網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

1916

THE GERMAN SUBMARINE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

ship (or even a German steamship), had given the occupants of the steamship fifteen minutes to get out into their boats in the open sea, and then had sunk the vessel, this country would have been aflame with indignation. The American people at that time had not been taking counsel of their fears long enough to make them cautious in expressing their anger, nor had they become so familiar with the cold-blooded murder of non-combatants after the German method that anything less brutal seemed actually legal and humane. Now, however, if a submarine captain does not repeat the crime of the Lusitania, Americans are disposed to be thankful. We have to remind ourselves that, according to all the practices of civilized nations heretofore, and also according to the dictates of common decency, a merchant vessel is entitled to be visited and searched by a belligerent naval vessel before the question can be even raised whether she is liable to capture as a prize; that even then only special exigencies justify the war-vessel in sinking her; and then only after the ship's papers and all her passengers and crew are insured protection and safety.

By our Government's inability or disinclination to take any action putting a stop to these practices in the interest of our common civilization we have become accustomed to seeing the practices of piracy adopted as part of the naval policy of Germany and as a regular feature of German submarine warfare. Fortunately, in these recent instances American naval vessels were close at hand and picked up from open boats on the high seas American women and children as well as American men whom the German submarine commander had made castaways. This fact, however, does not lessen the nature of the crime or modify in any degree the fact that by what this German commander did non-combatant lives, including the lives of American citizens, were put in jeopardy. the light of that fact, it is well to remember that President Wilson notified Germany that he would hold her to a strict accountability" for such acts, and would "take any steps it might be necessary to take . . . to secure to American citizens the full accomplishment of their acknowledged rights on the high seas;" that President Wilson told Germany that only resistance or attempted flight on the part of a merchantman could be regarded as any justification for the commander of a submarine "for so much as putting the lives of those on board in jeopardy ;" and that Presi

In

359

dent Wilson told the German Government that the repetition by the commanders of German naval vessels of acts in contravention of these rights must be regarded by the Government of the United States, when they affect American citizens, as deliberately unfriendly."

It is also well to remember that at the beginning President Wilson declared submarine warfare on merchantmen necessarily illegal, and repeated that declaration in the following words last April :

The Government of the United States has been very patient. . . . It has become painfully evident to it that the position which it took at the very outset is inevitable—namely, the use of submarines for the destruction of an enemy's commerce is of necessity, because of the very character of the vessels employed and the very methods of attack which their employment of course involves, utterly incompatible with the principles of humanity, the long-established and incontrovertible rights of neutrals, and the sacred immunities of non-combatants.

All these words have amounted to nothing. They have made the written record of the United States fairly correct, but the outrages which they properly describe and condemn they have done nothing to prevent.

With the appearance of this submarine warfare in American waters no new question of law or of morals arises, but there does arise a new sense of danger, and, we hope, in the minds of most Americans a new sense of responsibility.

If German submarines are going to ply their nefarious trade near American ports with any degree of effectiveness, they will be practically-even if not technically-blockading our ports; they will be menacing our coastwise traffic, for no vessel can enter a zone infested by submarines without running into danger; they will be inviting reprisals by the Allied cruisers which may conceivably be directed by mistake against our own submarines; they will be necessarily dependent upon supplies which can be only obtained either from bases near our shores or from accomplices in the United States--in either case trespassing upon American forbearance; they will be adding a new affront to the United States by making more open and obvious than ever the cool German disregard of American protests.

There is no way to know at present whether Germany's purpose in doing this is merely to raise the spirits of the German people at a time when the fortunes of the

war are evidently going against them; or to make a real effort by a renewal of her most ruthless methods to impair the British prestige at sea and cut off in a measure British supplies; or to take a position from which she can recede at a price which the United States will be called upon to pay by some new humiliation.

Whatever Germany's purpose may be, the real question with the American people is whether this country is too feeble or too inert to offer any actual and effectual resistance; and, if it is too feeble and too inert, whether this people will rouse themselves to secure a government strong enough and active enough to make resistance, in the name and for the sake, not only of the American people, but of civilization.

SHALL WE ABOLISH THE

DEATH PENALTY?

The article on another page entitled "A Function of State" is not agreeable reading. But it is profitable reading. For the citizens of a democratic state never ought to forget that they are responsible for whatever is done in their name and by their authority. The condemned were executed in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of New York. The people are therefore responsible for the execution. We accept our share of that responsibility, and present to our readers our understanding of the question which that responsibility inevitably raises. We do not agree with the statement which Mr. White quotes from Mr. Osborne, that the taking of human life is always a sin. The state has a right to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and property of its citizens. This is not only its right, but its duty; and this duty is to be performed, however painful it may be to tender hearts. If a mob attacks peaceful citizens traveling in a train or a trolley car, it is the duty of the police to disperse the mob and protect the citizens, and, if necessary for this purpose, to shoo, and shoot to kill. If Mexican raiders invade Texas, destroy property, and kill American citizens, it is the duty of the Nation to send soldiers to protect the citizens, and, if necessary, to shoot and kill the assailants. The fact that the loyal policeman or the loyal soldier hazards his life does not make this any less a duty. If it is right to hazard the

life of a loyal guardian to protect the lives of citizens, it is not wrong to take the life of a condemned murderer if peaceable citizens cannot otherwise be adequately protected.

