*". >. z?^"^ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 °o 
 
''7sttsr} «E«*^^ r^'^o.'sr 
 
 WASHINGTON'S POLICIES OF 
 NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 BEFORE THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF 
 
 NEW JERSEY, AT MORRISTOWN, N. J. 
 
 ON FEBRUARY 22, 1916 
 
 BY 
 
 HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE 
 
 UNITED STATES SENATOR 
 FROM MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 PRESENTED BY MR. SMITH OF MICHIGAN 
 February 23, 1916. — Ordered to be printed 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1916 
 
 --^"y ' 
 
 "-TT 
 
£•3/3 
 
 D. of De 
 
 MAR 3 1916 
 
WASHLNGTON'S POLiriES OF xNEUTRALITY A^D NATIONAL 
 
 DEFENSE. 
 
 [Afklress of Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge before the Washington Association of New 
 Jersey, at Morristown, N. J., February 22, 1916.] 
 
 4k 
 
 Since the present century came in we- have all become familiar 
 with the agitation which has been carried on for the restoration of 
 popular government in the United States. The radiance and energy 
 of this movement have been a little dimmed lately through the ab- 
 sorption of the public interest in the great war, but it was very con- 
 spicuous before the war began. Just where and wlnni popular gov- 
 (M'nment in the United vStates was lost has never been clearly ex- 
 ))lained, but the method proposed for its restoration was to change — 
 we might almost say destroy — the government which Washington 
 founded and which Lincoln described as "of the people, for the peo- 
 ple, and by the people." When the opinions of Washington and 
 I.incoln on this point were quoted we were told that Lincoln lived 50 
 years ago, and Washington in a period of great antiquity, and that 
 although they were undoubtedly remarkable men in their day they 
 could hardly be compared with the master minds engaged in undoing 
 their work, and, moreover, that everything had altered since they 
 flourished, and that what they thought was, therefore, not now im- 
 portant. This view involves a somewhat wide and far-reaching 
 proposition which, briefly and broadly stated, amounts to saying 
 that there is nothing to be leaj-ned from the past. 
 
 1 have said frequently, and I will venture to say again, that while 
 I am far from thinking that all wisdom died with our forefathei's I am 
 perfectly certain that all wisdom was not born yesterday. The 
 propositions in geometry of a certain Greek named Euclid are still 
 generally accepted, and the fact that they are 2,000 yc^ars old does not 
 appear to impair their validity. The atomic theory put forward by 
 Lucretius in his great poem, and derived by him from the Greeks of 
 a nuu'h earlier time, may or may not be sound, but modern science 
 has not thought it unworthy of consideration. You will indeed find 
 Lucretius quoted on the first page of that very remarkable book, the 
 "Men of the Old Stone Age," just published, by Henry Fairfield 
 Osborn, one of the most eminent and distinguished of the world's 
 scientific men. If this can be said of ancient mathematics and of 
 ancient science, branches of learning where the advances of modern 
 times have been greatest and most rapid, it is much more true of 
 theories of government and society. Any one who will take the 
 trouble to read the politics of Aristotle or the Republic of Plato will 
 discover that there are very few phases of the relations of human 
 beings associated in states and governments which those two great 
 
4 ]s^p:uteaijtv anp national defense. 
 
 intellects had not coiisideied. If wo povsue this subject historically 
 we shall ])e interested to find how very rare any new idea in govern- 
 ment is, and this arises from tlie Fact that tlie chief element in gov- 
 ernment is human nature, which, we may assert with reasonable con- 
 fidence, is as old as humanity itself. Some of the excellent persons 
 who are engaged just now in the admirable work of improving exist- 
 ing conditions are fond of declaring that those who are skeptical 
 about their panaceas have closed their minds against new ideas. I 
 think that in saying this they labor under a misapprehension. That 
 there are minds shut to new ideas and Avhich information can not 
 penetrate is undoubtedly truo, but niinds of this description are found 
 quite as often among those who wish to change and reform every- 
 thing as among those who arc incapable of mov^emeut. 
 
