ADDRESS BY 
 
 Honorable CHARLES NAG EL 
 
 Delivered at the German & English 
 Academy Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 
 April 11, 1916, at 8 o'clock, before 
 the German Literary Society. 
 
» 
 
Mr. Chairman, and Lad ten and Gentlemen: 
 
 Before coming here a very courteous representative of 
 the press asked me whether 1 had a manuscript of my address, 
 and he kindly suggested that, perhaps, owing to the delicacy 
 of the subject, it might he well for me to have done so. Be 
 may be right about that; but there are several reasons why I 
 do not prepare manuscripts on occasions of this kind. One is, 
 that I have not the time; the other is that I have found that, 
 however careless an expression may he used in an extempo- 
 raneous speech, the press is usually disposed to give a man 
 credit for what he really wants to say; and finally, 1 want to 
 say that I am in the habit of discussing any subject given me 
 with perfect freedom. If I cannot speak of my subject with 
 the same freedom before an audience that 1 would enjoy in my - 
 own household, I do not care to discuss it at all. I I'eel abso- 
 lutely secure in my own relation to my country. I have no 
 animosity against any race wherever it may be ; and this gives 
 me entire security in speaking to the hubject which 1 propose 
 to discuss. 
 
 I need not say that if conditions in this country were nor- 
 mal, as I wish they were, I should he glad to discuss the con- 
 ditions on the other side on their own merits. I am not one 
 of those Americans avIio believe that so great a war, involving 
 the issues of such enormous importance to the countries im- 
 mediately engaged, can be waged without affecting our people 
 and our country in a most substantial manner. Civilized peo- 
 ples are too closely related, bound up with each other by 
 treaties, by commercial relations and in our case by human 
 ties, to make it possible to have such a war impressed upon 
 the pages of history without writing down something that 
 will concern us. But we are not permitted to discuss those 
 questions — at least, times are not such in our midst as to make 
 it possible to discuss them with profit. 
 
 We have been forced to admit that we are concerned 
 about ourselves, about our own affairs and our own fate, it 
 
is time that we made it clear to ourselves that this is the 
 United Stales, and that we are the people of the United States, 
 and that we must stand together, must understand each other, 
 and exercise patience, toleration and sympathy for each other. 
 
 We cannot deny that just at present there is a determined 
 effort being made to involve our country in that war. I do 
 not know how far it extends; but I do not see how we can 
 close our eyes to the fact that this condition exists. Now, the 
 remarkable feature of it is that there is no disposition— what- 
 ever may be the grievances against this side or that— there is 
 no disposition that I can discover in any part of the popula- 
 tion of this country, to involve our country in war against the 
 Allies. There is only one agitation, and that is to have us join 
 the Allies against Germany. That is the situation; and there 
 is no use in blinking at facts. That is so. 
 
 Now T have spoken upon subjects of this kind before, and 
 I know well that 1 do not {(lease either extreme; nor do I want 
 to. J i'eel that if I discuss this question at all I necessarily 
 must bear more upon one side than on the other, because the 
 question is generally presented solely with respect to one side. 
 If you could assure me that under the conditions that now 
 prevail there is no danger of war between our country and 
 either of the belligerents, 1 should be content to say no more. 
 1 speak only because it appears to me that we ought to make 
 it clear to ourselves, in view of this constant tenacious effort, 
 just what the situation is; and how much or how little reason 
 or excuse there is for actual conflict between this country and 
 Germany or Austria. 
 
 To do that it becomes necessary briefly to review some of 
 the occasions for friction that have arisen, at the risk of 
 wearying my hearers with facts and observations that I have 
 used in other addresses. 1 think as we review, we are bound to 
 come to the conclusion that in practically every instance the 
 decision has been against Germany, or she has yielded; so 
 that for my part 1 cannot see where the occasion for strife 
 
can possibly arise. I am speaking now of those questions that 
 i have in some fashion arisen between our country and Ger- 
 
