509 
 .S65 
 Copy 1 
 
 >EECHES by 
 
 DR, ERNEST FLAGG HENDERSON 
 PROF. M. J. BONN 
 HON. CHARLES NAGEL 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 BY 
 
 Dr.ERNESTFLAGG HENDERSON 
 
 <</-» »» 
 
 on Lrermany 
 
 Prof. M. J. BONN 
 
 on 'international U naerstanaing ana 
 International Cjo-ofteration 
 
 Hon. CHARLES NAGEL 
 
 on "'"Present UJ ay Issues 
 
 Delivered before the German University League at its 
 
 Anniversary Meeting at the Astor Gallery, 
 
 Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, 
 
 October 30th, 1915 
 
 INTRODUCTIONS BY 
 
 Prof. WILLIAM R. SHEPHERD 
 
 OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
^. CL. < ft ULl 
 
 
 / to 
 
Professor Shepherd. 
 
 Members of the German University League and Friends: 
 
 It is not so very long ago that I served as toastmaster at a festive gather- 
 ing, the subject for discussion being "Neutrality." There and then I remarked 
 that, as a professor of history, I felt that, since the facts underlying this war 
 had not yet been sufficiently ascertained, it would be wise to suspend one's 
 judgment. That observation was quoted in a certain magazine, the editor of 
 which declared that, in his opinion, what I had said was a good definition 
 of a historian, namely, a person who thinks that nothing should be said 
 about anything until a hundred years after everybody concerned is dead, includ- 
 ing the historian himself, who had been dead all the time! 
 
 It so happens that the three speakers whom we are privileged to hear this 
 evening, and your toastmaster also, have been students at German universities. 
 All of them, furthermore, are, or have been, professors. Those of you who 
 recall German history will remember the days of 1848 when so many profes- 
 sors were active in framing a new constitution for the Fatherland. Perhaps 
 it was not without foreboding that their critics may have cried: "Jetzt ist 
 das Vaterland verloren-mit hundert fiinfzig Professoren! " Now you are 
 going to listen only to four. 
 
 It is one thing to be an instructor actually engaged in the task of uplifting 
 the young; it is quite another to dwell on the mountain tops of New Hamp- 
 shire, occupying a point of vantage, from which, as scholar and philosopher, it 
 is possible to gaze at the world from a broad angle of vision. The gentleman 
 from that region who is about to address you is renowned for his many 
 contributions to our knowledge of history. Chief among them is what he 
 calls "A Short History of Germany." It consists of two volumes, containing 
 988 pages and 335,000 words! Though it is not exactly short, it is an 
 exceedingly good history. I hope that its distinguished author may make 
 it "shorter" still by adding to it! Having studied in the land of efficiency, 
 he will now tell of what he has seen and heard and experienced there. It is 
 my privilege to present to you Dr. Ernest F. Henderson. 
 
Dr. Henderson 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 It was with pleasure that I accepted the invitation to speak before the 
 German University League, and for the following reason: In these days when 
 German civilization, Deutsche Kultur, is the butt of senseless attacks and 
 ignorant gibes, it is the special duty of us former students and graduates of 
 German universities not to keep silent. I should feel myself a traitor to the 
 University of Berlin, where I passed some of the happiest years of my life, were 
 I to ignore such an invitation as this. I shall be happy if I can contribute 
 even in the smallest degree to spreading the knowledge of what that Kultur 
 really is and what it has accomplished. And I do not fear in the least that 
 by so doing I shall sacrifice the future, either of myself or of my children, as 
 one at least of our prominent educators seems to think will inevitably be the 
 case with those who speak for Germany. It is a poor Americanism that tries 
 to down the free expression of opinion by such a threat as this, and I for one 
 refuse to be intimidated. It is rank fanaticism, it is the language that a 
 Robespierre might have used. 
 
 I was asked by your secretary to speak on some of those points in 
 Germany which struck me favorably or unfavorably. I am particularly glad 
 to do this as during my last stay, which extended over nine months, terminating 
 only two days before the war broke out, almost nothing struck me unfavorably, 
 but almost everything more than favorably. And I think I saw as many sides 
 of life as have most of you who are Germans by birth. My special interests 
 carried me far out of the beaten track; into burgomasters' offices, into industrial 
 and trade schools, among inland harbors and on canals, into workmen's 
 museums and municipal pawnshops, into labor exchanges, into factories and 
 beer breweries, into hospitals, into jails and penitentiaries, into Jew-baiting 
 meetings and the Prussian diet, into workmen's houses, and into crematories. 
 I was quite a frequent attendant at football games and athletic sports. 
 
 I spent periods varying from two days to ten weeks — on my last trip 
 alone — in Hamburg, Hanover, Diisseldorf, Cologne, Engelskirchen, Frankfort, 
 Strassburg, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Ulm, Augsburg, Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, 
 Berlin and Kiel. I was an ardent devourer of the newspapers, often reading 
 as many as four a day — and I wish to bear witness here to the fact that to 
 the best of my remembrance I never came across a single statement in one of 
 them to make me suspect that Germany was out for any other kind of conquest 
 than that legitimate conquest of trade which comes from superior training, 
 superior organization and superior intelligence and application. I read many 
 expressions of apprehension as to what France, England and Russia were 
 about, but not one, I think, that showed a belligerent spirit. 
 
 But I won't go into that matter any further. My theme to-night is 
 German efficiency. Let me say here that a new book called "Socialized 
 Germany" has recently appeared, which tells Americans far more about German 
 efficiency than they have hitherto known. But the book is vitiated by the bias 
 of the author, which leads him into misstatements that deserve the strongest con- 
 demnation. Howe's bugbear is the Prussian Junker. The Prussian Junker may 
 have his faults but he is by no means so powerful or so all-pervading as Howe 
 imagines. Again and again Howe tells us that Prussia is Germany, that Prussia 
 is feudal and that conditions of land-holding in Prussia are about what they 
 were in the eighteenth century. Gentlemen, I find that of the total number 
 of farms and estates in all Germany, including Prussia, of course, only four per 
 cent, are owned in larger parcels than 250 acres. Some of the estates are 
 enormous, I grant. So are some of our ranches in our own West. But even 
 then 78 per cent, of the whole area of Germany is in farms and estates of 
 
 4 
 
under 250 acres. Yet Howe dares to say- — I quote him literally — that 
 "land monopoly is the economic framework of Prussia and through Prussia 
 of the Empire as well." If Howe would look into the system of land- 
 holding in England and Ireland he could make out a far better case for 
 feudalism — there land monopoly is far more the economic framework than in 
 Germany. 
 
 I won't detain you any longer with a critique of Howe except to men- 
 tion two or three glaring errors that he makes in trying to elucidate his feudal 
 theory. While the King of England, he says, "disposed of his crown lands," 
 the King of Prussia "kept his feudal holdings." I won't develop this point 
 except to say that the statement is absolutely false. The crown lands were taken 
 over by the Prussian State, although a part of the revenues from them goes 
 to pay the King's civil list. Here is a still better one: We are told that 
 Stein and Hardenberg brought about the division of the land into small farms 
 but that their reforms did not penetrate beyond the southern states: "The 
 landowners of Prussia declined to permit the Agrarian reforms to be adopted." 
 But, gentlemen, if I am not mistaken, Stein and Hardenberg were ministers of 
 the King of Prussia and had nothing whatever to do with internal reforms in 
 the other states. I am sure there are men here who can bear me out in this 
 statement. 
 
 Here is still another: "As a further check on democracy," Howe tells us, 
 the members of the Reichstag are not paid." But they are paid, my dear Mr. 
 Howe, and your statement, like hundreds of others that are daily made about 
 Germany, is absolutely false. A change in the constitution of May 21, 1906, 
 gives the members a salary of 3,000 marks a year, with 20 marks deducted 
 for every day of absence. 
 
 I want to get off the subject of Mr. Howe, but I must just add that 
 conservative and Junker are not synonymous, that the so-called free conservatives 
 stand up for the rights of industry quite as much as for those of agriculture, that 
 many of the contentions, even of the Junkers, have been fully justified by 
 Germany's ability to feed herself during this war, and finally that on checking 
 up the names of the representatives in the Prussian diet of those "descend- 
 ants from the old feudal barons," as Howe calls them, I find that only 101 
 out of the 442 members of the Prussian lower house have so much as a 
 von before their names. The rest are plain Mr. Braun, Mr. Miiller, Mr. 
 Bauer, Mr. Kahler, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Noll, Dr. Levy, etc. Eighty-three of 
 them are doctors of one kind or another. 
 
 But to return to German efficiency. That efficiency in the ultimate instance 
 is the work of the German schools. I will not dwell on the points pertaining 
 to them that are familiar to all of you; the care with which the curriculum 
 is thought out, the rigid training of the teachers — why in Germany a child's 
 intelligence is considered something so. sacred that even teachers in private 
 schools have to pass a state examination — the splendid equipment on which no 
 expense is spared, particularly in the free industrial and continuation schools. 
 In Diisseldorf the city even supplies carts and horses with which the butcher's 
 and grocer's and baker's delivery boys can practice careful driving. What 
 struck me most, I think, was the care and devotion with which the least ray of 
 childish intelligence is hunted down and fostered. Below the public schools 
 are so-called Hilfschulen or aid schools, where attention is given to the back- 
 ward child according to his individual needs. Below the aid schools are pre- 
 paratory classes for the aid schools as well as for the schools, and free kinder- 
 gartens, while in Frankfort at least there is an observation station with its own 
 farm which takes the very worst possible cases from the aid schools, and begins 
 with the systematic development of the child's faculties and motor impulses. In 
 Berlin, if children are bedridden or crippled or so deformed and repulsive 
 
that they cannot appear in school, regular teachers employed by the city for 
 the purpose seek them out in their homes and give them their lessons there. 
 That most unfortunate class, the illegitimate children, are cared for in the most 
 systematic way imaginable, special guardians being appointed to look after their 
 interests. In the industrial continuation schools not only are the children taught 
 to plan and execute their work with the utmost precision and skill, but they 
 are taught in a hundred ways to advance the interests of German industry as 
 a whole: to keep up the reputation for good materials as well as for good work- 
 manship, to be cleanly in all their ways, to estimate the amount of profit an 
 artisan may reasonably charge for a given piece of work — I remember it was 
 fifteen per cent, over and above the price of his labor and materials. These 
 trade and continuation schools have raised up the happiest and most self-respect- 
 ing class of workmen in the world, the least quarrelsome and contentious, the 
 best dressed, the most intelligent, the proudest of their occupation. I shall never 
 forget visiting a class of chimney-sweeps and finding that they were obliged to 
 learn the construction of their chimneys down to the very last detail, to be able 
 to tell what was the matter with the chimneys if they smoke, and to demonstrate 
 by a drawing and mathematically just how much higher a chimney ought to 
 be in order to remedy the evil. They even go into the chemistry 
 of soot, and of the gases that are apt to cause a conflagration. Don't you 
 think even chimney sweeping becomes quite attractive when studied in that 
 way? And that is merely one example out of hundreds of what is done for 
 the dignity of work. In some of the higher branches, especially in the all-day 
 trade schools, the pupil gets an entirely new outlook on the world as a whole. 
 In the garden of one of the trade schools at Frankfort I found that specimens 
 were grown of all the different kinds of trees that furnished the wood of the 
 wood-workers. But enough of the German schools, although the subject is 
 inexhaustible. 
 