 Every thinking man of any age is disposed, if not eager, to welcome 
 new ideas, but the condition of his doing so is that the idea should 
 be really new as well as beneficial. T have read disquisitions by per- 
 sons who think that every one who disagrees with them is a foe of 
 new ideas and I have been struck very much by the fact that the 
 ideas which they themselves bririg forward witli a great blare of 
 trumpets as something wholly novel and destined to regenerate the 
 world are apt to be very old. They put new dresses on them, they 
 trick them out with i-ibbons, smooth away the wrinkles and touch the 
 pallid faces with red, but they are the same old ideas with a long 
 history of experiments and usually of more or less complete failure 
 behind them. Therefore when we are dealing with (juestions which 
 are not new in the history of man and in which human nature and 
 the capacity of human beings for self-control and seif-goverimient are 
 largely involved, th(^ wisdom of the greatest men of the past, who 
 wej-e called upon to meet these same questions and to deal with 
 identical conditions, is just as valuable to-day as when it was exer- 
 cised in bygone centuries for the benefit of mankind. The fact that 
 Washington had never seen an automobile or a flying machine or 
 received a wireless message does not alter in the least the value of 
 his judgment as to fornis of government or as to the conduct of 
 nations and their relations to each other. Washington was not only 
 a great but a very wise man of large experience who had reflected 
 much upon all these subjects. It fell to him to lead in the establish- 
 ment and organization of a new governmen ' and to determine some 
 of its great policies when it started upon its career. He then laid 
 down certain fundamental doctrines, from some of which we have 
 never swerved. He was the greatest man of his time; he was im- 
 mensely successful in the work which he was called upon to do, and 1 
 think that from his calm wisdom we all, yes, even the youngest and 
 wisest among us, can learn much to-day. The country has never 
 suffered hitherto from following Washington's leadership and counsel, 
 whether in his own lifetiiiK^ or since. In dealing with questions 
 where the underlying conditions, like human nature and international 
 relations, are in their essence constant, I do not think we shall 
 gravely err if we consider his advice to-day, and I think that in many 
 directions it is just as applicable now as when he was President of the 
 United States. 
 
 I do not intend to say anything of Washington's great services in 
 bringing about the adoption of the Constitution or as to his general 
 views of government. My purpose is merely to discuss briefly, first, 
 the policy he adopted in our foreign relations under circumstances 
 
NEUTKALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 5 
 
 which have nj.uch I'esembhincc to those which confront us to-day, and, 
 second, a certain general rule which he laid down as essential in its 
 observance to our safety and existence as a nation. Washington's 
 accession to the Presidency was coincident with the beginning of the 
 French Revolution, and before his first term had ended that revo- 
 lution had brought on a general war in Euro])e. It became necessary, 
 therefore, to determine what the attitude of the United States should 
 be in the perilous conditions thus created. The difficulties of the 
 situation were nuich enhanced by the fact that with France, one of 
 the chief belligerents, we had a treaty of alliance and we were also 
 bound to her by a strong sense of gratitude and a very real sympathy. 
 Nevertheless, Washington, after careful consideration and full dis- 
 cussion with his Cabinet, determined upon a policy of strict neutrality 
 and, on April 22, 1793, issued his famous neutrality proclamation. 
 This action was by no means so easy or so obvious as it is to-day. 
 We had just emerged from the colonial condition and for 100 years 
 our peace had been involved in the peace of Europe. War in Europe 
 had hitherto always meant war for the American Colonies. As 
 Macaulay says in his essay upon "Frederic the Great": 
 
 The evils produced by his wickedness were felt in lands where the name of Prussia 
 was unknown; and in order that he might rob a neighl)or whom he had promised to 
 defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel and red men scalped each other 
 by the Great Lakes of North America. 
 
