Kindly return the letter to me after reading as I have not replied to
it.32
[Enclosure]
Judge J. M.
Dickinson to the Counselor for the Department of
State (Lansing)
Chicago,
February 6, 1915.
My Dear Mr. Lansing: Recent international
developments are giving very great concern to all thoughtful and
patriotic people. It seems to me that it will be a prudent and safe
course to make a clear, firm and timely declaration in case the
newspaper reports as to the attitude of Germany in respect to
neutral ships shall be confirmed.
A reproduction in the Chicago Tribune today of
editorials from German papers shows clearly that their understanding
is that Germany will proceed to enforce what it calls a blockade by
destruction of ships by means of submarines. This, in the nature of
things, means that there can be no reasonable steps taken in advance
to ascertain the nationality of the ships attacked. The reason for
this course seems to be founded upon the alleged statement that the
British Government has secretly authorized its ships to use the
flags of neutral nations. The paper this morning indicates that our
State Department will inquire into this. It seems to me that this
fact, however it may be, can have no bearing on the question. The
British Government by such a course cannot take away our right to
hold the German Government responsible if it attacks and destroys
the property and lives of Americans under our flag. We probably
would have ground to protest against such action of the British
Government, but such action could not warrant the German Government
in such destruction. It is at most a paper blockade, and is to be
carried out not by stopping and examining ships, and determining
their nationality, or by taking them into a Prize Court where all
questions can be adjudicated, but by destroying them without the
possibility of ascertaining the true nationality.
If any Government should do this under such circumstances, it would
be a wanton and unjustifiable attack, and would call for immediate
action on our part.
My reading and my own observation of personal affairs have led me to
the conclusion that a clear and firm declaration in advance
generally tends to obviate such extreme action as will force a
collision, while on the other hand a failure so to do often brings
about the very thing that we most desire to avoid. In this nations
and individuals are the same, and a timely and explicit warning is
wholesome with both. I have seen many personal difficulties avoided
by taking a clear, firm and just stand in the beginning, and have
seen them brought about because aggressions have advanced slowly,
step by step, and to a point which they would not have reached if
the consequences had been clearly understood.
[Page 197]
Therefore it seems to me that if it shall become clear that Germany
may in the course of events, in pursuance of this policy, destroy
American ships while legitimately under the protection of the
American flag, we should now make a clear and firm declaration as to
what our attitude will be. In my judgment it should be that we will
protect our flag at all hazards.
Now you know I am a Peace man. I say this in the interest of Peace
and as a Peace measure, for I have often seen for the want of such
timely action affairs drift gradually into a condition where drastic
action becomes unavoidable.
We are in a most delicate situation, and it requires not only justice
but firmness to keep us out of complications. We cannot expect,
however just we may be, to escape severe criticism, and that from
people and newspapers of all the belligerents.
The papers report much severe criticism of Secretary Bryan in Germany
and some in England. This cannot be avoided. It is about the best
evidence that the recent position taken by him in his letter was
correct.33 I think it was eminently correct. If it
had pleased one side it would not have stood the test. The fact that
there are those in both England and Germany who severely criticized
it, is no evidence of it being unsound, but is evidence of the
highly excited condition in which those people are. Any neutral that
pursues a just course is bound to excite more or less the antagonism
of both contending parties. You will recall how this was in respect
of the attitude of England during the Civil War. Both the North and
South criticized it. I do not refer to her example then as a proper
one to follow, but merely to illustrate how hard it is for a neutral
country to avoid the hostility of contending parties. Many of them
think that those who are not actively for them are against them.
This is the human nature of the thing, and it often manifests itself
in governmental action. While there is some disposition to make
party capital out of the action of our Government, I believe that
the overwhelming judgment in this country is that the Administration
has acted in the main wisely in our foreign relations, including
those with Mexico. Even those who at one time advocated a more
strenuous attitude toward Mexico now realize that it is fortunate
for our country that in the midst of this great international
turmoil we have not a Mexican war on our hands.
While such a war in and of itself would not be serious, there is no
telling in these complicated conditions what reflex action it might
have and what it might lead to. Therefore we breathe easier because
we have no such war.
[Page 198]
I did not intend to inflict so long a letter upon you but I, in
common with many with whom I talk, am deeply disturbed over the
situation, and am most anxious that we shall not become involved in
any way in this European trouble. I know that the Department of
State has information that the people at large have not, and for
this reason accept and support whatever course it may take as the
wise one, for I am convinced that the Secretary of State is filled
with the utmost desire to maintain our neutrality in all honorable
ways.
With cordial remembrances to Mrs. Lansing and General and Mrs.
Foster, I am [etc.]
