently, persistently, and consistently, notwithstanding that blind and bitter partisanship, now on one side, now on the other, has done its best to shove him off his balance.
Permit me to say that you, and men like you, and newspapers publishing like articles commit a base and cruel slander on the President and on your country when you state otherwise. This country, of all the countries of the world, has kept its obligations and its poise.
In war-maddened Europe both England and Germany have attempted to annul the law to suit the exigencies of the moment. Our country, however, has contended, and, clearly within its rights, has demanded the observance of the law of nations and has refused to recognize the right of the warring nations to annul or to amend the same to our damage or in derogation of our rights.
How, then, in view of these facts, could we hold belligerents to their lawful duties if we were at the same time to violate the law and put ourselves in the same class with them. But this is what you and other critics ask this country to do. It is clear that you do not want this country to be neutral; you want it to take an affirmative and active part by governmental action to help one country and hurt another. Your and my government is endeavoring to maintain the status quo of a real neutrality. Those who are responsible for this movement which you approve of are endeavoring to shake and disturb it. Those who complain of our want of neutrality are complaining only because we have not become an ally of the country they favor.
If we listened to the insidious demands made by these countries that would have us violate our lawful obligation to respect the law of nations by affirmatively aiding and assisting their side, would we not be stopped from demanding reparation for the misconduct of the other countries who have been prejudiced by our unlawful and unneutral act? And would not such a flagrant breach of international obligation on our part justify reprisals against us, or worse than that, probably eventuate in a war with those countries who would thus be unlawfully and unfairly prejudiced by our act?
These countries who would have us place an embargo on arms and munitions with an eye solely to their advantage might well favor an act on our part which would plunge us into war with their enemies and thus make us their own ally. From the standpoint of their own material advantage, and
owing this country no duty whatever, it is easy to understand the motive back of their wishes.
But what motive, I ask, prompts you or any other American citizen who, owing a duty only to this country, should have in mind at all times primarily the welfare of his own country, to aid and promote a foreign propaganda, which has for its object and end the plunging of this country into war with one side or the other.
I say I acquit you of any base motive and can only believe that your utterances and your actions are the result of a want of information and understanding and not a willful desire on your part to injure the country which you are bound to support.