 Thus it came to pass inevitably that the people of the United 
 States had not in 1793 grasped the idea, since habits of thought change 
 very slowly, that there could be a general war in Europe from which 
 they were to hold themselves entirely aloof. 
 
 The situation was further complicated, as I have just said, by the 
 general, intense, and very natural sympathy with 1 ranee. Xot only 
 had France been our all}' and helped us to win our independence, 
 but since then the French, following our example, had turned from 
 a despotic monarchy to a democracy. The inevitable feeling among 
 the masses of the people was that we ought to be fighting on the 
 side of l^ ranee and against Great Britain, vvith whom we had })een 
 so recently at war. The policy of neutrality, therefore, was far from 
 popular, but Washington was determined not only to keep the country 
 at peace but to separate it once for all from the old idea that wars 
 in Europe necessarily involved the American people. The policy 
 he then laid down, and which he reiterated in his i^ arewell Address, 
 has been the policy of the United States ever since. The Monroe 
 doctrine of 30 years later was a mere coroUarj- and extension of 
 Washington's pro]:>osition that our interests and oiir future were 
 dilTerent from those of the nations of Europe and demanded our 
 separation from them. It all seems very simple now, but it was 
 anything but simple then, and the declaration of neutrality was only 
 the first step upon a path beset with difhcidties and dangers. Wash- 
 ington was not a phrase maker. T\1ien, after deep and anxious 
 consideration, he laid down the policy of neutrality he did so with 
 the complete determination to carry it out rigidly. When he declared 
 the country to be neutral he meant that it realty should be a neutral 
 and in that capacity slionld not onh' hisist on evc^ry neutral right 
 but should iilso i^eriorm all neutral duties. The ]>olicy was soon 
 brought to a sharp test ])y the acts of Genet, minister of the French 
 Republic, who endeavored in various ways to use the T aiited States 
 as a base of supplies for naval operations against England. Wash- 
 
6 N^EUTEALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 
 
 ington endured Genet's performances, with the large patience so 
 characteristic of him always, until a point was reached when for- 
 bearance ceased to be a virtue and inaction would have made the 
 policy of neutrality seem at once false and a])surd. lie therefore 
 demanded Genet's recall. 
 
 In this action in regard to Genet, Washmgton was fulfilling the 
 duties of a neutral. Let us now see how he dealt with a great c^ues- 
 tion of neutral rights. The question arose as to the export of arms 
 and munitions of war and their sale to belligerents. Washuigton 
 himself made no specific utterance, but he spoke through his admin- 
 istration. On the 15th of May, 1793, shortly after the proclamation 
 of neutrality, Mr. elefferson, then Secretary ot State, wrote as follows 
 to the British minister : 
 
 Our citizens have been always free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the 
 constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the 
 only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant 
 countries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It would be 
 hard in principle and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respect- 
 ing the rights of those at peace, does not reqviire from them such an internal disarrange- 
 ment of their occupations. It is satisfied \vith the external penalty pronounced in 
 the President's proclamation, that of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall 
 fall into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on their way to the ports' of their 
 enemies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they will be abandoned, and 
 that even private contraventions may work no inequality between the parties at war, 
 the benefit of them will be left equally free and open to all. 
 
 On August 4 of the same year Hamilton, in a Treasury circular, 
 stated the same proposition in his owai concise and lucid way : 
 
 The purchasing within and exporting from the United States, by way of merchan- 
 dise, articles commonly called contraband, being generally warlike instruments and 
 military stores, is free to all the parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. 
 
 Hamilton had a large part in framing the neutrality policy and, Uke 
 Jefferson, he expressed the views of the President and of the admin- 
 istration. At a later date, in 1796, Mr. Lee, the Attorney General, 
 again expressed the opinion of the administration as to the purchase 
 of arms and munitions of war from a neutral. He said: 
 
 Belligerents may come into the territory of a neutral nation and there purchase and 
 remove any article whatsoever, even munitions of war, unless the right be denied by 
 express statute. If, however, the object of such an act be to impede the operations of 
 either belligerent power and to favor the other it is a violation of neutrality. 
 