 many. One of the first decisions was made with respect to 
 the wireless and the cable. The German cable was cut and 
 our communication was destroyed, and while there was some 
 question as to the propriety of the act, it was accepted with- 
 out protest. The wireless system of Germany had a station 
 on this side, and we concluded that it must be governed by 
 rules different from those that apply to a cable; and that we 
 must control the messages sent by or to that wireless station. 
 Why? Because the wireless could reach out into the sea, and 
 because it could not be cut. True, it cannot be cut. But it 
 can be destroyed; and we have been told over and over again 
 during this war, that the mere fact that this or that belligerent 
 has an advantage, does not put upon us the burden to equalize 
 those advantages between the belligerents. We have accepted 
 the responsibility for a decision with respect to an entirely 
 new question; and all the messages over this wireless system 
 are censored. We do it, and Germany has yielded. There is 
 no offense there. 
 
 In the Trent case it was established that the citizens of a 
 belligerent cannot be taken off neutral decks. We had taken 
 the other position during the Civil War; and at the instance 
 of Great Britain we were put into the humiliating position of 
 having to apologize for what we had done, and of having to 
 surrender citizens of the Southern Confederacy who had been 
 taken off a British ship. That was made the rule of Inter- 
 national Law by Great Britain's demand and by our submis- 
 sion. Nevertheless, during this war civilians of all ages and 
 description of Germany and Austria-Hungary have been taken 
 from the decks of neutral ships. We have protested, in one or 
 two instances, with belated effect. The practice has, however, 
 not been abandoned; the general rule of International haw is 
 not respected. For practical purposes Germany has yielded. 
 There is no offense against us. 
 
 — 5 — 
 
The question arose whether we, having declared our coun- 
 try neutral, and having appealed to the people to he neutral, 
 ought under those circumstances to engage in the munitions 
 business. I am of the opinion that as a matter of strict Inter- 
 national Law the citizens of our country had the right to 
 manufacture and to sell ainmunition; and I am also disposed 
 to helieve that if we adopted that policy in the beginning of 
 the war, it might have been regarded as unneutral not to con- 
 tinue the practice, unless we had special cause for changing 
 , our policy by adopting retaliatory measures against the bel- 
 ligerent who enjoyed our assistance. All that is true enough; 
 but we did not stop there. Is it reasonable to say that because 
 our citizens were authorized to sell ammunition and to con- 
 tinue to sell, that therefore it was proper for us to transform 
 our legitimate industries into munition factories; and to sell 
 a thousand times as much ammunition as we had contemplated 
 manufacturing during this time? That is the real question — 
 because conduct in international affairs is governed by good 
 faith. The reason of the rule determines the justice or the in- 
 justice of our attitude. I need not say to what extent this 
 business has gone. 1 need not comment upon the unfavorable 
 results that have come to our own country in consequence; for 
 which we will pay many times over before we get through. 
 Hut the decision was made and Germany yielded. There is no 
 cause for complaint against her. 
 
 We come to the foreign loans. The Secretary of State 
 made the public announcement that it would be unneutral for 
 the citizens of the United States to take foreign war loans. 
 That was the policy of our State at the beginning of the war. 
 Was it neutral to change our attitude during that war, after 
 having made the announcement? Germany Avas in a position 
 to say that when we made our announcement with reference 
 to loans, she had a right to assume that that policy would be 
 maintained, and she had a right to make her calculation for 
 this conflict upon that theory. We changed our position with- 
 
out explanation; and our citizens, by the assistance of o\ar 
 financial institutions, which operate under national charters, 
 and are practically under national control, made the most tre- 
 mendous war loans that were ever known in history. Ger- 
 many did not understand it: and it was not explained; hut she 
 has yielded, and there is no cause for complaint there. 
 