 Let me try to illustrate German efficiency at the hand of two other 
 kinds of institutions. The first is the national compulsory insurance. At 
 the time of my first journey to Germany it was just going into effect. At the 
 time of my last journey it was just going into effect for whole new classes of the 
 population, for domestic servants and for employees. In the sickness insurance 
 alone twenty million people are now insured, each paying his weekly contribution 
 and drawing benefits aggregating nearly five hundred million marks a year. Since 
 1911 the procedure in branches of the insurance as a whole has been codified 
 in no less than 1 ,805 paragraphs. 
 
 I can't go into details, of course, on an occasion like this. The benefits 
 would seem to us actually small, but relatively they are quite large. Thus a 
 young workman who has complied with certain conditions from the time when 
 he was sixteen to twenty-one years of age and paid in forty marks, will if he then 
 become an invalid, be entitled to draw a pension of one hundred and forty-one 
 marks and sixty pfennigs for all the rest of his life, which, I think, is a pretty 
 good return on his compulsory investment. It is the elasticity of the system and 
 the attention to every little detail that strikes one with wonder. There are now, 
 for instance, about ten thousand sickness exchequers or krankenkassen — there 
 were until recently more than 20,000 — and beyond a fixed minimum no two 
 out of the 10,000 need necessarily give exactly the same amount of benefits. 
 One or two little practical details of the accident insurance impressed me very 
 much, too, and showed, I think, the spirit that animates the whole immense 
 organization. If a woman loses her right arm she is usually awarded ten per 
 cent, more damages than would be the case with a man. And why? Because 
 a one-armed man can find occupation as a watchman or a janitor, whereas a 
 woman will be constantly hampered all her life in moving about her pots and 
 kettles. I found, too, that relatively high damages were paid in cases of accident 
 
where a man's ability to work was not much impaired, but where some scar or 
 disfigurement would make it more difficult for him to get employment. But it 
 was the preventative work of the national insurance that impressed me most of 
 all. What a force we have here for the betterment of human conditions, and 
 the curing of human ills I think very few even of you university students have 
 ever realized. The insurance has spread out its activities until it not only takes 
 care of its sick and well members, but of their whole families besides, even giving 
 a trousseau to the girls when they marry I 
 
 It does all this, too, as a good business proposition. Happiness, well-being 
 and health go together. Take another case like this, for instance. A tuberculous 
 child in a. family makes the risk greater for each adult and tends to increase the 
 load on the insurance. It has been proved, I believe, that certain preventative 
 measures, including regular medical observation of the family, come to less in 
 the end than the insurance would otherwise have to pay for its sick members 
 alone. So the insurance now takes enlightened care of thousands of house- 
 holds; sees that the children live hygienically and get enough good food and 
 fresh air. If they need it the insurance sends them to a hospital, a home or 
 even to a watering place; it conducts a regular house-to-house war on ignorance, 
 prejudice and superstition; it actually pays its patients, after an illness, not to 
 go back to work too soon, and thus run the risk of a relapse and possibly of 
 permanent disability. It is all, as I have said, a working business proposition; 
 permanent disability is the costliest thing with which the insurance has to contend. 
 In the same way the branch of the insurance that deals with accidents has 
 more than 400 experts drawing a salary of over 2,000,000 marks, whose only 
 business is to go round among the factories and see that the safety regulations 
 are obeyed. This is entirely apart from the regular state inspection which, too, 
 is very thorough. The invalidity and survivor insurance has the largest funds 
 at its disposal — it invested nearly 200,000,000 marks in 1912 alone. And 
 how does it invest its funds? It has out more than a billion marks in loans 
 to city governments, savings banks, building associations, etc., for improving 
 workmen's dwellings and for similar humanitarian objects. 
 
 I will give you just one good homely sample of its methods: Good 
 teeth means good digestion and good digestion means longer life with fewer 
 invalidity and survivor pensions. Accordingly in 1912 the insurance provided 
 40,000 of its clients free with false teeth at a cost of more than a million 
 marks ! 
 
 I won't go any further into this question of the national insurance. But 
 you may be interested to hear the verdict of a Frenchman on it — a verdict 
 written, of course, before the war: "The money spent in carrying out the 
 insurance laws reappears in a thousand forms. It is transmuted into family 
 happiness, health and dignity and creates a strong, vital Germany that will last 
 forever." This Frenchman will probably not desire to-day "a strong, vital 
 Germany that will last forever," but he said it, all the same, at a time when 
 Frenchmen thought it worth while to face and to tell the truth. 
 
 One might imagine that when the war broke out the compulsory insurance 
 would have been utterly demoralized. Millions of men. called to the 
 armies, ceased paying their weekly contributions — hundreds of thousands 
 were likely to die or to need hospital care in distant parts where the insurance 
 could not possibly reach them. I consider the speed and thoroughness with 
 which this whole matter was settled one of the greatest triumphs of German 
 organization. By August 4, only five days after the war-cloud first broke, two 
 fundamental laws had been passed and were in force which regulated the whole 
 difficult matter. One is called "a law concerning the retention of claims on the 
 sickness insurance — Gesetz betreffend Erhaltung von Anwartschaften aus der 
 Krankenversicherung — and the other a law to secure the solvency of the sickness 
 
 7 
 
exchequers. Gesetz betreffend Sicherung der Leistungs-fahigkeit der Kranken- 
 kassen. So early in the war, then, this matter was settled once and for all. All 
 that was needed later was a few ministerial decrees to make the matter clear 
 — and a considerable extention of the benefits accorded to women before and 
 after childbirth, to which the government contributed largely. 
 
 So much for the imperial compulsory insurance. 
 
 I was almost as much impressed by another German institution. I speak 
 of the free city labor bureaus or employment agencies. They also work 
 for family happiness, health and dignity. We in America do not begin to realize 
 their achievements and their possibilities. We have free state employment 
 agencies in Massachusetts, but the free employment agency in a city like Frank- 
 fort of 400,000 inhabitants fills in a year almost exactly double the number 
 of positions as all the Massachusetts State agencies combined with offices in 
 Boston, Springfield, Worcester and Fall River. 
 
 And filling positions is but one of the activities of the German agencies. I 
 recommend a visit to the agency at Cologne as one of the greatest experiences 
 of progress we Americans can have. Here in a beautiful building erected for 
 the purpose at a cost of 600,000 marks we have what amounts to a working- 
 man's club. Every detail is psychologically perfect; there are 8 or 1 entrances 
 that prevent awkward encounters; the very decorations on the wall are thought 
 out so as to cheer up the man who comes there out of a job. He has well- 
 warmed, well-lighted waiting rooms where he can spend the whole day if he 
 pleases; he can buy refreshments for almost nothing; there is even a room where 
 he can have his shabby clothes patched up so as to put in a good appearance. 
 If he is a clerk or an educated man there is a room where he can sit and write 
 addresses or fold circulars at so much an hour while he is waiting for a better 
 job. If he needs legal advice he can get it free. If he wants an apartment for 
 his family there is an office in the building, inspectors from which have first 
 visited the apartment, taken a sketch of the rooms and ascertained the price 
 so as to save him useless tramping about and to make sure that he will not be 
 cheated in the matter of rent. There is an office in the same building that will 
 insure him against unemployment. 
 
 What I cannot convey in mere words is the spirit of organization and of 
 liberality as well that pervades all these labor bureaus. The workmen them- 
 selves have their full share in the management, the bureaus are all in close 
 touch with each other; if they send a man to a distant point they pay his fare 
 on the railroad and trust to the employers for reimbursement. I was told in 
 Dusseldorf that they actually come out ahead on this item because the owners 
 are so grateful for the trouble they are saved that they usually send a few marks 
 more than the mere fare. There is one department of the labor exchanges that 
 is worthy of the highest possible praise. It is that for Erwerbsbeschrankten, or 
 people who because of infirmity or for some other reason are not capable of doing 
 a full day's work. Or there may be a prejudice against them as in the case of 
 discharged prisoners. Some of the exchanges in this way have done the noblest 
 kind of work. It has been so successful in Dusseldorf, for instance, that, by an 
 expert's computation, the money saved the city's charitable institutions on 
 which these unfortunates would otherwise have been a burden has been suffi- 
 cient to pay the whole yearly cost of the whole labor exchange. 
 
 Just think what it means to a workman to be spared all that tramping 
 from employer to employer, only to be rejected nine-tenths of the time ! All 
 the expense of advertising or of fees to agencies which are out merely for gain 
 and that have at best a mere local clientele, all that sickening uncertainty day 
 after day and week after week. The German free city agencies are so admirably 
 run, they have everything about the employer and the applicant so carefully 
 card-catalogued and formulated, they make such absolutely lavish use of the 
 
telephone — in fact their system works like such carefully oiled and well-cared-for 
 machinery that the majority of cases are disposed of within the 24 hours. In so 
 short a time as that the cares and troubles of thousands of German families are 
 swept away — and not merely laborers' families. The free city agencies have 
 won such recognition that all kinds of tradesmen, and even scientifically trained 
 persons like engineers and school teachers, are using them more and more. 
 
 One would have thought that in the case of the labor exchanges, too, the 
 war would have induced utter demoralization. Many of the exchange officials 
 were called to active service, whole branches of industry were paralyzed, and 
 hundreds of thousands of workers thrown out of employment, the railroads were 
 fully occupied with the mobilization, even the automobiles were requisitioned, and 
 there seemed no way of transporting workmen from one place to another. Yet 
 it was just on distant farms and estates that laborers were most needed for bring- 
 ing in the harvest. The way in which these problems were solved will form 
 one of the most interesting chapters in the history of the war. Not only were 
 the labor exchanges kept running, but their number was instantly increased — 
 they were instantly put intp closer touch with each other, and a great sort of labor 
 clearing house was established in Berlin — the Reichszentrale der Arbeitsnach- 
 weise. When there was no other way of transporting the workers they were sent 
 in boats on the canals or sent forth in troops on foot after arrangements had 
 been made to lodge them at inns along the roadside. It was realized that many 
 men would have to change their trades and the workshops of the industrial 
 schools were at once utilized for giving the most necessary instruction. 
 
 I fear I have been talking entirely too long — I merely wish to say in 
 conclusion that the working together of Germany's splendid institutions has done 
 almost as much to win the war as has the unparalleled bravery of her armies. 
 If ever a nation kept her head in the worst conceivable emergency that nation 
 is Germany. The heart has gone on throbbing and has never allowed the face 
 to grow pale or the extremities to weaken. 
 
 What I have said about the schools, the labor exchanges and the national 
 insurance might have been said about a dozen other activities: the national state 
 and municipal utilities and industrial enterprises, the co-operative societies that 
 have enabled the farmer to keep up the nation's supply of food, the savings banks 
 and credit institutions, the splendid hospitals and charity organizations. Each 
 and every one of these have helped toward success in this awful struggle. It is 
 the spirit behind these activities, ladies and gentlemen, the deathless devotion to 
 duty, the real interest in the welfare of all the people, the scientific probing that 
 has evolved from years of ceaseless toil and experimenting the very best method 
 of dealing with every social problem — this, ladies and gentlemen, is to me the 
 meaning of German Kultur, end when I hear men scoff at and deride it I 
 feel like going to them and saying, Here, you fellows, you are talking through 
 your hats, you are criticizing what to you is a sealed book, you no longer talk 
 that way about the German army because all that it does is out in the light of 
 day, you know nothing whatever about those other splendid achievements of 
 organization, you think that everything — money, labor, thought — has been sacri- 
 ficed to the one end of conquering other people's territory. There never was a 
 greater mistake in the wide world. When I think of what our country could gain 
 by a clear comprehension, by a frank and generous recognition of all that Ger- 
 many has done for civilization, by a fervent study of her methods and a proper 
 adaptation of them to our needs, instead of by a blind unreasoning hostility as 
 bitter as that of the Jacobins to the aristocrats in the French revolution, I feel 
 like going on my knees and praying to God, "Father forgive them, for they 
 know not what they do!" 
 