 At about the same time, on the 25th of May, 1796, Timothy Pick- 
 ering, then Secretary of State, in reply to Mr. Adet, who had pro- 
 tested against the sale of contraband of war to Great Britain, again 
 stated the views of Washington's administration in the following 
 language ; 
 
 In both the sections cited (110 and 113, Vattel) the right of neutrals to trade in arti- 
 cles contraband of war is clearly established; in the first, by selling to the warring 
 powers who come to the neutral country to buy them; in the second, by the neutral 
 subjects or citizens carrying them to the countries of the powers at war and there 
 selling them. 
 
 Nothing could be clearer, as these citations show, than the view of 
 Washington's administration and of Hamilton and Jefferson as to the 
 undoubted right of the citizens or subjects of a neutral power to sell 
 arms and other munitions of war at their own risk to belligerents. 
 The doctrine and the policy thus laid down by Washington's adminis- 
 tration have been strictly adhered to by the United States from that 
 day to this. Chancellor Kent, whose authority is the very highest, 
 says in his Commentaries (1 Kent's Comm. 142) : 
 
NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 7 
 
 It was contended on the part of the French Nation, in 1796, that neutral governments 
 were bound to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of 
 war to the belligerent powers. But it was successfully shown, on the part of the 
 United States, that neutrals may lawfully sell, at home, to a belligerent purchaser, 
 or carry, themselves, to the belligerent powers, contraband articles subject to the 
 right of seizure in transitu. This right has since been explicitly declared by the judi- 
 cial authorities of this country. The right of the neutral to transport, and of the 
 hostile power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the other 
 with a criminal act. 
 
 Tlie case referred to by Chancellor Kent was the Santissima 
 Trinidad (7th Wheaton, 283). Judge Story, hi deliverhig the 
 opuiion of the court, said : 
 
 But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens 
 from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It 
 is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohilDit: and which only 
 exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the position taken by the Washington 
 administration has been sustained by the Supreme Court and by the 
 great authority of Chancellor Kent. It has been the unbroken 
 policy of our Government ever since Washington declared it. It is 
 the American doctrine, and this American doctrine as to the export 
 of arms and munitions of war from a neutral country was embodied 
 in Article VII of the Hague Convention, which says : 
 
 A neutral power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of 
 one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything 
 which can be of use to an army or a fleet. 
 
 When Genet was recalled and this position was taken as to the ex- 
 port of arms and munitions of war our new Govermnent had just been 
 established; its success was uncertam. We were poor and stiQ strug- 
 gling with the burdens left by the Revolution. With a large portion of 
 the American people any act unfavorable to France was extremely un- 
 popular, but Washington did not hesitate. He had declared the coun- 
 try to be neutral and he meant it to be so. To Washington nothing 
 was more re^mlsive than bluster or fine language or la,rge phrases which 
 sounded well a nd meant nothing. His words were simple but the deed 
 was always Ix^hind the words. He had measured accurately all the 
 responsil)ilities which the policy of neutrality can-ied with it. He 
 knew what he meant to do and when the time came to enforce 
 neutrality, vmdicate tiie honor of the country and support its dec- 
 larations^ he did not hesitate. He undoubtedly regretted that the 
 people of the United States did not aU understand the cpiestion and 
 feel about it as he did, but groups of dissatisfied voters had no terrors 
 for him when he had made up his mind to the performance of a great 
 duty, as he conceived it. He succeeded in steering the new-bom 
 nation of which he was the head through the raging seas of the wars 
 succeeding the l^rench Revolution. Under his successor it became 
 necessar^^to face one of the belligerents in arms, gomg to the very 
 verge of declared war, but the Government did not falter and peace 
 was the result. I have not attempted to enter mto the details of 
 Washington's neutrality policy. They may be read in all om' 
 histories and may, I think, be studied with advantage at this moment. 
 My sole purpose was to call attention to the policy which Washington 
 then laid down of separating the United States from the policies of 
 Europe and estaljlishing in this respect a system of our own and 
 especially to emphasize the manner in which he enforced neutrality 
 both in its rights and its duties. The other important point to be 
 