 What other question has been raised ? The question with 
 respect to the use of the submarine. We need not go into the 
 beginning of that controversy, beyond stating that the first 
 step taken was the British Order in Council for laying mines 
 in the North Sea to compel every ship, neutral and otherwise, 
 to go so close to the British shores that it could be inspected. 
 The avowed purpose was to destroy Germany by starving her. 
 That was the statement made. What was Germany's re- 
 sponse? She protested for three months, and issued the 
 warning that if we submitted to the order of starvation 
 against her — if we did not assert our right l<> deliver non- 
 contraband goods to a friendly power, that she would he com- 
 pelled to retaliate in her own defense, by destroying British 
 commerce at sea. That was the situation. By every rule 
 under international Law, recognized for a century, our coun- 
 try had a right to sell non-contraband goods to the civilians 
 of Germany. In the war between Russia and Japan, Japan 
 undertook to confiscate rice; and Lansdowne said that rice 
 cannot be held unless it is shown affirmatively that it is in- 
 tended for the army; that if it is intended for civilians it 
 must be released; and if the prize court decides to hold it, the 
 decision will not he conclusive unless if is found to be in line 
 with the rules of International Law. In the Boer War, Salis- 
 bury made the same decision; and Secretary Hay of the 
 United States made the same announcement. That was the 
 law. 
 
 So Germany responded by saying that she is fighting for 
 her life; that it is war to the knife; and flint she proposes to 
 do what she can to protect her people and to indict the same 
 
calamity upon her enemy that has been imposed upon her. 
 The result was tier attack upon a passenger ship carrying am- 
 munition. That raised a question. We are not so much con- 
 cerned with the merits of the question now. My own judg- 
 ment has always been that in time of war a passenger ship 
 should not be permitted to carry ammunition to the enemy; 
 or passengers invoking the protection of their government 
 should not travel on ammunition carriers. I know they make 
 a distinction between a passenger ship and an auxiliary; but 
 what is to determine — the passengers on top, or the ammuni- 
 tion below? If we were at war with a foreign power, and a 
 passenger ship belonging to that power undertook to carry 
 ammunition to our enemy, and claimed protection for that ship 
 because a neutral was on hoard — do you believe any Secretary 
 of the Navy would stay in office if he permitted the delivery of 
 that ammunition to our enemy? (Applause.) 
 
 But why argue about it? 1 admit it is a question; and I 
 know I cannot decide it. But it has been decided to preserve 
 the peace of a century with a friendly nation. The one great 
 nation that has never broken friendship with us, Germany, 
 yielded; and that question is disposed of. There is no cause 
 for war. 
 
 We come now to the last question — the use of submarines 
 against merchantmen armed for offensive or defensive pur- 
 poses. Let us examine that question. Look at it fairly. In 
 1913 Winston Churchill, Lord of the Admiralty, stated in Par- 
 liament that he had arranged to have all merchantmen armed 
 in time of war; that the ships were being reconstructed, and 
 that the Admiralty would be prepared to furnish those ships 
 with guns and ammunition. That was in 1913. We have not 
 seen the orders in this war; but we have read that instructions 
 were given to fire and to ram. What is the submarine to do? 
 To come up and inquire politely whether in this instance the 
 armed merchantman is going to ram or to shoot? {Applause.) 
 To inquire whether the ship belongs to this class or that class 
 
of merchantmen ? It does not stand to reason. The Ameri- 
 can mind will not accept such a rule for the conduct of war. 
 No Englishman and no German w ill. They are all good fight- 
 ers, and they will not he hound by that kind of a game of 
 chance. On the contrary, every American sees the absurdity 
 of it. He knows enough about Western life to know that the 
 man who gets the drop, gets his man. That is all about that 
 proposition. However, again it is a new question. The sub- 
 marine presents a novel question throughout, and no man can 
 decide its status. You can only reason about it; and come to 
 this conclusion or that. But 1 would like to know, and it would 
 be interesting for the American people to he told, what our 
 own navy had in mind when it recommended the building of 
 submarines? 1 would like to know what navy men think of 
 this question. They cannot talk unless they are asked ; and 1 
 wish they might be asked. But again, suppose we cannot 
 agree upon that question; suppose Germany says she insists 
 upon her position and we say that she is wrong. I s that cause 
 for war? That is the real question in which I am interested. 
 I say it presents no such cause. {Applause.) It is perfectly 
 obvious that the result to us is a remote one; it is not an in- 
 tended offense, and all conduct in private or International 
 Law is to be judged by the intent that prompts it. Germany 
 does not want difficulty with us. She has made it obvious that 
 it is her supreme purpose to dispose of every controversy 
 without estranging this nation. What is the ground of our 
 complaint ? I want to say frankly that we should not be quick 
 to criticize our government, which is responsible for this sit- 
 uation. We' cannot he told everything that the responsible 
 executive knows. That is impossible. 1 am here to speak 
 more especially about public opinion, because after all public 
 opinion is the most powerful factor in this country. This is 
 a popular government and we, the people, are really the gov- 
 ernment. So I ask, why should we be so sensitive about the 
 right of an American citizen to travel on a belligerent ship in 
 