Professor Shepherd. 
 
 You have heard what constitutes German efficiency. May I take 
 advantage of my position as toastmaster to append to Dr. Henderson's interest- 
 ing address a definition which I have ventured to coin of that highly con- 
 troversial word "Kultur." You will remember that, soon after the nations 
 of Europe entered upon their mighty struggle of swords, there arose here a 
 contest, no less mighty, of words! It had to do with the question as to the 
 identity or diversity of "Kultur" and "culture." Men who claimed they 
 knew declared the two were identical. Others equally versed maintained that 
 "Kultur" is merely 'organized efficiency." The expression sounds plausible 
 enough; but suppose you analyze it. Is there such a thing as unorganized 
 or disorganized efficiency? Clearly, efficiency to be efficient must be organized; 
 if so, the qualifying word is wholly superfluous. "Kultur" and "culture" 
 are altogether different terms. One is social, the other individual, in its nature. 
 One arises out of conditions largely peculiar to Germany, the other out of 
 conditions which are an inheritance of western and southern Europe. To my 
 mind "Deutsche Kultur" is "that stage of human achievement which is reached 
 by an efficient application of the best results of activity in all branches of 
 knowledge, gained at home and chosen from abroad, to the welfare of the 
 individual and the slate." That is not "culture," but it is ' Kultur" — or at 
 least, so I venture to think. 
 
 We have long since recognized the great debt that we of this country 
 and many others owe to the German Fatherland. It was with Germany that 
 we first had a regular exchange of professors, of intellectual ambassadors, as 
 it were. As you well know, our higher institutions of learning are derived 
 from English and German models. The one has given us our colleges, the 
 other our university faculties. 
 
 Despite these influences, and despite the fact that wars may rage and 
 statesmen imagine a vain thing, the real relationship of nations to one another 
 is determined by the attitude of the man-in-the-street. What this person thinks 
 he knows about foreigners creates his beliefs and directs his acts. His brow 
 being neither high nor low, his mentality, presumably, is that of the level- 
 minded, and therefore to be trusted. It is this man-in-the-street who needs 
 education, if ever good fellowship among nations is permanently to prevail. 
 War and finance, commerce and diplomacy have all failed signally to remove 
 international suspicion and discord, to establish a mutuality of understanding 
 among the peoples of the earth. Education dealing with the man-in-the-street 
 can do it, and some day will. You all knew those famous lines of Tenny- 
 son's which have been so often quoted: 
 
 "Till the war-drums throb no longer and the battle-flags are furled 
 In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World." 
 
 But it is what follows that has the real significance: 
 
 "There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, 
 And the kindly earth shall slumber, Iapt in universal law." 
 
 To assure the establishment of this rule of common sense is the task of 
 education. 
 
 A great factor in such a work of co-operation is the exchange professor. 
 He comes as a bearer of tidings of friendliness and sympathy and under- 
 standing, to join in our common good will. Since the outbreak of the war 
 intellectual Germany has been represented by only one of these international 
 messengers and co-workers in the United States. Thus far he has been 
 associated primarily with two of our more prominent universities, Wisconsin 
 and Cornell. Ere I present this gentleman, I want to ask him a question. 
 "Professor Bonn, are you a Prussian?" 
 Professor Bonn. 
 
 "I am a Prussian and a Bavarian." (Laughter.) 
 Professor Shepherd. 
 
 That spoils in a measure what I was going to say! To the mind of our 
 average sympathizer with the "Allies" a Prussian appears to be something 
 like the Cyclops (laughter), as characterized by Vergil in one of the most 
 difficult lines I ever had to scan: "Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens cui 
 lumen ademptum" — "A huge, horrible misshapen monster, with his eye put 
 out." (Laughter.) But the South German is no Prussian; he is simply the 
 real German who is temporarily Prussianized (More laughter.) Whatever 
 his degree of Prussianization, he does not seem to care particularly about his 
 sad condition, so long in fact as it is not the Prussian whose eye is put out! 
 
 Now it is my pleasure to present the exchange professor from Germany, 
 the man from Prussia and Bavaria, Director of the College of Commerce in Munich, 
 Professor of the University of Munich, Dr. Moiitz J. Bonn. 
 
 10 
 
Professor Bonn. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 After having served for two and a half terms as visiting professor to 
 three great American institutions, I might feel tempted indeed to discuss that 
 form of international co-operation embodied in the exchange of scholars from 
 different countries. Such a discussion ought not to start from the point of 
 view of personal experiences: It ought to take into account the basic obstacles 
 to international co-operation. 
 
 The hardest lesson the war has taught us is, that the nations of the 
 world do not understand each other. This misunderstanding of each other's 
 ways is not confined to any single nation. Americans have for some time 
 been marveling at what they call the peculiar twist of the Teutonic mind, 
 which will not see things as the Americans see them. They are unaware, that 
 their astonishment is but an open acknowledgment of their own inability of 
 comprehending another nation's point of view. Whether that point of view be 
 right or wrong, could only be determined after their intellectual surprise had 
 passed away. 
 
 And the Germans on their part, cannot understand how the people of 
 the United States can consider themselves the champions of humanity, whilst 
 they let their ammunition plants run overtime, to facilitate the killing of the 
 sons of a nation, with whom they desire to live in friendship and amity. For 
 the Germans cannot see, that in a commonwealth organized on the principle 
 of non-intervention, individuals and classes may indulge in acts, the neutral 
 government of a more socialised state would not tolerate. 
 
 National misunderstanding and ignorance of each other's way of thinking 
 do not exist only between the United States and Germany; though the fact 
 that Germany and Germany's ways have come in for a good deal of criticism 
 lately, is just now embittering the relations between the two people. 
 
 England and France, as seen in the limelights kindled by ardent American 
 admirers, are quite as remote from the real France and the real England, as 
 is the Germany of the grim pro-ally from the Germany of the Germans. 
 Proud and aristocratic feudal England, the England of the Upper Classes, who 
 wage this war, is a somewhat remarkable ideal for a democracy which believes 
 that all men are equal. And the imperialistic French Republic, which has 
 turned from one war of conquest to another during the last thirty years, is 
 indeed a quaint object of adoration for sentimental pacificists; quite apart 
 from the fact, that her capital, the playground of a gay, if somewhat wicked 
 world, does not quite correspond with one's ideas of a holy city, where 
 Puritan moralists ought to worship. 
 
 The Europeans, on their side, indulge in similar misconceptions. The 
 American commonwealth, as depicted in their minds, is certainly not the 
 America of the living Americans. Each race of travelers, when setting out 
 on their Western tour, are trying to find a country corresponding to their 
 own preconceived ideas. The haughty reserved Englishman sees but a race 
 of forward hustlers; his more democratic countryman is amazed by the perfect 
 organization of some great hotel and somewhat shaken by the clatter of some 
 "Limited de Luxe." The German dreamer of dreams of social reform 
 discovered a land where the future of mankind had been worked out in a 
 most satisfactory way. We have to face it fairly and squarely: the knowledge 
 which the big nations have of each other is very scant indeed. The only 
 difference is, that their ignorance is sometimes born from love and sometimes 
 from hate. This ignorance is not so much due to the absence of knowledge 
 of facts touching the other nation's life; it is produced by the systematic 
 misuse of the standards, by which they judge each other's activities. 
 
 11 
 
Men realize that the great nations of the world have evolved systems 
 of institutions, which make them differ considerably from each other. It is 
 quite natural, that to each of them their own national system is the best, and 
 that they extol it above that of their neighbors. Old nations, like the English 
 and the French, whose part in the world's history has always been acknowl- 
 edged, act upon that assumption quite naively. To them the superiority of 
 their own systems is a matter of course, which can scarcely be debated. By 
 taking it for granted, they have succeeded in securing a kind of universal 
 acknowledgement from the other nations. It is very amusing just now, to hear 
 France called the most civilized nation of the world by admiring Americans, 
 who neither know the world, nor are cognizant of the intense backwardness 
 of all French life outside Paris and a few international resorts. 
 
 Other nations, like the Americans or the Germans, who were not till 
 lately called into the councils of the world, do not enjoy the same privileged 
 position. They are quite as much convinced of the merits of their systems 
 as are their neighbors, but they feel that these merits are not as greatly 
 appreciated as they ought to be. They try to explain them eagerly to their 
 rivals, with the object of winning their applause. That, to me, is a grave 
 mistake. 
 
 It is almost pathetic to see some people in the United States craving 
 for the approval of Europeans for their own solid achievements. It is not 
 only pathetic, it is downright silly, when a nation like Germany is trying to 
 convince an unwilling world of the merits of her system. She ought to be 
 delighted with the just appreciation, she may get from sympathetic friends. But 
 she ought to understand, that no big nation can shape her institutions and 
 develop her methods, subject to foreign approval. If the intellectual inheritance 
 of a nation, as embodied in her institutions, satisfies her own people, that 
 inheritance is sufficient, whether it is called culture or something else. If 
 the German system satisfies the wants of eighty million people of German 
 extraction in central Europe, it cannot gain additional lustre, even by the 
 plaudits of the great American democracy. People make their institutions for 
 their own use. It is not Germany's business to invent social systems for foreign 
 markets, and it is not her duty to submit her institutions to foreign criticism. 
 The great nations will have to realize, that the national characteristics, 
 which distinguish them from each other, will become more pronounced as time 
 goes on. These distinctive features are not a deviation from some universally 
 acknowledged type of universal manhood. They are each nation's contribution 
 to the world's social improvement. For diversity, not uniformity, of social 
 systems, is the task of mankind. Competition between nations, each trying to 
 outdo their neighbors in most perfect social service, not standardization of 
 institutions, is the aim of human development. 
 
 I sympathize with those American friends, who would consider it a terrible 
 calamity, if the whole world were organized in imitation of German patterns. 
 The world would be much poorer, if it lost all the distinctive features of French 
 or of Anglo-Saxon civilization. It would be equally impoverished at least, if 
 the social system, the German people have evolved for their own needs, were 
 destroyed in the vain endeavor, to replace it by some universal Anglo-Saxon 
 panacea. The quicker the great nations realize that it is their business to 
 evolve the most perfect social system for their own people, as their share in 
 the cause of humanity, the easier they will understand each other. 
 
 If nations could take this attitude, they would give up that captious 
 international criticism, the mere object of which is to demonstrate to them- 
 selves and to their neighbors the superiority of their own system. When 
 Americans denounce the tyranny of European governments exercised against 
 their unwilling subjects, they are partly, no doubt, influenced by motives of 
 
 12 
 
quite genuine commiseration. These denunciations of wrong betray, how- 
 ever, not unfrequently an exultant assertion of their American superiority, which 
 in the eyes of its apostles, has done away with all possibility of wrong-doing 
 and of suffering. And when the European indignantly exhibits what he 
 considers the inherent corruption of American political life, he does not care so 
 much to show his American friends a way out of their supposed misery; he 
 is quite content, if he can demonstrate to his own satisfaction, that their ways 
 of government are inferior to those, his own people have evolved. As long 
 as international criticism starts from the assumption, that one nation has evolved 
 the true type of social institutions, and that all others must follow in its 
 wake, it is based on ignorance, supported by arrogance. One may be very 
 grateful for the many political institutions the Anglo-Saxon world has evolved, 
 for its own use, and for the use of mankind, when other nations saw fit to 
 adopt them. But there is no more striking example of national arrogance than 
 the claim raised by some apostles of Imperial Britain, that she has the mission 
 to anglicise the world. This self-righteous arrogance is the deepest cause 
 of international misunderstanding. It cannot be eradicated by the spread 
 of information; it is an attitude which cannot be changed by knowledge of 
 facts; it can only be done away with by rigid moral and mental self-discipline. 
 