8 NEUTEALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 
 
 remembered is that when he aiinouneed that pohcy and fomided 
 that system he did it with a full realization of its dangers and diffi- 
 culties and with a complete intention of carrying it out. He was 
 emphatically a man of action, and he never came to a momentous 
 decision, either m peace or war, where he was not prepared to act 
 as circumstances demanded. When we celebrate Washington's 
 Birthday it is well that we should consider what he did and see 
 whether from his grave wisdom and his perfect courage there are 
 not lessons to be learned, and whether he does not of?er an example 
 to l)e followed, for wisdom, courage, and ])ure ])atriotism can never 
 be out of fashion. 
 
 Tlie other great ])olicy of Washington which seems to have most 
 immediate connection with our own times was set forth at the very 
 beginnmg of his administration, and was by him regarded as essential 
 to the safety, the success, and the future of the I'nited States. In 
 his speech to the Congress on the 8th of January, 1790, he said: 
 
 f 
 
 Among the many interesting ol)jects which will engage your attention, that o 
 
 providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared fo^ 
 war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. 
 
 A free people ought not only to l)e armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform 
 and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they 
 should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others 
 for essential, particularly military, supplies. 
 
 ""^In this message occurs the sentence, so often quoted, that to be 
 prepared for war is one of the most ef!:ectual means of preserving 
 peace. It ought always to be read with the succeeding sentence, 
 which is not constantly quoted, but which is of almost equal weight 
 and value, now as then. We sliould never forget that Washmgton 
 laid it down as a fundamental rule that "a free people ought not 
 only to be armed, but disciplined." He demanded a well digested 
 plan of defense and ample provision for the manufacture of muni- 
 tions of war by "promoting such manufacture."' He saw nothing 
 incompati])le with a love of peace in preparation for war. On the 
 contrary, he knew that sucli love could never be gratified except 
 by intelligent and large preparation for war in defense of the country. 
 The democracy of Wasliington was not to buy its way to safety by 
 gold, still less by the surrender of its rights, Imt was to assure and 
 make real its ideal of peace by "arms and discipline." 
 Again, on December 3, 1793, he said to Congress: 
 
 '' If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure 
 peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known 
 that we are at all times ready for war. 
 
 "^ "If we desire to re]3el insidf; how strange that must sound in 
 certain ears to-day. There is no nobler figure, no liner character in 
 history than George Washington, and he believed that an independ- 
 ent nation ought to be ready to repel insult. Noisy voices of 
 late years have scoffed and scorned "national honor." Washington 
 was as sensitive about his nation's honor as about his own. He was 
 right about many things. Perha])s he was right about this. Who 
 knows ? There are many views about the conduct of life. This was 
 the view of Washington. Then he re})eats that readiness for war is 
 the security of peace. The thought indeed was often in his minp 
 and in varying forms was expressed by him in liis letters. It was 
 not a new thought, of which Washington himself was no doubt quite 
 aware. 
 
NEUTEALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 9 
 
 / Indeed, if you will turn to your "Familiar Quotations" you will 
 pee that Horace said: t 
 
 In pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello, 
 
 and when Horace wrote his terse line he simply expressed what was prob- 
 ably a commonplace in the days of Augustus. But the fact that the 
 doctrine represented the general opinion of the wisest men of aU times 
 only adds weight to Washington's advice. We have followed Wash- 
 ington's counsels in many directions, but never in this one, and we 
 have paid heavily in the past for not doing so.- In the War of 1812 
 we raised, first and la^t and in various ways, half a mdlion of men, 
 largely untrained and unprepared, and yet a smaU body of British 
 regulars marched almost unopposed to the city of Washington and 
 burned the Capitol. In the same war, although we had no sufficient 
 Navy, we won a series of remarkable frigate victories, as well as the 
 actions on the Lakes, because our little force, such as it was, was of 
 the very best, well officered, well manned, and thorouglily prepared. 
 Wliat the utter absence of preparation cost the United States at the 
 time of the Civil War it is impossible even to guess, but if in 1861 
 we had possessed a well-equipped Regular Army of 100,000 men, there 
 are good judges who think that the Civil War would have been checked 
 at its very inception. 
 
 The vital, hving interest in Washington's declaration is that it meets 
 so exactly the opposition to pro])er national defense which we are 
 encountering to-day. The chief argument of the extreme pacificists 
 is that a well-prepared national defense is an incentive to war. 
 This Washington regarded as false. He puts his demand for pre- 
 paredness on the ground that it will preserve peace, and no man 
 ever lived more anxious for the preservation of peace than George 
 Washington. It was the cardinal policy of his administration. 
 He believed profoundly that the success of the new Government 
 depended on the maintenance of peace. He felt that time must 
 be given for the cement which held the fabric of the United States 
 togetlier to harden. He knew, no one better, how frail the bonds 
 were when the great experiment of a Union of States under one gov- 
 ernment was attempted. He knew our weaknesses; no one so well. 
 He had led us through seven years of war to victor}- and independ- 
 ence, and he knew by the bitterest experience that one of the greatest 
 obstacles which he had to meet in that long and trying conflict was 
 the utter inefficiency of the Congress in dealing with the war. He 
 had suffered from their refusal to do what was necessary. He had 
 not forgotten that on the very eve of Yorktown, when the final 
 victory was just coming within his gi'asp. Congress had proposed to 
 reduce the Army. No man could have been more convinced than 
 he of the need of peace for the United States after the adoption of the 
 Constitution. To preserve that peace he sacrificed the French alli- 
 ance in order to make a treaty with England which dispelled the 
 danger of war and brought about the withdrawal of the British from 
 the western posts, thus removing a constant menace and opening the 
 gates to the westward movement of the American people. Yet this 
 devoted friend and upholder of peace, who had made such sacrifices 
 and incurred so much unpopularity in maintaining it, told his people 
 with grave emphasis that preparation for war was the surest way of 
 preserving peace. He knew that nothing was more shallow than the 
 argument that the possession of an ample national defense was an 
 
10 NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 
 
 incentive to war. He was certain that it was just the reverse. He 
 knew that armaments in themselves did not mean peace or war, but 
 that it was the purpose of the armament which determined its results. 
 
 No man understood more thoroughly than Washington that arma- 
 ments designed for conquest were a meaus of conquest, and that 
 armaments designed purely for national defense were the greatest 
 assurance of peace. To his clear mind, free from all illusions and 
 looking facts straight in the face, it was plain beyond dispute that 
 a weak and undefended nation offered a temptation to other nations 
 fulJy armed and seeking the spoils of war. Therefore this great lover of 
 peace wished to assure peace, so far as it could be assured, by thorough 
 preparation for a national defense which would be notice to all the 
 world that we could not be attacked with impunity. In those daj^s 
 we were weak and poor; now we are rich and powerful, with a great 
 population, but our vast m.aterial prosperity makes us, when unde- 
 fended, more tempting to attack than ever before in our history. 
 
 We celebrate annually the birthday of Washington that we may 
 do honor not only to him for what he did, but for what he was. If 
 we really honor his memory we must not disregard his counsels. 
 That pure patriotism, that broad outlook upon life, that grave wis- 
 dom, should be just as powerful with us to-day as when he took the 
 Presidency of the United States. From neglecting his advice as to 
 national defense we have sufl'cred sorely in the past. Never in our 
 history was that advice more pertinent than at this moment. We 
 shall do well to follow the counsels of Washington rather than the 
 unthinking babble of those who dwell in a world of illusions, and, 
 unlike Washington, have never in their lives looked facts in the face 
 and never have wandered beyond the range of police protection. 
 