the war /one? There is no such principle applied anywhere 
 else. 1 traveled in Germany during the war close to the Rhine. 
 I traveled with soldiers going out and with wounded men corn- 
 in- back. I knew perfectly well that if I got within the war 
 zone I would have no protection as an American citizen. I 
 took the chance, slight as it was; and if 1 did not want to take 
 it, I had no business there. Did we not say to our own citi- 
 zens on the other side in Germany, that if they remained be- 
 yond a certain date, they would have to do so at their own 
 risk? Why? Because it was best for them to come home in 
 the opinion of our government. Did we not say to the citizens 
 in Mexico that they had better get out of that country? Did 
 we tell them not to surrender their right as citizens to live 
 there under our treaty with Mexico? No; we told them to 
 (•(tine home. Why? Because we did not want to take the re- 
 sponsibility for the situation. What is the difference? We 
 have heard the argument that our citizens can not travel on 
 our own ships, because we have none. I admit that (laughter), 
 hut I do not admit that there are no neutral ships. There are 
 an abundance of them; and if the rules of International Law 
 had been maintained from the beginning, instead of permit- 
 ting them to he lowered and low ered from month to month and 
 year to year, neutral ships would ply those waters with per- 
 fect security. In any event, the safe course, because it elimi- 
 nates these questions, is to travel on neutral ships. That is 
 what most of us did when we came home. Why not? Why, 
 then, insist upon a close question like this, which after all in- 
 volves only the convenience, perhaps the comfort of a very 
 few people? Are we to stake our friendship with a great 
 power upon so narrow a margin; and say that if the point is 
 not yielded, we will he compelled to sever relations or perhaps 
 to declare w ar to save our honor, all in the name of humanity? 
 I feel perfectly safe in saying that the people of the United 
 States are not of that opinion. {Applause.) And when I say 
 1 pie of the I'nited States. I include the territory west of 
 
 — 10 — 
 
X 
 
 the Alleghenies. There is too much disposition to accept tho 
 reckless declarations of a very few people in this country as 
 the voice of the people. It' we were more thoroughly informed 
 about ourselv.es, we would know that the people of this coun- 
 try, composed as they are of all the races of the world, want 
 to live in harmony with each other; have patience ami tolera- 
 tion for each other, and are not disposed to engage in war 
 upon so narrow an argument. 
 
 That we have no technical ground for war seems to be 
 admitted in a measure; because the demand for war is now 
 expressed upon new grounds. For ;i long time we did not 
 believe that so bold a position would be taken by anybody; 
 but we are now told that it does not make any difference 
 whether we have arguments or not, that the United States 
 ought to join the Allies on general principles. (Laughter.) 
 That statement is made by responisble men, and is being cir- 
 culated all over the country. That is a new doctrine, and 1 
 wonder how we are to reconcile that statement with our dec- 
 laration of neutrality at the beginning of the war. We said 
 that we must keep to the same policy during the war. We 
 insisted upon this rule in the beginning, and here is a good 
 case to bring within the rule. To repeat, we did not suppose 
 that anybody would go so far as to urge war as a matter of 
 choice, although we had known for a long time, and were 
 bound to admit, that there was intense passion and feeling 
 among the people of some sections of our country. I do not 
 think it was all one sided. I think there have been a great 
 many foolish things done on both sides. I believe a great 
 many people in this count ry were for a time disposed to forget 
 that this is the United Stales, and that we are citizens of it; 
 and that every utterance we make must be made from the 
 platform of the United States. 
 