 There are no doubt many countries in the world, which have not been 
 endowed with workable political institutions ; there are many people, whose 
 social inheritance is too slender to allow them quick progress. These un- 
 developed nations may borrow from others — if they are free to do so; they may 
 be the objects of legitimate missionary activities, if they happen to be colonial 
 dependencies of more progressive races. There is no room for missionary 
 activity amongst the great nations of the world. Let each of them develop 
 and perfect their own systems of institutions. They ought not to try to export 
 them on approval or on commission. 
 
 When nations learn to be proud of their own institutions, without feeling 
 bound to run down or to reform those of their equally civilized neighbors, we 
 shall be able to find a good basis for international co-operation. And we 
 shall be able to learn from each other those lessons, which can be learned. 
 When situations arise, in which the experience of their rivals is useful to a 
 nation, they have in times past always been quick enough to profit by it, pro- 
 vided their vanity is not bruised by the other's claim of superiority. Germany, 
 for example, in days gone by, has learnt a lot from her neighbors. Her 
 political life has been largely influenced by English and "Belgian examples. 
 In the social sphere her rural life has been greatly affected by the ideas of 
 the French Revolution. She has not blindly imitated foreign countries, she 
 has assimilated their experience to her own needs. And during the last twenty 
 years she has been paying back her debt, by having become the leader in 
 modern social legislation, which England, France and Belgium tried to imitate. 
 
 Experience has shown that an international exchange of ideas and of 
 institutions cannot be promoted by missionary activities from abroad. Whether 
 such work is carried out by the sword, as Napoleon did in Germany, or 
 whether foreign apostles of foreign culture overrun a country in a peaceful 
 propaganda, in neither case are gratitude or international co-operation likely 
 to follow. When Robert Owen came from England, trying to spread the 
 gospel of his socialistic creed in the United States, many working men turned 
 against him. "It does seem unaccountably strange," a report said of him, 
 "that a native of that part of the world, where thousands are every day 
 groaning under oppression, should leave these unfortunates, come over to the 
 new world, and in the midst of a people enjoying their fullest liberty, proclaim 
 himself the apostle of equal rights, and tender them the hand of friendship 
 against their oppressors." 
 
 13 
 
His experiences have been repeated many a time ; no civilized country 
 is willing to be saved by foreigners, though for specific purposes they may be 
 willing to listen to them. Thus, the institution which I represent here, the 
 exchange professor, is not in my eyes an agency for spreading foreign culture. 
 He is an expert invited by his fellow experts to co-operate with them in 
 scientific work. He is neither an ambassador of culture sent by one nation to 
 another, nor a kind of commercial traveler trying to force a market for the 
 intellectual wares of his own country. If he has a mission at all outside his 
 professional academic work, it is to keep his eyes open, and to observe new 
 ways and methods in foreign life, which his own people might do well to 
 imitate. If he wants to do missionary work, he must do it when he gets 
 home. In fact, as far as international co-operation in the broad sense of the 
 word is concerned, the value of the exchange professor does not so much 
 depend on his capacity for teaching, as on his capacity for learning. 
 
 International co-operation can only be carried out on a broad foundation 
 of international understanding. International courts and joint international 
 institutions may be excellent things; ihey will not work, before the different 
 nations have understood the problems confronting each of them. It is not 
 enough to know a nation's general situation, to know her past, and to analyze 
 her future ambitions. One must understand the soul of a people, before one 
 can justly judge its actions, and try to influence its future ways. 
 
 Some few men, gifted with wonderful imagination, may be able to achieve 
 that task from abroad, without having shared the life of the people they are 
 trying to understand; good books may help them, talks from foreign experts may 
 stimulate them. But in most cases neither books nor lectures can give more 
 than an interest in a nation's cause or supply the bare facts underlying its 
 progress. Most men can only understand another people's life, after they 
 have shared it for some time. 
 
 Those who go abroad do not always contribute much to mutual under- 
 standing. A network of international agencies covers the civilized world 
 to-day, which prevents the ordinary traveler from ever coming in touch with 
 the real thing. The boats and railway trains he travels in, the hotels he 
 frequents, and the restaurants which cater for him, are carefully organized on a 
 non-commital cosmopolitan plan. He does not any longer shed his own habits 
 when he goes abroad ; and he judges most things according to his own national 
 and vocational prejudices. The business man's judgment of a foreign nation 
 is affected by the outcome of the deal he was interested in. The globe-trotter, 
 with social aspirations, bases his views on the more or less courteous treatment 
 he is receiving. The tourist is mainly influenced by the state of the weather, 
 the visiting arrangements of the galleries, and the accommodation at the hotels. 
 They are all in a hurry and not very much interested in anything outside 
 their own particular purpose. It seems to me, that there is one class of 
 travelers, and one class only, who have done much for international co- 
 operation. And that is the student. The student, and the student alone, is 
 capable of understanding the soul of another people. When he starts on his 
 journey, he is driven by that thirst for the unknown, which makes the great 
 intellectual explorer. He has not yet a system of his own, as he will have 
 in later life, foundations of which would be shaken, if the essential facts of 
 another nation's life were acknowledged. He is not yet part of an organization 
 ways of which can only be justified by distorted descriptions of foreign rivals. 
 Whilst his powers of detailed observation may not be so well developed as 
 those of a more mature observer, he has the enthusiasm and the intellectual 
 honesty of youth. He has ideals, and like the knights of old, he believes 
 in the existence of some wonderful isle, where they may be realized. He will 
 assuredly find his promised land, though eyes dimmer than his would never 
 
 14 
 
see it. And when he has found it, his enthusiasm will enable him to under- 
 stand the soul of another nation, better perhaps than her own children could do 
 it. Such a discovery will be granted to him once in life perhaps, and once only, 
 when he is young and free to dream. Many a German student has done so in 
 days gone by, and the Germans are proud of the work they have accomplished 
 in interpreting to them the life of foreign nations. Though they idealized 
 it, they understood it. They have discovered facts sometimes those nations 
 themselves were unaware of. My own teacher, Dr. Brentano, demonstrated 
 to the world the importance of the modern trade-union movement in England, 
 long before the English understood the full meaning of that development. 
 
 But the Germans are proud too of the many foreign students, and not 
 least of the Americans, who come to their universities to study German life. 
 I need but allude to those who went to Goettingen. They understand her, 
 because they loved her. Some of them, it is true, have fallen away from her 
 in her hour of trial ; a few of them, I might almost say, from too much 
 loving, for they made an ideal of Germany, which no modern nation could 
 hope to live up to. But the majority of them have kept faith in the ideals 
 of their youth; they divined Germany's case, even when they had no facts 
 to go upon, and in doing ro, they have done one thing, for which their 
 nation and the world will be grateful to them one day: They have prevented 
 the snapping of the intellectual links between two nations during a time of 
 great stress. And they have shown during a critical stage in the world's 
 history, how great the student's part is in international co-operation. It will 
 be the business of your organization to strengthen those links and to add new 
 ones in time to come, when the war is over and when the co-operation of 
 all nations will be possible once more. 
 
 When I left Madison, where I held the Carl Schurz professorship at 
 the University of Wisconsin, a leading Wisconsin paper was good enough to 
 praise my work, not on account of its intrinsic worth, but, as it put it, "because 
 I had kept the light burning in maintaining the connection between German 
 and American universities." I think I may return that compliment with far 
 greater truth to the American students, who have studied in Germany, and to 
 (he members of the German University League. You have kept the light 
 burning. And as it has burned through the darkest hours of the night, it will, I 
 am sure, continue to burn until the coming dawn 
 
 15 
 
Professor Shepherd. 
 
 To be hyphenated or not to be hyphenated, that is the question — which 
 perversion of the original leads me to say that last year I happened to be in 
 the capital of a native state in India, miles away from the nearest railroad 
 and miles away from anything that savored of the European type of civiliza- 
 tion. There I was received by the ruling prince surrounded by his courtiers 
 and gua'dsmen garbed in medieval fashion and girt about with medieval 
 \veapons. As his Highness could not speak English readily, he had his 
 secretary play interpreter. This gentleman was extremely voluble. He could 
 talk my native tongue more rapidly than I could. (Laughter.) "Mr. 
 Shepherd," he said, "will you be good enough to inform his Highness what 
 the attitude in Canada and the United States is toward the admission of 
 Hindus into those countries?" "Why do you couple the United States with 
 Canada?" I asked. His reply was: "I refer to all British colonies in North 
 America." (Great laughter.) Then I thought it my duty to tell him some- 
 thing about July 4, 1776; but when 1 was all through, he looked incredulous. 
 Now I understand the reason for it. When I arrived home in August, 1914, 
 I was inclined to agree with him! (Laughter.) 
 
 We have two great nations in the world: The United States of 
 America and the United States of Germany. The fundamental principle for 
 which the United States stands and which we have inherited from our colonial 
 forefathers is that of individual liberty. Perhaps we might call it a spiritual 
 hyphen binding us to England and, in a measure, to France. The fundamental 
 principle, on the other hand, for which the United States of Germany stands, 
 and which it has inherited from the conditions arising out of its history, is 
 socialized efficiency. Now I venture to ask you, my friends, is it not possible 
 that the future may provide an ideal hyphen to connect our cosmopolitan land, 
 peopled by representatives of many races, with our brethren across the seas? 
 If so, I feel that we shall have a veritable union of hyphens: a union of the 
 British and French concept of individual liberty with the German principle of 
 social efficiency! (Applause.) 
 
 So as to elucidate my point further, I would like to drop back into 
 history a moment. Once upon a time, in the sixteenth century, there was a 
 nation about which it was said that, when she moved, the world trembled. 
 That nation was Spain. In those days Spain possessed what no country had 
 ever possessed before, and none has had since: supremacy on both land and 
 sea. Such could not be said either of ancient Rome or of modern Britain. 
 Spain laid down the rule substantially that the seas belonged to her; where- 
 upon Francis I, King of France, is declared to have sent a letter to his 
 cousin of Spain, asking the latter to show him the will of Father Adam giving 
 the world to Spain. Until he saw that, said Francis, he would take what he 
 could get! 
 
 Some time later, in 1609, a famous Dutch jurist, Grotius by name, wrote 
 a work entitled "The Freedom of the Seas," in which he denounced such a 
 pretended monopoly by Spain. This denunciation was followed by vigorous 
 action on the part of the Dutch, who, in a measure at least, destroyed the 
 monopoly. Just as soon as they had broken it up, they promptly erected in 
 its stead a monopoly of their own on the waters. Having done this, they next 
 proceeded to lay stress upon the duty of all nations to heed the pacific precepts 
 of an international law, devised by the same Dutch jurist, which would hinder 
 attempts to interfere with the Dutch control of the seas. Both action and 
 attitude evoked prompt protest from the English. As was the case with the 
 Frenchman and the Dutchman in regard to the Spaniard, so now a new 
 Pharaoh was to arise in the Egypt of the ocean who knew not Joseph! 
 "Not so much by discourses as by the louder language of a powerful navie" 
 was an Englishman's rejoinder, in 1635, to the pacific arguments of the Dutch- 
 men. Sixteen years later was launched the famous Navigation Act, which 
 virtually threw down the gauntlet of defiance to the Dutch. Then came 
 another English pamphleteer of the seventeenth century, whose utterance showed 
 
 16 
 
more clearly still the policy of England. "A spirit of commerce and a 
 strength at sea to protect it," he wrote, "are the most certain marks of the 
 greatness of empire. He who commands the ocean, commands the trade 
 of the world; he who commands the trade of the world, commands the riches 
 of the world, and he who commands this, commands the world itself!" 
 