Is capital punishment necessary for the protection of peaceful citizens? If necessary, capital punishment is right. If not necessary, capital punishment is wrong.

The incidents which our correspondent gives of murders perpetrated by gunmen notwithstanding the execution of Becker demonstrate that capital punishment is not a complete protection of peaceful citizens. They do not demonstrate that capital punishment is not necessary for that protection. The execution of Becker has not put an end to murder. No one supposed it would. But there is good reason to believe that his execution has effectively aided the Police Commissioner in putting into the police of New York City a new spirit and making of it a new force.

This it has not done by the deterrent power of fear. The execution of Becker revealed in the generally apathetic people of New York a stern resolve that an officer appointed to protect citizens should not use his power to murder citizens and go unpunished. It appealed not merely, not mainly, to fear; it appealed to the conscience. It was more effectual in awakening in certain classes, perhaps in all classes, an indig nation against certain forms of wrong-doing than either sermons or editorials ever could have awakened. It compelled them to perceive the baseness of an act and of a moral attitude which before they had not thought of as base. It spoke louder than words. The value of capital punishment lies in the fact that it is the deliberate judgment of the community that man may commit a crime so monstrous that he is no longer worthy to live.

The precept," Abhor that which is evil," appeals to the universal conscience. All manly men do abhor that which they see to be evil. That abhorrence will and must find some expression proportioned to the public estimate of the crime committed. When a mob hangs a man guilty of criminal assault upon a woman, the wrath which inspires them is evil, because it is an unregulated and uncontrolled wrath. But it indicates a moral sense superior to apathy and indifference. Mobs execute capital punishment because they can act promptly. while the courts act sluggishly or not at all.

1

1916

"IT IS" VERSUS "IT MAY BE"

To abolish capital punishment and leave the murderers of men and the violators of women to go unpunished or inadequately punished would be either to lower the moral tone of the community or to substitute private for public penalty.

Whether to-day in the State of New York capital punishment is necessary to protect the lives of its peaceable citizens is a fair question for discussion. We do not here discuss it. But the question must be determined by the reason and the conscience, not by sentiment and not by the false assumption that all killing of men is wicked.

In our judgment,

there are other reforms in dealing with criminals which should take precedence of the abolition of the death penalty. Among these reforms are the abolition of what is popularly called "the third degree," provision for more prompt decision by the courts in all criminal cases, and such a modification of the law as will leave the punishment of a convicted murderer to be determined by a tribunal appointed to decide whether his guilt calls for the extremest penalty of the law. all murders involve such guilt, not all mur ́derers have proved themselves by their crime unworthy to live.

Not

"IT IS" VERSUS "IT MAY BE"

The following letter from a citizen of Utah is typical of many which we have received:

As a consistent reader of your periodical and a progressive Republican, it is going to be very hard to vote for President Wilson this fall; but I am told by men who should know that Judge Hughes is catering to the German vote. If this is true, no patriotic American can vote for him. If not too much trouble, would you give me your views on this matter?

It is quite true that most, if not all, of the so-called German-American newspapers in this country are opposing the election of President Wilson and supporting Mr. Hughes. It is also true that the "Courrier des Etats Unis," the well-edited French daily newspaper of New York City, is supporting Mr. Wilson and opposing Mr. Hughes. The Outlook's sympathies are against Germany and with. France in the European war, yet we hope that Mr. Wilson will be defeated and that Mr. Hughes will be elected. On its face this situation is perplexing, to say the least, and we do not wonder that our correspondents are more or less confused. Neverthe

361

less, we think it is susceptible of a clear and, to us at least, convincing explanation.

The pro-Germans in this country at the beginning of the war were passionately eager to have this Nation and this Government take sides with Germany. They supported an active German propaganda. Mr. Wilson from the beginning has advocated a passive, if not a colorless, neutrality. He urged the American people to be neutral not only in act but in thought. He told the great convention in Philadelphia called by the League to Enforce Peace that this country is not concerned in the causes or sources of the war. This spirit of passive neutrality created in the pro-Germans a deep feeling of irritation, because it was in conflict with their own passionate longings.