 I am speaking to the point that there is no cause for war; 
 and inasmuch as there is no suggestion of war against the 
 Allies, 1 must devote myself to the only suggestion that has 
 
 — 11 — 
 
 v 
 
been made, which is war against the Central Powers. What 
 are the evidences of* hostility? Take the manifestation of 
 feeling in collections that have been made in this country. No 
 one can deny that it lias become intensely partisan. For a 
 whole year I refused to give to any organization except the 
 American Red Cross; upon the supposition that the people of 
 the United States should depend upon it to make an honest 
 distribution to all the sufferers of the world. Could such a 
 plan be carried out? It could not. We constantly receive 
 pleas for aid for this country and for that. T know that those 
 who sympathize with Germany have had their bazaars. Those 
 who sympathize with others have had theirs. We have given 
 to both. Those who sympathize with Belgium have had their 
 collections and I have been chairman of a committee. Why 
 not? But that is a different thing from having the same 
 names come before you every few months with a new call and 
 always for the same side. That means partisanship, and that 
 means an invitation to a fight. We have had too much of 
 that. That manifestation we ought to combat. It always 
 appears with the imputation that one side is wrong and the 
 other side is right; and that anybody who sympathizes with 
 or gives to Germany is not an American. That imputation 
 no man can submit to. No man can ask me to have my citi- 
 zenship and my patriotism measured by any such methods. 
 
 Consider the way in which prosecutions have been had. 
 I las there ever been an opportunity missed to designate some- 
 body as a German spy ? I have not had any doubt that there 
 were spies; nor have I any doubt that the other side has an 
 abundance of them in this country. But we read about Ger- 
 man spies all the time. It does not make any difference 
 whether they have Irish names or other names. (Laughter.) 
 Even when a man takes possession of a whole ship, captain 
 and crew included, in broad daylight, they call him a spy. 
 (Laughter and applause.) I do not know what he did or who 
 he is; no one will justify his acts. I speak of it because it 
 
 — 12 — 
 
suggests the disposition to put before the public constantly 
 the same argument that there is something wrong with a part 
 of the people of our own country. 
 
 Then we hear of conspiracy. 1 do not know; but 1 have 
 no doubt that there have been wrong things done — some stu- 
 pid and others worse. But 1 venture to say that if any really 
 legitimate business received as large contracts, made as enor- 
 mous profits as the ammunition business does, there would be 
 some district attorney or some attorney general who would 
 want to know how it is done. {Applause and laughter.) In- 
 deed, we would be very fortunate if he did not run for (Jov- 
 ernor or President on the disclosures. 1 do not know the de- 
 tails, but I do know that in legitimate business such success 
 would be accepted as sufficient provocation for an investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 I am sometimes asked why the press is partial? My an- 
 swer is that I am willing to assume that most newspapers 
 publish everything that they can get; hut we should not over- 
 look that the regulation of what the press can get is the best 
 illustration of preparedness that has ever come under our 
 observation. We have to deal with the finest system of con- 
 trol for putting out information that was ever invented. Does 
 not the truth come over after a while? Yes, but with us the 
 truth is not interesting on its merits. We publish newspapers, 
 and an account of something that has not happened at all is 
 very much more interesting to our readers than the truth that 
 is two weeks old. In the main, the regulation of news is as 
 absolute as the rising and the setting of the sun. One side of 
 this war cannot get its information over in less than two 
 weeks, if at all; and therefore, in the very nature of things, 
 under our system it is practically impossible to get a fair and 
 normal picture of what is actually going on. These are only 
 illustrations of the difficulties under which we live, and get 
 our facts. 
 