 The seas are the common heritage of us all. Over them and through 
 them speed the currents of thought which bring the peoples of the earth closer 
 to one another. The seas too are a kind of "hyphenation," without the free 
 use of which the scattered groups of mankind must remain in a sense isolated. 
 
 I have spoken of the ideal "hyphenation" that may blend the spirit of 
 individual liberty with the principle of social efficiency, or, if you like, of 
 "culture" with "Kultur." In this union there is not, there will not be, and 
 there ought not to be, anything political. Allegiance and patriotism continue as 
 they ever have been — associated with the land of one's birth or of one's 
 adoption, but never with both. If the former land be politically renounced, the 
 latter remains supreme. One's affections may be divided, but his allegiance 
 and patriotism are inseparable; and this applies with equal force to the men 
 and women of all nationalities who have made our country their home. Affec- 
 tion for the land of one's ancestors, and sympathy with it in an hour of 
 adversity, are no evidence of disloyalty to the United States, so long as we 
 ourselves are not parties to the conflict. This we have not been, and, God 
 willing, we never shall be! 
 
 The blend to which I have alluded is admirably exemplified by a states- 
 man whose long and honored career is one that has rightfully gained for him 
 the hearty esteem of his fellow Americans. By them he has been recognized 
 in signal fashion as a man who, born of German parents on American soil, has 
 brought to his native country a large measure of public service well performed. 
 That man is the Honorable Charles Nagel, the former Secretary of Commerce 
 and Labor. 
 
 17 
 
Hon. Charles Nagel 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 The honor which the League has shown me by inviting me to make this 
 address is very great; and, I may say, very surprising, since my right to 
 membership in the League hangs upon the slender thread of one year's 
 attendance at the University of Berlin. In view of the impatient reception 
 which is given any word of appreciation for the German people, I cannot 
 refrain from adding that during my attendance at the University I was 
 under the particular influence of Dr. Rudolf Gneist, a noted author and 
 teacher, and perhaps the most pronounced and nost widely recognized advo- 
 cate of the English system of law and government that Germany has ever 
 produced. 
 
 The honor shown me does not, however, relieve me of embarrassment. 
 Let me be frank. It is comparatively easy to speak in terms of approval of 
 those things in which either listeners or readers are known to believe; but I 
 think it extremely unwise, at least for me, to pursue such a course. In my 
 judgment he who speaks at this time in this country is under very ■ great 
 responsibility to himself and to his fellowmen. It is important to stand for 
 the freedom of conscience, opinion and speech; but it is equally important 
 to hold the exercise of that freedom in restraint by moderation, and to have 
 it guided by fairness. I know that in adopting this course I am apt not to 
 please either side. That is not an unusual experience for men who seek to 
 avoid partisanship. I shall look for my consolation in Abraham Lincoln's 
 counsel, to be sure not to please one side at the expense of the other (applause), 
 and that if you please or displease both, you are apt to be about right. 
 
 I shall take that course, because it is my duty and my right ; and in 
 doing so I shall rely upon the spirit of the German University, which at 
 all times stands for spiritual and intellectual freedom. Let me speak of that 
 which the stress of conflict has forced upon our minds. 
 
 Perhaps at no time in history have so many great powers been involved 
 m war at one and the same time. Certainly at no time has one nation 
 which stood apart been put under so strong an obhgation as the United 
 States is to-day, to observe rules of actual neutralitj I do not mean only 
 technical — the so-called governmental neutrality. I mean a neutrality which 
 pervades the whole people; which maintains an attitude of impartiality to 
 the combatants abroad, and which does justice t<~ all component parts of our 
 own people at home. Our Supreme Court has said 'For as the sovereignty 
 resides in the people, every citizen is a portion of it, and is himself personally 
 bound by the laws * * * or the treaties * * *." 
 
 In a country in which the people thus constitute the government, official 
 neutrality, negatived by popular unneutrality, becames a mockery — a breeder 
 of resentment abroad and at home. Why is our obligation peculiarly strong? 
 Because we are a unique people, put together as no nation on earth has ever 
 been; with every portion of it calling for toleration, sympathy and considera- 
 tion. We have assembled all the colors of the rainbow; but our color scheme 
 still lacks proportion, adjustment, harmony. Never in the experience of 
 history has there been a time when there was so earnest a call for mutual 
 sympathy and consideration and understanding. (Applause.) It is for us to 
 help to make it possible to have all the people dwell side by side, with good- 
 will, and fairness and justice for each other. 
 
 Have we done it? I am no* ere to stir up feeling. I want to allay 
 it. I think it time to counsel moderation and forbearance. If we are not 
 careful, every belligerent nation in Europe will, at the close of the war, stand 
 
 18 
 
united more than ever before; while we, the one strong nation at peace, will 
 be harassed for a quarter of a century or more by the discord that is being 
 recklessly and wantonly created now. 
 
 But what is the test of neutrality? We are told that the time may soon 
 arrive when a line will have to be drawn between those who stand for 
 America and those who do not. I agree with the principle; but I deny that 
 there was occasion for its announcement. Above all, do I contend that any 
 such announcement should be made with such clearness in terms and in 
 manner as to relieve it from the suspicion of promoting the very partisanship 
 which it undertakes to condemn. The evidences of material support given 
 to one side in the foreign conflict, with official sanction, to say the least, 
 furnish abundant ground for the exercise of self-restraint in levelling innuendo 
 or denunciation at the descendants of those foreign nations who for one reason 
 or another have been denied similar support at our hands. 
 
 I was asked some years ago by a distinguished representative of one of 
 the great belligerent powers what would happen if the United States became 
 involved in war with Germany. I was asked whether I thought that the 
 citizens of German extraction would, under such conditions, sustain the govern- 
 ment at Washington. I might have declined to answer that question — I 
 might have resented it. But I said with perfect assurance that in such an 
 event, sad and tragic as it would be, the population of this country of German 
 descent, regardless of past affiliation or present opinion, would stand by the 
 government at Washington. (Applause.) In the worst event, it would 
 mean, on a larger scale, the fate of those distinguished Englishmen, who to-day 
 are supporting their government, although they can find neither political nor 
 moral excuse for their country's war. It would be no more tragic than the 
 fate of the Jews who, divided into as many citizenships as their countries, are 
 to-day fighting under as many flags as there are warring nations, with naught 
 to guide them but loyalty to the government which has recognized them, and 
 the vague hope that they too may be the remote beneficiaries of any improve- 
 ment that the sacrifices of the war may bring. 
 
 That much is true of our whole citizenship. But because it is true, 
 because of the gravity of such an event, because of the enormous responsibility 
 and burden that it would put upon all the people of this country, it is the 
 solemn duty of every one to do what he can to avoid an unjust or an unneces- 
 sary conflict; and to speak without hesitation, before permitting so tragic an 
 event to overwhelm us. (Applause.) 
 
 What I say is no more true of a possible controversy with Germany 
 than it would be of a conflict with France, or with any other of the European 
 powers. It is this very gravity that has made it necessary for us to consider 
 carefully what the true significance of some of our controversies has been or is. 
 It puts upon us the obligation to speak our minds and to preserve our right of 
 opinion and expression; and not to permit ourselves to be silenced when 
 questions of great moment are impending. (Applause.) It is right to avoid 
 personal controversy. It is wise to leave unnoticed incidental disputes. But 
 it is not compatible with citizenship in a republic to submit to dictation in 
 matters of opinion upon questions of public moment. Nothing short of a 
 state of war between our country and a foreign country can set bounds to 
 our freedom of thought and speech; and, indeed, up to that point the right 
 to think imposes the duty to speak. 
 
 What has been our experience? An undisguised attempt has been made 
 in this country to test our patriotism by our partisanship for Great Britain. 
 If we had to deal only with a widespread and altogether natural sympathy 
 for a cause embraced by Great Britain, the situation would be best met with 
 patience, and with dispassionate discussion. An appeal for consideration of 
 
 19 
 
equally natural sympathy for the people of other countries would find equally 
 tolerant hearing. But this is not the case. We have been met by a storm of 
 intolerance. In effect, we have been told that Great Britain can do no wrong. 
 It is heralded abroad that every sign of sympathy for any other people, any 
 attempt to show that a people opposed by Great Britain may nevertheless 
 be a contributor to the world's civilization, must be accepted as a sign of 
 disloyalty to the United States ; and in the case of those who have preserved 
 the integrity of their un-English names, as evidence of a divided allegiance. 
 But for this condition many of us might avoid the charge of partisanship for 
 endeavoring to complete the picture by presenting the other side of the case. 
 
 Why shall an American citizen submit to this? I have endeavored 
 to avoid the extreme pro-English or pro-German attitude ; but I have to 
 confess that it has been made unduly difficult to maintain the position of 
 a mere pro-American. In many quarters it is regarded as objectionable to 
 hold an independent position, and to insist upon free expression of thought. 
 For a time this situation appeared to be the result of ihoughtless assumption; 
 indeed, the attitude seemed to be confined to particular parts of the country. 
 But by degrees it became apparent that we had to deal with the persistent 
 contention that coming to America was tantamount to becoming English. The 
 clearer this purpose was made the more determined the resistance necessarily 
 became. It is a compliment to a man to have his loyalty taken for granted; 
 but it is the reverse of a compliment to take the man himself for granted. 
 If we were simply to become English, why did our parents or earlier ancestors 
 sail past the coast of England and come to the United States? They might 
 have stopped at the English shores, which, to England's credit be it said, were 
 then open to every one. She welcomed the oppressed of all countries ; and 
 many a struggle for freedom in foreign lands has been fought under the 
 protection of her liberal form of government. But our ancestors came to 
 the United States because this was a distinct country, with independent 
 institutions, which gave a chance for the development of those ideas of liberty 
 of which the sons and daughters of foreign lands had dreamed for many 
 years. (Loud applause.) 
 
 Why is my patriotism to be tested at this time, and who is to be my 
 judge? True, English is our national language; our form of government is 
 to be traced largely to English sources. But, in the last analysis, our 
 institutions are the growth of the experience of the civilized world; and, 
 apart from our political institutions, in the field of science and learning and 
 arts, our indebtedness to other countries is relatively very large. Is it disloyal 
 for me as an American citizen to respect any race that is not English? Must 
 even the descendants of the French and the Dutch peoples qualify for citizen- 
 ship by disclaiming their antecedents? Or is it the purpose of the present 
 agitation to exclude only the German? Is it unpatriotic to admire the 
 French? I have great admiration for them; particularly for the French 
 peasantry, known for their frugality; and for their patriotism, which has 
 prompted them to rise sublimely to meet every demand that the political 
 entanglements of France have made upon them. To-day the conduct of 
 the French people fills every lover of freedom, and every friend of sane 
 government, with renewed confidence in the blessings of rational self-government. 
 