When the Lusitania was torpedoed, the pro-Germans in this country hailed the act as a heroic and splendid achievement. Mr. Wilson has written a series of notes in which he seems to thousands of Americans to have taken the ground that it was a mistake which Germany ought to apologize for and for which she could atone by a mere disavowal. He has satisfied neither the pro-Germans nor the anti-Germans. In a word, Mr. Wilson has shared the fate of most passive neutrals in the great catastrophic conflict. It is an inviolable law of human nature, demonstrated over and over again in history, that the participants in such a conflict always regard those who are not for them as being against them. Mr. Wilson has been apparently for nobody-neither the French, nor the Germans, nor the Americans who lost their lives on the Lusitania. This, we think, gives the psychological explanation of the fact that so many conflicting groups in this country unite in one thing that is to say, their opposition to the course of the President. The Germans distrust him, the French distrust him, and the Americans who have been stirred to their depths by the murder of their fellowcitizens on the high seas distrust him.

While there are indications that the leaders of the pro-German party in the United States are supporting Mr. Hughes, there is not a scintilla of evidence that he has solicited that support or that he is catering to it. He has said publicly in his speeches that if elected President he will do everything in his power to protect the lives of American citizens at home and abroad. the sinking of the Two of his most

He has referred to Lusitania as ruthless. notable supporters,

Elihu Root and Theodore Roosevelt, have been outspoken in their denunciation of the violation of Belgium and the ruthless submarine warfare of Germany, and Mr. Hughes has publicly approved of what they have said. We cannot deny that we wish that he had been still more outspoken, that he had devoted in his campaign speeches as much time and vigor to the European question as he has to the Mexican problem and to the industrial and economic questions of our domestic life. But, to use President Cleveland's phrase, it is "a condition and not a theory which confronts us" in the present campaign.

The country knows Mr. Wilson's record during two years of the war. His policy has been expressed by one of his supporters, ex-President Eliot, of Harvard College, in the following sentence: "America has now turned its back on the familiar policy of Rome and Great Britain of protecting or avenging their wandering citizens by force of arms, and has set up quite a different policy of her own "-which appears to us to be a policy of passive and vacillating neutrality. The pro-German party in the United States are opposed to this passive neutrality because it is not pro-German, and they are turning to Mr. Hughes, their only alternative, because they are willing to "take a chance;" because they know what Mr. Wilson's policy is, and they have a mistaken hope that Mr. Hughes's

policy may be more pro-German and therefore preferable.

We admit frankly that the pro-German support of Mr. Hughes is distasteful to The Outlook. We are so radically opposed to Schrecklichkeit, to Machtpolitik, to Prussian ideals, to Prussian methods of warfare, and to the Prussian political propaganda which has existed in the United States during the past two years-we believe that this is all so inimical to the principles of democratic freedom in which this country was founded that we regret to have such men as our correspondent feel that Mr. Hughes is yielding in any degree to the Prussian pressure.

But this regret does not in the slightest diminish our support of Mr. Hughes's candidacy. If Mr. Wilson is re-elected, we know what to expect during the next four years. If Mr. Hughes is elected, it is reasonable to expect from his record as an American executive and as an American judge and from his campaign speeches that he will not be a neutral President but an American President. He certainly cannot be less satisfactory than President Wilson in this respect, and he has every opportunity of being very much more satisfactory. We ask our correspondent if, even following the not very inspiring doctrine of chances, it is not wiser to vote for the policy of Mr. Hughes as it may be rather than the policy of President Wilson as it is.

THE MIDDLE WEST AND THE SUBMARINE WAR OFF OUR COAST

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE OF THE OUTLOOK

We print below two telegraphic despatches received in response to The Outlook's request for reports of the reception in the Middle West of the news of the submarine raid on neutral and other merchant vessels close to our coast and by a war-vessel which had just left an American port. The first is from the " Milwaukee Journal,” of which Mr. L. W. Nieman is editor, the second from Mr. H. J. Haskell, of the Kansas City "Star." Both these journals are representative and able and in a position to reflect public sentiment truly, and the writers of the despatches are trained and capable newspaper men.-THE EDITORS.

Most persons are reluctant to talk. Those who do are apprehensive. They do not see how this can go on long without the gravest consequences. This sentiment is well expressed by the Rev. Dr. Paul B. Jenkins, who says: It seems particularly repellent to have the European war brought to our threshold. The American mind will never be reconciled to forms of warfare involving the gravest danger to unarmed non-combatants."

64

Extreme pro-German sentiment is represented by two newspapers. The "Free Press" editorially acclaims the feat as "the forerunner of world deliverance from British sea tyranny." It prophesies that "if these German super-submarines can approximate what the U-53 has done on her first day at the job the British Government will soon be forced to sue for peace." The "Germanic (Continued on page following illustrations)

[merged small][graphic][merged small]

THE NEW JAPANESE PREMIER, COUNT TERAUCHI

The new head of the Japanese Cabinet is essentially a military man, having been Director of the Military Academy, Vice-Chief of the General Staff, Minister of War. and Governor-General of Korea. He is sixty-four years old. See editorial comment

« 上一頁繼續 »