Now come distinguished gentlemen and say that no mat- 
 ter what the situation may be— no matter whether we have 
 grievances of our own or not— we ought to engage in war; 
 and in that fashion we are coming back to the case of Belgium. 
 Again it is not for me to discuss the right and wrong of it. 
 But in view of what some of these gentlemen said a year and 
 a half ago, and what they say now, I cannot suppress the sus- 
 picion that perhaps the intensity of feeling about Belgium is 
 somewhat accentuated by the fact that this is a presidential 
 year. This constitutes one danger in the situation. Right 
 now the danger I* that our international relations will be made 
 a football between political parties. (Applause.) I do not 
 want to minimize the gravity of the invasion of Belgium. 
 Germany herself did not. But I want to express my surprise 
 that distinguished men in our country single out Belgium, 
 when they might have shown well-poised minds by referring 
 to other cases, at the same time. When the Boers were at- 
 tacked by Great Britain the people of the United States sym- 
 pathized w ith the Boers almost universally. Did our country 
 protest? Not at all. Was the taking of that country and the 
 conquering of that people justified .' They were a fine people 
 -descendants of the Dutch and Hugenots, as sturdy stocks as 
 history has ever known. They were taken bodily, country 
 and all. Did we protest? No. Have Ave changed our minds? 
 We used to admire Edmund Burke for prosecuting Warren 
 Eastings of India. Do we propose to worship at the shrine 
 of Cecil Rhodes now I Korea was taken by Japan at a time 
 when men who now speak had a right to act; and we had a 
 treaty with Korea. We waited at least long enough to have 
 the taking of Korea consummated, and we never protested 
 Why are we so sensitive now ? When Finland was deprived 
 of he,- liberties, guaranteed to her by a solemn document- 
 liberties destroyed by the stroke of a pen-did we protest? 
 They are a line people. J know only what I have read in 
 English books; and for whatever I say, I rely substantially 
 
 — 14 — 
 
upon English books. It is said that the Finlanders are a peo- 
 ple 90 per cent Lutheran, with a literature of their own; with 
 a school system. But they were subjected to a power which 
 in every respect is antagonistic to their national spirit. Did 
 we protest ? Why, no. 
 
 When a few years ago Persia was practically divided be- 
 tween Russia and Great Britain we had a representative, an 
 American, over there, who was to put the house in order, lie 
 was invited by Persia. A treaty had been made between Rus- 
 sia and Great Britain, guaranteeing the integrity and inde- 
 pendence of Persia. But when it appeared that the house 
 might be put in order it was realized that a convenient cause 
 for intervention might be lost; and the result was that Russia 
 took one-hall' of Persia, and Great Britain took one-half of 
 the other half, and Persia is destroyed. Did we protest? 
 Why, no. That was only a few years ago. 
 
 When Greece was occupied in this war against her pro- 
 tests, after we had heard a great deal about the protection 
 of small nations, did we protest? And when Great Britain, 
 to induce Italy to go into the war, made an agreement by 
 which Dalmatia was promised to Italy, subjecting an entirely 
 foreign people to Latin control, did we protest? Why, no. 
 But there were Englishmen w ho did. (Laughter.) Do not 
 understand me as criticising the English people. There are 
 as brave men in England today as there were in the days of 
 our Revolution. I read only the other day an Englishman's 
 statement that when the surrender of Dalmatia to Italy was 
 consented to by the British government, every ground for 
 complaint on account of the invasion of Belgium was lost. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 But why should we, a neutral power on friendly terms 
 with all these nations — our people composed of the represen- 
 tatives of all these people — why should we seize upon one case 
 to constitute it a cause for war, without regard to all these 
 other cases that stare us in the face? 
 
 — 15 — 
 
Coupled with this, of course, we always have the charge 
 of atrocities. 1 believe there were atrocities and I never 
 heard of a war without them. That is one of the arguments 
 against war; and while 1 am not a pacifist, I do believe in 
 peace with honor if it is at all possible. In my judgment the 
 one thing that we should ask of our public men is that when 
 they talk about atrocities they should include all of them, in 
 order that we may get a fair picture of the actual situation. 
 
 I was in Switzerland light after the beginning of the war. 
 I read Swiss papers that told me — and they seemed to be im- 
 partial — that there had been atrocities visited upon German 
 citizens in Belgium before the German army invaded that 
 country. 1 have read since then that there were atrocities 
 committed by both sides after the army invaded Belgium. I 
 have no doubt that the people of Belgium were as much sur- " 
 prised as we were. They did not know what their government 
 had done. 1 have no question that they may have done what 
 we would have done as civilians; but in doing it they must take 
 the chance of war. There are some distinguished men in this 
 country who will run the risk of losing their reputation as 
 historians if they persist in giving us colored pictures. 
 (Laughter and applause.) I have read — I confess I had to go 
 to German papers; but T have read the German papers and 
 the official reports about East Prussia. No man can judge of 
 atrocities until he lias read those accounts; and if we are go- 
 ing to collect for civilians who have suffered all the dreadful 
 consequences of war, let us include East Prussia, because 
 there was as wanton, ruthless, brutal destruction of life and 
 property as this war has witnessed. (Applause.) 
 
