763.72/1606½
Memorandum by the Counselor for the Department of State (Lansing) of an Interview With Mr. Samuel K. Ratcliffe, March 25, 1915
Samuel K. Ratcliffe is a prominent journalist of London and came with a letter of introduction from Louis F. Post.
Mr. Ratcliffe stated that, with Lord Bryce, Arthur Ponsonby, M. P., and others who were in frequent conferences, he was deeply interested in the attitude of the American and British peoples toward each other in the present situation, and that he had come to this country the latter part of January to get into personal touch with American sentiment.
He said there had been a very wide-spread change of public opinion in Great Britain toward the United States, that in fact it was almost universal, and included professional men as well as those engaged in trade. The attitude of the British public from the beginning of the war, he said, had been most friendly up to the time of the receipt of our “contraband note” of December 26th,63 as there was a general belief that the sympathies of the American people were [Page 292] strongly with the Allies in their struggle, but that the note had had the effect of changing that belief and that the average man in Great Britain felt that American sympathy was measured by selfish interests and that the people of this country would take the side which offered them material benefit in the way of trade.
I replied to him that he must know from having come in touch with many people here that such an idea was entirely unwarranted, and that the American people were not allowing their sympathies in the war to be controlled by their pocket books.
He said that of course he realized this, but that it would be most difficult to convince the British public of the truth of it; that the conviction was increasing on account of the diplomatic representations which the United States had made, and which appeared to be protests adverse to the military necessities of Great Britain, and in favor of Americans who sought profit only out of the situation.
I answered him that so far as appearances went I was not disposed to blame the British public, but that I did blame the press of Great Britain for taking such a position, and I also blamed the British journalists, who knew the facts, from [for] not trying to correct this erroneous impression.
He asked me why I said that.
I replied that every thinking man must realize that the only controversies between the United States and Great Britain must be over questions relating to commerce and trade; that naturally it was considered by the unthinking as matters of profit and loss solely, but that they went much further than that involving the whole subject of neutral rights; that the drastic measures which had been adopted by the British Government, whether justified by necessity or not, certainly infringed the rights of neutrals as recognized by international law; and that for the sake of neutrals in the future, of which Great Britain would probably be one, it was most desirable for this country to assert such rights.
Mr. Ratcliffe replied that he appreciated the importance of the United States doing this, but he wondered if it could not be done in such a way as not to give the impression that materialistic interests were the motives which inspired the action.
I asked him if he had any practical suggestion as to how this might be done.
He said that he had not, but he thought that it was possible to do so.
I said that it seemed to me that this course had been followed thus far in the correspondence, and that I had no reason to expect any change by this Government. I was afraid, however, that, if the friendly and considerate way in which the United States had dealt with the subject, was not appreciated by the British public, nothing [Page 293] could change their opinion that we only thought of the dollars and cents at stake.
He replied that he fully appreciated the friendly tone used by this Government, as did his associates in England; the trouble was that the general public could not understand the protests, which seemed to be directed against measures of vital importance to Great Britain in its struggle with Germany; that to the British public they seemed cold-blooded and unsympathetic and contrary to what they expected from their own flesh and blood. He said, that of course he considered them all wrong about it, and entirely unreasonable, but that it was nevertheless a fact.
I said that the remedy to my mind lay with the press and the men who moulded public opinion in Great Britain; that they should show that the United States could not do otherwise than assert its rights as a neutral, that the rights affected were those which pertained to commerce, and, therefore, to financial interests, and that the assertion of rights was no criterion of public sentiment in this country, but a necessary policy for a government which looked to the future, a policy which Great Britain might after the war be very glad that this Government adopted.
Mr. Ratcliffe said that he would do all that he could to remove the ill-feeling which prevailed in Great Britain, and that he knew that American sentiment was largely in favor of the Allies, but that the British public under the intense emotions aroused by the war would be hard to convince. He, however, hoped for the best.