 The people who mistake the frail conventions of civilization for 
 the realities of human existence, who wholly fail to realize that domes- 
 tic peace and law and order rest on the organized force of the com- 
 munity are dangerous guides to trust or follow. They are like chil- 
 dren playing on the glittering surface of a frozen river, unconscious 
 of the waters beneath. They seem incapable of comprehending 
 that when the ice goes all that holds the stream then rising in flood 
 are the bridges and embankments which the power of man has erected. 
 They are blind to the fact that if the dikes, which represent the force 
 of the community, ])etrayed and weakened by neglect, shall break, the 
 dark and rushing waves of the fierce torrent of human passions, of 
 lawlessness, violence, and crime will sweep ov^er the fair fields 
 reclaimed by the slow labors of civilization and leave desolation and 
 ruin in their track. With them the wise words of Hoi ace — wise 
 despite the fact that he lived 2,000 years ago — fall upon deaf ears. 
 I will venture to quote them: 
 
 Jura inventa'metu injusti fateare necesse est, 
 Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mundi. 
 
 They would do well to come out from the mists of large language 
 in which they wander and learn from history", as Horace had learned, 
 that most rights are the creation and offspring of prevented wrongs, 
 and then sit down and consider just what that fact means. It is a 
 fact well worthy of thought, for it lies deep at the very roots of things. 
 Whence came ''rights," as we call them ? They are not natural forces 
 like the tides of the ocean or the mysterious electric currents which 
 glide invisible al)0ut this pendent world. They are not born with us 
 like the color of our eyes or the shape of our skulls. They are the 
 
NEUTEALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 11 
 
 work of man. Consider a moment. Eacli of us has the right to pass 
 along the road unmolested. It was not always so. In distant days 
 a man could only go up and down on the earth if physically able to 
 protect himself. In the slow process of the years the community 
 stepped in and declared that interference with an hinocent traveler 
 was a wTong and must be prevented. The wTong prevented, the 
 right came. Let the advocates of peace at any price, let the pacifists, 
 consider this. Force, and force alone, gives to them, as to aU of 
 us, the right of free speech. Withdraw the force that prevents the 
 wTong and the right would disappear. It rests on the prevention of 
 wrong and nothing else. As it is with the rights of the individual, 
 so it is vnth the rights of nations. Fail in preparing the force to pre- 
 vent wrong, invasion, and outrage and the right of the nation to 
 ])eace and security, to live its own life and work out its own destiny, 
 woidd vanish like the mists of the morning before the rising sun. 
 
 It has apparently become a commendable fashion of late to q[uote 
 from the Bible hi this discussion of national defense. Let me imitate, 
 in connection with the behevers in an improtected peace bought at 
 any price, those who have called our attention to Ezekiel and ask you 
 to recall the words of the prophet Jeremiah: 
 
 Tlien said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, the prophets say iiiito them, Ye shall not see 
 the sword, neither shall ye have famine; hut I will give yon assured peace in this 
 place. 
 
 Then the. Lord said unto me, The prophets' prophesy lies in my name; I sent them 
 not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake I unto them; they prophesy 
 unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their 
 heart. 
 
 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, 
 and I sent them not, yet they say. Sword and famine shall not be in this land; by 
 sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. 
 
 There is, however, much more here than the concrete question of 
 national defense, vital as that c{uestion is. The opposition of those 
 who, like Washington, would have the Nation's defense always ready 
 and prepared, to those who directly or indirectly resist any such prep- 
 aration, involves a complete and radical difference as to the true 
 conception of life and dut}^. When I was a boy we used to declaim 
 at school a speech which ended in this way: 
 
 Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? 
 Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, 
 give me liberty or give me deatli. 
 