 I admire other peoples. Is it unpatriotic to like the Irish? I do. I 
 respect the Swedes and the Swiss. I resent the injustice to the Finlanders. 
 I sympathize with the Bohemians and the Poles. I cannot forget the glorious 
 work of Cavour, and trust that it may not be destroyed as a result of Italy's 
 engagement in the great war. I find renewed support for my esteem for 
 the Dutch; and feel that they are not accorded the credit at this hour, to 
 which their dignified, patient, sacrificing and self-restrained conduct during all 
 
 20 
 
the excitement of this war entitles them. I am persuaded that the Belgian 
 government had forfeited its rights as a neutral power. But there is no reason 
 to believe that the Belgian people were advised of this situation. In judging 
 of the fierce struggles between populace and soldiers in the early stages of the 
 war, it seems to me we must bear in mind conditions which were altogether 
 out of the ordinary. But why continue? Is the value which I may set upon 
 the virtues of a particular people to be tested by its alignment — accidental or 
 avowed — in this particular war? I preserve my admiration for the English 
 people, as I have felt it all my life. Because I cannot agree with the 
 conduct of the British government, must I surrender my confidence in the 
 English people? Indeed, in many respects, the government and the people 
 appear to be so far apart that I should find it difficult to reconcile admiration 
 of both. Is it unpatriotic for an American to express these views? A few 
 years ago Lord Haldane delivered a great address before the American 
 Bar Association, which, as a compliment to its English colleagues, held its 
 meeting in Montreal, Canada. That address was heralded all over the 
 United States. Wherever lawyers met the praises of Haldane were sung. 
 To-day his name has been hissed in England, and there are no American 
 lawyers so poor to do him reverence. Is it unpatriotic for me as an American 
 if I find it impossible to adjust my admiration of Great Britain's great men to 
 the unforeseen vicissitudes of British politics? Having read Morley's works 
 with interest and profit for all these years, must I take his books from my 
 shelves because he now holds the view of British politics for which I contend? 
 With all Americans I feel a sense of gratitude to Bryce, for having written 
 the American Commonwealth — the result of personal observation, inquiry and 
 devoted study. Must I for that reason accept with unquestioning credulity 
 his atrocity reports, based upon ex-parte examinations and hearsay testimony, and 
 made without his having visited the places where the offenses are claimed 
 to have been committed? In that connection, is it disloyal to ask why 
 prominence is given to these reports, and the results of German investigations 
 made upon the spot by men of high repute, are suppressed? And if our 
 judgment is to be swayed by atrocity reports, why are we compelled to 
 look to German publications for accounts of the horrors of East Prussia, 
 Poland and South Africa? 
 
 I admire the Germans ; perhaps more ardently, because as a son of 
 German parents, familiar with the language of that nation, I may have 
 within my reach some information, which dependence upon a single language 
 has denied to many of my friends in this country. I do not hesitate to say 
 that I marvel at people who either fail or refuse to see anything great in the 
 present demonstration of the German people. It is not necessary to decide 
 questions of political right or wrong, to have your heart and your mind go 
 out to such universal, unquestioning popular devotion for a common cause. 
 It is not necessary to say that one country is all wrong and another country 
 is all right. It is entirely possible that even as Great Britain will be 
 awakened from the consequences of a long period of weakening process, so 
 Germany may have been saved from the approaching consequences of a 
 similar fate by the timely interference of a terrible ordeal. 
 
 But this I do not hesitate to say. It is time for Americans, who 
 make any pretense to neutrality, to have opinions based upon something more 
 than the prejudiced accounts that have been fed out to them. There comes 
 a time when every intelligent man and woman is responsible for judgment 
 and for attitude; and when it is no exaggeration to say that the prolongation 
 of the war, with all the horrors and destitution that follow in its track, must 
 be traced at least remotely to the position taken by the intelligent and immune 
 witnesses of every land. 
 
 21 
 
I do not wish to dwell at length upon this phase. I ask you not to 
 become partisans in the discussion of foreign issues; but to preserve open 
 minds, relying that the truth is the most powerful argument to be brought to 
 the support of any cause. Do not identify yourselves in this country with any 
 particular nation. Do not speak of Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, 
 Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, or other similar distinctions. As a 
 descendant from the German people, I have never hesitated to join societies 
 that were calculated to keep alive traditions, sweet customs, language or 
 song of that nation. But when it comes to organizations that savor of 
 political activity in my country, I have declined membership; and I can only 
 advise every citizen of this country to adopt that course. Do not permit your- 
 selves to be segregated. Stand upon the platform of the United States as 
 Americans, and declare your opinions upon any question that concerns our 
 country, from that platform. 
 
 I know that the impression has been given about me, and no doubt 
 about many others, that we have affiliated with separate organizations of a 
 quasi-public character in this country. That is one of the accepted methods to 
 create prejudice and discord. For my part, I am prepared to say that I 
 have not. I not only have not joined them, but I have been at pains in 
 practically every instance to state my reason for refusing to do so. It is not 
 for me to criticise those who have participated in such organizations. To 
 my mind, only a question of sound policy is presented. I cannot but admire 
 the courage of men who took their position as members of organizations, and 
 without whose energy and enterprise we in this country would have been left 
 for a long period of time without that information which was absolutely 
 essential to a correct understanding of the situation. (Applause.) In 
 saying this I must draw the line at every act that smacked of conflict with 
 the laws of our country. It would not be necessary to say this, but for the 
 attempt to lay the acts of ill-advised, excited, heedless men, and sometimes 
 criminals, at the door of those who have sought, often unwisely, but always 
 honorably, to bring to the attention of our citizenship the real merits of a cause 
 that it was proposed to obscure and to misrepresent. 
 
 But giving due credit to the courage of men who called into life 
 separate organizations, I must, for my part, insist that I regard their course 
 as unwise, because it tends to accentuate national distinctions in the United 
 States. A good cause must be won by the approval of an impartial people; 
 and, to that end, open-mindedness and national loyalty are absolutely essential. 
 I object, to repeat, to the attempt that has been made in this country 
 to enforce upon us a certain test of patriotism. It stings. I well know how 
 it feels. My people lived in the South during the early period of the Civil 
 War. In my boyhood I was called a "Dutchman," in contempt, by those who 
 did not know how honorable a name it is. We came North practically as 
 refugees; and no admonition ever given me by my father had greater influence 
 upon my life than the advice never to entertain a feeling of resentment for the 
 South. Having lost everything as a Union man, my father confirmed his 
 advice to me by voting for Tilden and for Cleveland. I did not follow 
 him, because I was more disposed than he to place the general principles of my 
 party above its particular standard bearers. 
 
 I speak of this because I would discourage the spirit of resentment and 
 retaliation. There has been provocation — grievous provocation; but you cannot 
 set it right by aught but fair-mindedness; confidence in the truth; patient 
 persistence; contention for the right. Do not dwell too much upon the 
 criticism of the hyphenated citizen. After all, it comes to very little. If the 
 term "German-American" is used by way of description, it is perfectly correct. 
 Of course, I am by ancestry a German-American. I would not deny it. 
 
I would be proud of it. My pity goes out to those who seek to deny their 
 descent during the immediate excitement. Beware of him who would prove his 
 loyalty at that cost. His adopted allegiance might be had at a similar price. 
 At the close of the war no one will take his measure more truly than the 
 Anglo-Americans. Nothing has been more destructive of the true fiber of 
 second generation manhood and womanhood than the too prompt substitution 
 of easy custom for traditional virtues. I pity more especially those who have 
 enjoyed enough of advantage by way of education and information to be 
 helpful, if they would, under existing conditions; and who for this or that 
 reason have refused or failed to avail of their opportunity. 
 
 If, however, the term "German-American" is to represent a dual 
 allegiance, I resent it. As a citizen of the United States I am an American. 
 As an American I want to be neutral. I want to regard foreign questions 
 with reference to their effect and influence upon my country; and I do not 
 propose to be hectored by men who boast of their unneutrahty on the one 
 hand and charge me with unneutrahty on the other. I trust that I could 
 go abroad officially or privately, and return an American still. Perhaps I 
 am peculiarly fortunate in insisting upon this distinction, because I am secure 
 so long as my name is spelled and pronounced as it is. If more men had 
 insisted upon the integrity of their names in this country, our census would 
 make a truer record of the composition of our people; and the representation 
 of some races which it is now sought to minimize would appear more 
 formidable than it looks. But I repeat, do not worry about this. If you 
 have to change your own name, in obedience to the custom of the land, be 
 sure to retain the root, so that your ancestry may be traced; and if you feel 
 lonesome in being designated as German-Americans, just include Anglo- 
 American in the common family, and most of the sting will be lost. 
 
 As you have been made to suffer during the past year, you will be m 
 danger of being flattered the coming year. The political pot is beginning 
 to boil. There have been Franco-Ajnerican political meetings in Massachusetts. 
 Do you not believe that there will be German- American meetings in Wisconsin? 
 My prediction is that the old custom will be overdone. If you do not protect 
 yourselves you will be made to suffer from adulation. There will be poli- 
 ticians without number who, provided with neutrality dope, will try to 
 hypnotize hyphenated citizens. (Applause.) When it comes to our elections, 
 votes count; and to my mind it is a mistake for any portion of our people 
 to permit themselves to be treated as a separate or distinct class of citizens in 
 the United States. I have discouraged the use of the term German-American — 
 not because it is untrue; but because the transition from the descriptive sense 
 to a doubtful political purpose is so easy. My advice is not to compromise 
 for compliment or for place ; but to stand without flinching for pro-American 
 platforms, with pro-American candidates to defend them. 
 
 When I speak of the right of opinion and the duty to maintain it, I do 
 not refer so much to the controversies that belong exclusively to foreign 
 countries as I do to the questions that affect our country. These are not 
 purely domestic; because I am not one of those who believe that the great 
 foreign war can be waged or finished without very far-reaching consequences 
 to our future. There are a great many such questions about which we must 
 have opinions ; and with respect to which we must preserve the right to 
 express ourselves. For illustration — the ammunition business. I am not here 
 to argue the merits so much as I am to say that the situation presented a 
 question to which varying answers would necessarily be made; and that the 
 attempt to condemn men as unpatriotic because they did not see fit to take a 
 convenient view calls for resistance to the attempt. Every effort to coerce 
 judgment challenges a free man's resistance. I know that our government 
 
 23 
 
was not compelled under international law to prevent the sale of ammunition. 
 By this time I think every one admits that much. Ammunition, however, is a 
 contraband article. Trade in contraband is denounced by international law. 
 True, the government is not compelled to prevent it, and the individual citizen 
 may engage in it at his own risk. The government, however, should assume 
 no responsibility for his protection. It is doubtful even whether a person who 
 has furnished ammunition on credit would have a standing in court for the 
 recovery of the purchase price. While by this time in some quarters the 
 belief has grown that there is something peculiarly meritorious about the 
 ammunition business, we have not yet heard of a single stockholder in a 
 private corporation who has undertaken to make responsible for profits 
 lost, an executive officer for declining ammunition contracts. The ground 
 that this business is immoral, and that, therefore, a company may decline it, has 
 not been challenged. Is it unreasonable under such circumstances for a 
 citizen to urge that his government's domestic conduct be made to conform 
 to recognized international standards? 
 
 But, to repeat, a government is not compelled to prohibit business of 
 this character; and our government indulged the privilege. Having taken that 
 position in the beginning, our government has taken the further position that 
 it would now be unneutral to prevent its citizens from continuing to furnish 
 ammunition throughout the war. It might be argued, I trust, without sub- 
 jecting the speaker to the charge of disloyalty, that if this position were 
 right, nevertheless, the rule did not contemplate that the citizens of our country 
 should furnish ammunition on a larger scale than they were reasonably pre- 
 pared to furnish at the beginning of the war. It can hardly be claimed that 
 it would be unneutral for our country to prevent the organization of new 
 enterprises and the change of old ones for the purpose of virtually turning 
 our factories into protected ammunition camps of one belligerent. I believe 
 that there is authority for saying that having taken our position in the beginning, 
 it would be unneutral to change that position during the war. This, however, 
 does not mean that we should do more than we could reasonably be counted 
 upon to do when our position was first announced. Nor does it mean that the 
 belligerents themselves might not by their conduct, directed against our interests 
 in other respects, give us ground, by way of retaliation, to modify our position 
 with respect to ammunition sales. In view of the paralyzing blows that have 
 been levelled at our maritime interests, is it unpatriotic to urge resort to the 
 one effective peace measure — embargo? 
 
 But granting the main contention to be correct, we have a right to ask 
 whether the rule has been consistently applied. Shortly after the beginning 
 of the war, the Secretary of State, in a communication addressed to the 
 Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, made a public 
 declaration that this country would not permit loans to be made to foreign 
 countries. It was clearly argued that such loans would be unneutral; and, 
 furthermore, that they would be calculated to arouse disquiet and resentment 
 in this country to an extent that might ultimately prove dangerous. That 
 position was changed after the war had been under way for practically a year. 
 Without explanation, our government permitted foreign war loans to be made 
 upon a scale unparalleled in history. It will not do to say that these were 
 purely private loans, and that our government was without control. Few 
 will contend that these loans would have been made against the protest of 
 the President of the United States. With the national bank system, based 
 upon the principle that it is necessary to the fiscal operations of the govern- 
 ment, and with its machinery under executive control as it now is, no institution 
 and no citizen would have dared to make these loans without the tacit 
 approval of the government. For be it remembered, with all our talk of 
 
 24 
 
bureaucracy and royal mandates, we, more than any civilized power, are 
 giving illustration of practical one-man power. With respect to the loans, our 
 position was, therefore, changed. We announced one rule at the beginning of 
 the war; and after a lapse of three-quarters of a year we adopted another 
 rule, precisely the reverse. 
 
 Did not Germany have a right to rely upon the rule that was announced 
 at the inception of the war? If we persisted in the sale of ammunition because 
 we had in the beginning announced that policy, and determined to permit 
 loans, although we had at first announced the opposite policy, were we not 
 guilty of unneutrality to Germany? In any event, is it an offense to ask that 
 the two rules of conduct be reconciled? 
 
 It is not my purpose to discuss these questions at length at this time. 
 I am here to say that these are facts and conditions that necessarily invite 
 differences of opinion; and that we cannot afford to let them pass without 
 consideration, or to frame our conclusions in obedience to official dictation. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 It is safe to say that barring a few who would force our country into 
 the foreign conflict at any cost, the vast body of the population of this country 
 rejoices to know that the submarine controversy between the United States 
 and Germany has been adjusted. There is little question that, apart from 
 the merits of the controversy, the great majority of our people felt that no 
 sufficient ground for war between the two nations was presented, in a case in 
 which the element of intent and direct attack was utterly lacking. It is a 
 relief, therefore, to the peace-loving people of this country to know that 
 Germany yielded to our demands; and that as between these countries that 
 controversy may be regarded as settled, for the period of this war at least. 
 It is gratifying to know that the friendship between the two nations, which 
 had its inception during the revolutionary days, when Frederick the Great 
 was prompt to recognize the independence of the colonies, and which was 
 cemented by Germany's attitude during our Civil War, has received this 
 renewed confirmation. 
 
 There were questions presented, however, that justified, and that prob- 
 ably will hereafter invite differences of opinion. The submarine is a new 
 instrument of war, with respect to which there are very few, if any, inter- 
 national rules. Indeed, the development of this marine weapon is so new, and 
 so out of line with anything that had obtained heretofore, that it is practically 
 impossible to adjust or to apply old rules to the new conditions. No doubt 
 most authorities will agree that in so far as passenger ships, pure and simple, 
 are concerned, this new marine weapon must adjust itself to the rules that 
 have heretofore been made for the protection of life. 1 o that extent our 
 country registered a triumph in which our people must rejoice, and to which 
 no doubt civilized nations will give their approval. One practical question, 
 however, has not been eliminated, and this is, what is a passenger ship? 
 Without going into the elements of controversy, as to whether a ship once 
 employed as an auxiliary may again seek protection as a passenger ship, or 
 what effect shall be given to admiralty orders covering all merchantmen and 
 adopted or carried out by only some of them, or what will be the result if 
 the ship fails or refuses to comply with an order to stop; without discussing 
 these matters, a fundamental question does appear to be raised, when a 
 ship, by invoking protection for passengers, as a necessary result secures 
 protection for its contraband cargo. In other words, can a ship become 
 an ammunition carrier for a belligerent government, and, at the same time, enjoy 
 the character of a passenger ship in the accepted sense? For the purpose of 
 this war that question seems to be adjusted, and let us hope that it is. But 
 it does not follow that this decision has been definitely and generally accepted 
 
 25 
 
as a rule of conduct. We, too, have built submarines, and we are con- 
 templating the building of a great many more. We, too, propose to use those 
 submarines; and before accepting that this controversy has been finally 
 determined, it will be interesting to know what the views of our own 
 admiralty are, and to what use the orders of our admiralty proposed to put 
 these submarines at the time of their adoption. In other words, the practical 
 question is this: If we were at war with a foreign country, and that 
 country undertook to have a ship under its flag carry a cargo of ammunition 
 to its troops engaged in conflict with us, and, at the same time, to carry 
 passengers of a neutral nation, would our Secretary of War or our President 
 give the order that the delivery of the ammunition to our enemy engaged 
 in battle with our men must be prevented at any cost? Would we insist 
 that a ship cannot in time of war be both a passenger and an ammunition 
 carrier; that the ship which carries ammunition to the enemy is, to all intents 
 and purposes, directly or indirectly, by the reason of the rule, an auxiliary; 
 and that auxiliary ships serving the armies of the enemy cannot be permitted 
 to secure protection by carrying innocent passengers? Would we drive the 
 principle to its logical consequences, and insist that an enemy cannot protect 
 an ammunition-carrying ship from the attack of our submarine, simply because 
 it has managed to induce one neutral passenger to sail under its flag? "The 
 United States as a government has been the leading champion in favor of 
 the adoption of the principle of the immunity from capture of private property 
 at sea, excepting for the carriage of contraband and violation of blockade." 
 Would it be unreasonable to ask that the carrying of passengers and am- 
 munition be similarly separated, to secure the protection of innocent life on 
 the one hand and the right to effective defense on the other hand? Again, 
 it is not necessary to insist upon certain conclusions upon these questions. It 
 is necessary to have opinions; and it is necessary to preserve the right to 
 express those opinions so long as final decisions have not been reached. 
 
 Is it unpatriotic to ask the question whether the rule enforced by Great 
 Britain against the United States in the case of Mason and Slidell has been 
 abrogated without our consent or with it? Is it not humiliating to have a great 
 nation told that a rule enforced against us with a practical threat of war 
 has now been changed without consulting us ; and without attention to such 
 protests as may have been entered? As a matter of self-respect, every citizen 
 who loves his flag wants to know why and how it is that a threat administered 
 half a century ago, humiliating Abraham Lincoln and his advisers, forcing 
 us to make apology and denial, has been abrogated. 
 
 There are other questions with respect to which it should not be regarded 
 as unpatriotic to make inquiry ; and fortunately with respect to these the 
 citizen who makes bold to inquire stands upon ground which has been stated 
 and confirmed by the authority of our government, although without apparent 
 result. That our foreign commerce has been seriously interfered with goes 
 without saying. The answer that in the general result we have not suffered, 
 because we have managed to export more than we did before the war, is 
 both insufficient and humiliating. The question is not one of monetary return 
 alone, although the practical damage is not to be underestimated. The real 
 question is whether rules of international law, molded by centuries of con- 
 troversy, accepted by practice and by conferences, finding their final expression 
 in the Declaration of London, shall be abrogated without effective protest 
 from us. The more essential question is whether we shall stand by to suffer 
 the standards of international law to be lowered, or whether we shall insist 
 that accepted rules must be maintained in their integrity; whether while we are 
 engaged in elevating the rules of international law with respect to the use of 
 the new engine of war — the submarine — we will at least not suffer those rules, 
 
 26 
 
which have been accepted by all civilized nations, to be disregarded when 
 the responsibility for their observance is laid at our door. This is the position 
 that Holland took when that state solemnly protested, not only because her 
 commerce was affected, but because she regarded it as her obligation to the 
 civilized world to protest against all infringements of accepted international 
 law. If we had sustained Holland in that position, and had gathered to our sup- 
 port the influence of other neutral powers, there is no practical question that the 
 rules existing at the beginning of the war would be maintained in their full 
 integrity at this time. Instead of that, we are discussing the commercial effect 
 upon us, as though a profitable showing could relieve us from the obligation 
 to maintain the sanctity of the rule. But even the commercial contention is 
 necessarily false; because our loss is not to be measured by the cargoes that are 
 immediately held up, or by the ammunition orders with which we are 
 temporarily favored, but by the general depreciation and interference that the 
 development of our foreign commerce is made to suffer. We are deprived 
 of the one legitimate opportunity that has fallen to us during this war. We 
 have developed one branch of commerce which is denounced by international 
 law as contraband, and we have been denied the development of that branch 
 of commerce for the preservation of which the rules of international law are 
 primarily intended. We are attesting our neutrality to the belligerents on 
 one side by insisting upon the sale of ammunition, because that was our 
 practice when the war started; but we are failing to establish our neutrality 
 to the belligerents on the other side by permitting their enemies to prevent us 
 from delivering foodstuff and other non-contraband goods to the non-combatant 
 citizens of their countries. This situation may be satisfactory to those of our 
 eminent citizens who boast of their personal unneutrality ; but it cannot be 
 unpatriotic for those who stand for an actual neutrality to submit that we 
 have not managed to hold the scales impartially between the belligerents; that 
 we have met one side with an ultimatum and the other with diplomatic 
 conversation. 
 
 Very few want war against any of the belligerents. No one in this 
 country would have war against Great Britain or France. 1 here are a few 
 who no doubt would be glad to have our country driven into war with 
 Germany and Austria. But why speak of such consequences when there is 
 nothing in the situation to justify it? We have not hesitated to insist upon our 
 position where issues were in doubt. Why not insist upon our rights where 
 principles are undisputed? A firm tone signifying that our demands, where 
 they are unquestioned, because they stand upon the rules of accepted inter- 
 national law, are not legitimate subjects for arbitration, but must be met now 
 while they are of importance to us, would be satisfactorily answered. No 
 one questions that. And if the unexpected result of a refusal to meet such 
 demands should ensue, we know that we have it in our power to force the 
 issues without conflict. We have a right to resort to those measures which 
 Thomas Jefferson recommended, and which every statesman knows to be ready 
 at our hands. If we cannot ship legitimate goods, we can refuse to ship 
 illegitimate goods; and the answer is made. Is it unpatriotic for a citizen of 
 the United States to suggest such ready and prompt relief; and is he to be 
 told that he is disloyal to his country, because he is disposed to consider 
 measures that might be effective, instead of relying upon protests that are not 
 answered? (Applause.) 
 
 Again, I say to the people who have felt aggrieved by partisan com- 
 ment, do not permit yourselves to be driven into a spirit of resentment and 
 retaliation. (Applause.) Remember your position as citizens of the United 
 States. Consider your rights. Do not hesitate to express your opinions; and 
 trust that when Congress meets there will be men in the Senate and in the 
 
 21 
 
House who will not hesitate to insist upon knowing the reasons why certain 
 things are done and certain things are not done. 
 
 I admit that after my country is at war, there is an end to the discussion. 
 But until that time it is our duty to do everything in our power for the 
 enlightenment of ourselves and our fellowmen. Lord Erskine declared that 
 if ever the time came when the meanest criminal could not find a reputable 
 lawyer to defend him in the courts, then his country's liberties would crumble. 
 If that is true of court proceedings, is it not infinitely more true of public 
 questions? 
 