 I dare say that boys are no longer permitted to recite that speech 
 or simdry others by the same orator; that they may be regarded in 
 certain quarters as containing improper ideas for a child to acquire. 
 They certainly would not harmonize with the lofty and inspiring 
 aspirations of those who like the song, "I did not raise my boy to be 
 a soldier." But hi my day the thought and the sentiment which 
 Patrick Henry expressed with stormy eloquence were accepted as 
 truisms, as declarations of duty which no one questioned. We also 
 used to recite a speech which ran in this way: 
 
 How beautiful is death, when earned by virtue! 
 WTio would not be that youth? What pity is it 
 That we can die but once to serve our country! 
 WTiy sits this sadness on your brows my friends?, 
 I should have blushed if Cato's house had stood 
 Secure, and flourished in a civil war. 
 Fortius, behold thy brother, and remember 
 Thy life is not thine own, when Rome demands it. 
 
12 IS'EUTKALITY AND JSJAIIOJSAL DEiEASE. 
 
 That was the eighteenth century conception of life and duty, as 
 expressed by Addison, and it was the conception of Washington. 
 That same conception of life and duty came down unbroken to the 
 time of the Civil War. That which the schoolboys declaimed the 
 men who saved the Union put into action. This conception, held 
 by Washington and Lincoln and by the men both North and South, 
 who died in battle, was a very simple one. It was merely that there 
 was something more precious than life, comfort, safety, money 
 making, prosperity. It probably never dawned on the mind of 
 Washmgton that anyone but a coward could question that there 
 were certain duties to the country, to right and to humanity, which 
 made the brief life which is here our portion as dust in the balance. 
 I have no doubt that, once awakened, this same conception would 
 be dominant amon^ the American people now as it always has been 
 in the past and as it is at this moment with the nations across the 
 water who are fighting for national existence, for aU that they hold 
 dearer than life. But the other doctrine, that the short and uncer- 
 tain life which is given to us on earth is to be preserved at all hazards, 
 even if its preservation involves becoming a tributary and subject 
 nation, and that there is nothmg for which life and comfort ought 
 to be sacrificed, is widely and loudly preached. 
 
 To the proclamation of this doctrine great millionaires who think 
 the accumulation of money is the chief end of man, have given 
 uncounted sums. It is a doctrine which, if successful, would destroy 
 the soul of any people and would turn them into helpless degenerates, 
 the ready victims of stronger and more manly races. Every sen- 
 sible man, every humane man and woman hates war and, alas, we 
 know only too well what the horrors of war are. We all wish peace 
 to be maintamed. We earnestly desire to see international law 
 restored and enforced, but that is a very different thing from the 
 acceptance of the doctrine that there is nothing for which life should 
 be sacrificed. Between the conception of life which puts money and 
 personal, physical safety first, and the conception of life held by 
 Washington and Lincoln and those whom they led, which put freedom, 
 honor, and self-respect fu'st, the choice must be made. The great- 
 ness of a people is to be found not m the amount of money which 
 can be accumulated, or in the ease and softness which can be wrapped 
 about life, but m what a people stands for in morals and in char- 
 acter. On this day of all others it seems to me that we should re- 
 member the conception of life and duty held by Washington. The 
 men of his day who were for peace at any price franldy because they 
 were afraid and cared more for money than aught else are forgotten, 
 but the name of Washington is enshrmed and reverenced in the 
 memory of all nations. Let us not depart from his teachings or froni" 
 his high conception of man's duty and the conduct of life. Let us 
 apply that conception now and put it into action without fear orj 
 favor. 
 
 O 
 
B9 
 
'■> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^'% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ --- .,/ \.'^^'/ ^^/^.^\/ "v^^^-'a^ 
 
 
 -f-. 
 
 .^-^ . 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 .v^ 
 
 
 ' "^ A^ 
 

 
 " '^ a'*