 To submit to a contrary rule, I would have to set aside all the teachings 
 that have guided me. I would have to disavow the teachings of Luther 
 which my grandfather and great-grandfather preached in the old church in 
 Germany. I would have to put aside Burke and Fox and Pitt, and other 
 English leaders who did not hesitate on the floor of Parliament to question 
 the policy of England, when she was at war with her colonies on this side. 
 (Applause.) I have accepted the teachings of these men as a profound 
 political influence of my life, and I am not prepared to abandon that influence 
 now. 
 
 But let us not treat this situation too seriously. There has been great 
 improvement, as every one must know; and by degrees many things are 
 creeping over the horizon. The American people are fair-minded, and the 
 truth is bound to come to its own. Let us begin to look to the future and 
 dwell not too much upon the past. Peace may be a long way off; but peace 
 may come very suddenly. Our war-stock friends may have a rude awakening. 
 No one can tell; and with the exception of war-stock operators, no one will 
 regret when the end does come. It is time to think of possible peace, and of 
 what peace may mean. It should not mean a mere compromise, if it is to 
 be lasting. It should mean an adjustment upon principles which hold out the 
 expectation of endurance. There is no lasting peace until the belligerents 
 can come to an agreement which recognizes geographical distinctions and 
 racial dignity, so that nations may live side by side in friendly intercourse, each 
 developing what is peculiar to itself. Without that in the terms of peace, 
 further conflict would be inevitable. 
 
 So I say, instead of nursing resentment, plan for the future. Do not 
 indulge in that peculiar German characteristic which is called "Empnndlichkeit " 
 Preserve your sense of humor, and practice what Morely calls "Weltan- 
 schauung." Regard yourselves as members of the nation, with rights and 
 with responsibilities. Show tolerance for the people who disagree with you. 
 It is entirely natural, for illustration, that people in the city of New York 
 sympathize with people in London. Why would they not? Commercially 
 and socially, many of them are closer to London than they are to Chicago. 
 Some of them know more about London than they know about the United 
 States. When they have business with London they are sent for and are 
 proud to go. When they have business with the West they send for us, and 
 we are glad to go. That is a natural situation, which explains much of the 
 spirit that has been shown and much of the impatience that has been felt. 
 
 It would be wiser, in my opinion, instead of indulging resentment and 
 injury, to give support to rational propositions of peace; to give support, if 
 you please, to those men in Germany who are counselling reasonable measures 
 looking to peace. To me it seems rational to begin to contemplate in this 
 country that Germany and Austria may not be crushed. So far, all argu- 
 ment with us seems to have proceeded upon the idea that this must be the war s 
 outcome. Indications are not that way. Without indulging in prophecy or in 
 promise, I submit that it is not unreasonable to consider terms of peace, predi- 
 cated upon the idea that the integrity of the several civilized nations may 
 
 28 
 
be preserved; and that some day they may stand shoulder to shoulder for the 
 vindication and the triumph of humane and sacred principles. Why not 
 give support to such ideas? Instead of boasting of deeds of heroism in 
 the respective countries, why not go to the assistance of the strong men, of 
 whom there are many in all these countries, who are prepared to advocate 
 rational plans for bringing this war to an end? 
 
 Since it is for us to consider our own immediate interests first, is it too 
 early to give our minds to the all-controlling question in which the United 
 States is, and for over a century has been, interested; and which, in many 
 respects, constitutes the most essential or embarrassing issue of the foreign 
 conflict? But for the controversy about the freedom of the seas, and about 
 the immunity of private property at sea, there is at least reason to believe 
 that the war could be brought to an early end. Heretofore we have stood 
 for the right of private property at sea, as it is recognized upon land, and 
 we have enjoyed the support of Germany. This is the time to confirm our 
 position. So far, we have submitted to the greatest humiliation by way of 
 dictation, as to what we may or may not do upon the high seas, that has 
 ever been administered by one great power to another; although the acceptance 
 of our contention would be more far-reaching in its consequences to lasting 
 peace than any other rule of conduct that is now in controversy. If the 
 protection of private property upon the high seas is once admitted, the induce- 
 ment to defeat nations by laying low their foreign commerce will be gone. 
 With the recognition of that rational principle, a long step toward the limita- 
 tion of navies will have been taken; and a more effective measure for the 
 preservation of peace between nations will have been adopted than can be 
 brought about by the most elaborate treaties that diplomats and statesmen can 
 devise. 
 
 But there is a broader aspect. Professor Bonn has said that our relations 
 with Germany must be perpetuated, no matter how aggrieved she or we may 
 feel. That is true of our relations with all the civilized nations. The 
 essential influence of Germany must, of course, be exercised by force of 
 ideas, and not by conquest of territory. That has been her history, and no 
 doubt will, in the main, continue to be. But if her aim is to have a wider 
 influence than has been the case in the past, she herself will have in some 
 respects to correct her methods. I admit that she has suffered because she 
 could not enjoy the equal use of a foreign language in presenting her case 
 abroad. So far as we are concerned, the English language constitutes a 
 practical monopoly. This accounts for our failure to understand the condition 
 or the attitude of foreign peoples. We have failed to receive much informa- 
 tion, and we have suffered some deception in consequence. Even Germany's 
 enemies may now be said to suffer because of the failure to obtain full 
 information. It is doubtful, for instance, whether the starving process would 
 have been as confidently entertained if Great Britain had been better 
 acquainted with German books, or even with some English books. It is true, 
 at the same time, that Germany herself, while fairly well informed about her 
 neighbors, has not adopted the necessary and proper methods to state her case 
 adequately and persuasively to the civilized world. Perhaps she has relied too 
 much upon truth to prove its own case. But be that as it may, Germany has 
 not succeeded in the past in making herself understood abroad. In so far 
 as such an understanding is of value to us, it appears to me that the descend- 
 ants of German ancestry in this country have failed on their part to fully 
 represent what is good and strong and fine in the country of their forefathers. 
 Even now, and I say it with regret, there is too much disposition to dwell 
 upon the great achievements of the old country, instead of showing how the 
 preparation for such achievements might be advantageously adapted here. 
 
 29 
 
It is perfectly true that Germany has something to give to the world 
 that cannot be spared. For more than a year we have spoken of militarism in 
 terms of condemnation. Now we speak of it in terms of applause. Our 
 difficulty is that we do not seem to appreciate that we have changed our mind. 
 Should we not begin to understand that there is something besides army and 
 navy, and guns and ammunition, in preparedness? I would not detract from 
 the achievements of the army; but the German army is no more than the 
 point of the arrow. The shaft that drives it home is the social and industrial 
 system. In this respect Germany has done what no nation has ever accom- 
 plished — she has solved the problem which in the past had seemed beyond 
 solution; the problem of protecting the man without making him weak; of 
 helping him, without coddling him. That country has at least approached 
 the secret. Every man and every woman and their children are part of the 
 state. They are developed, and, in turn, they serve. This is one of the 
 great demonstrations of this war, and it constitutes a marvel of our time. 
 We speak of the crippled conditions in which this war will leave the belligerents. 
 No doubt there will be tragedy enough. But I predict that Germany will 
 give evidence of preparation for the industrial struggle, pursued even in the 
 days of her ordeal. We do not know precisely how it is done; but there 
 may be a partial explanation. Germany is the one great nation of modern 
 times in which industrial and social development preceded political union. 
 She had her "Zollverein" before she had her empire. In other words, the 
 social development — the industrial development — had been had before the 
 empire was created; and these developments form an integral and natural 
 part of her system. 
 
 Great Britain is just as socialistic as Germany ; but has she achieved 
 as much in this realm? She has not, because England has accepted her 
 social reforms by way of political compromise. She has yielded to the threat 
 of political force; while Germany has, in a far more normal fashion, engrafted 
 her socialism as a part of an industrial and social system. Universal educa- 
 tion, in the broadest sense, has made Germany. As Carlyle suggested — you 
 may discover the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, without even indicating 
 the worthy beneficiary of the doctrine. 
 
 If we want to be of assistance to our country, let us present and study 
 these facts, because so far we in this country have embraced the same 
 deceptive policy of legislative cure-alls that has constituted Great Britain's 
 greatest danger for the last quarter of a century. (Applause.) We look to 
 political relief for all our ills. We are trying to accomplish our results by 
 precisely the same methods which have caused Great Britain's difficulties. 
 Whenever anything appears to be wrong we try to right it by statute. Our 
 laws are more numerous and less consistent than those of Germany; but we 
 glory in our democracy, and denounce Germany's bureaucracy, still trusting 
 to the healing powers of the phrasemakers. It is time that we recognize the 
 necessity for going deeper than statutory relief. 
 
 The situation is entirely natural. In matters of political liberty Great 
 Britain was far in advance of any other country. By the declaration of 
 our independence we forged still farther ahead. But both peoples learned to 
 look to political measures for every kind of freedom; and now we think that 
 an Act of Congress or an Act of the Legislature must afford a remedy for any 
 complaint. Even now when we speak of "National Defense," we have in 
 mind appropriations, armies and navies. National defense cannot be had 
 without these; but we are too apt to forget that the integrity and patriotism 
 of the people constitute the first condition; and that, before we learn to shoot, 
 we ought to learn to walk. 
 
 30 
 
Again, what have the descendants of Germany in this country done to 
 give the United States the benefit of Germany's experience in a sphere in which 
 she has undeniably excelled? Have they transplanted into our country that 
 for which German efficiency really stands? Take another illustration: Muni- 
 cipal self-government is the one admitted political success in Germany. 
 Municipal government is the one distinct failure in the United States. What 
 have those of our citizens who should be most familiar with the secrets of 
 Germany's success contributed to impress upon our country the advantage of 
 Germany's experience? I see little evidence of it; and I feel like saying in 
 despair that the activity has consisted largely in contests between German- 
 Americans and Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans, and the like, over 
 municipal jobs. (Applause.) Is not this true if we look at it honestly? 
 We have imitated the political system, instead of correcting it. Frankly, we 
 may take credit for having given a place to the literature and art and 
 especially the science of the Fatherland; but there should be more of a stand 
 for practical idealism in the United States. Not as a separate citizenship; not 
 as a distinct race ; but as part of the whole people. The representatives 
 of various peoples must amalgamate to create a distinct American type, 
 strengthened by the traditions, the customs, the achievements, and, if you 
 please, by the dreams of each and all of them. 
 
 31 
 
Professor Shepherd. 
 
 In conclusion, my friends, permit me to say that you have been treated to 
 a symposium of opinion, and of thorough and earnest truth-telling which ought 
 to remain with you long and abide in your minds and hearts; for it is good 
 to hear the truth, not only sometimes, but often. With all our sense of 
 affection for the lands of our ancestors, we know that our primary duty is to 
 ourselves in our own community. What all the world has to offer us along 
 the lines of human betterment, we shall utilize and employ in the full measure 
 of our strength. You men and women of German origin have brought to 
 your adopted land a noble heritage and enriched it accordingly. Of it you 
 may well be proud, as we of another European ancestry are proud of what it 
 has done for our common country. In fact we are proud of our forefathers 
 from whatever realm they came, and of the work of their descendants in 
 the construction of the American commonwealth. 
 
 We have heard, then, of German efficiency, of methods of international 
 co-operation and of the duty of the American citizen, whatever the land of his 
 ancestors, in the performance of the mutual tasks of a world humanity. By 
 lessons so inspiring I trust that we may profit in the fullest degree. 
 
 32