 How about Siberia? Have you read the accounts of the 
 treatment of the prisoners in Siberia? We do not have to 
 rely upon German reports, for we may read reports that come 
 from our own nurses and representatives. Have you read the 
 reports about the inhabitants and the missionaries in the Ger- 
 man colonies of South Africa? No man should consent to 
 
 — 16 — 
 
write upon the subject of atrocities until he has familiarized 
 himself with those reports. If it is a question of opinion in 
 this country, of swaying that opinion by this kind of accounts, 
 then I say put the whole case— all the facts— before all the 
 people; and they will be neutral. {Applause.) 
 
 But for prejudice, how would it be possible for a nation 
 to submit without earnest protest to the humiliating British 
 order against the American Red Cross? How could the 
 flagrant interference with our mails, pass with so little show 
 of indignation! How could we yield the enormous loss in 
 legitimate trade with friendly powers? How could we accept 
 the pretense of a peace treaty with Great Britain, as an ex- 
 planation for our submissive attitude in all our controversies 
 with her? And how could we herald as heroes, legions of 
 Americans who have joined the colors of the Allies, and at the 
 same time demand war measures to avenge the loss of Ameri- 
 can travelers on ammunition carriers? Is it not obvious that 
 our citizens in foreign uniform have intentionally destroyed 
 thousands of Germans and Austrians, while several hundred 
 American passengers have lost their lives as an incident to 
 retaliatory warfare — without purpose or intent against us? 
 
 Now, what is the explanation of this attitude? Why this 
 insistence that we must go into war on one side, reason or no 
 reason? I will tell you what 1 think. 1 think it is a mani- 
 festation of that same race feeling of which complaint is made. 
 Everybody of German descent is accused of being a partisan, 
 but I think the critics are exhibiting the worst partisanship 
 that has been shown in any quarter. (Applause.) For a 
 while it was fashionable to call people "hyphenated citizens." 
 That never disturbed me, because I knew that by the time the 
 elections come on the hyphen would either be dropped al- 
 together or become quite fashionable. (Laughter.) 1 do not 
 believe In the hyphen myself, particularly not in political or- 
 ganizations. I never have. Mr. Berger will know the experi- 
 ence that I had on that account. I have always insisted that 
 
I am an American citizen and only an American citizen in 
 politics ; I owe my whole allegiance to this country. I have no 
 grievance, but inasmuch as the criticism is insisted upon, I 
 could point out some men who, if they would employ a hyphen, 
 might give us some reason to think that they still have an 
 American attachment. (Laughter and applause.) I do not 
 want to be hectored by men who boast of their unneutrality. 
 We have men in this country who openly say that they are 
 not neutral, and do not want to be neutral, and still criticize 
 other men and women and children for indulging a most nat- 
 ural, human sympathy for the people of their ancestry. That 
 will not do. 
 
 I saw a picture the other day in one of our papers of a 
 German with the United Stales flag on the wall behind him, 
 and with the shadow of a derman shell floating past him. It 
 was called, I believe, " Divided Allegiance." That was a seri- 
 ous picture. It was intended to hurt. I suppose it did hurt. 
 It was not true, because the sympathy complained of does not 
 go out to the armed power of a foreign country, but is nothing 
 more than human sympathy for the traditions and the history 
 of ancestry. Anyone who does not respect his ancestry and 
 the traditions of his people is unfit for American citizenship. 
 (Enthusiast ic applause. ) 
 
 1 read the other day the statement in one of our papers that 
 Benry James had never been a greater American citizen than 
 on the day when he became a citizen of Great Britain. (Ap~ 
 plause mid laughter.) 1 do not know just what was meant. 
 I met Henry .lames only once in my life; and those who were 
 present that evening recall it as one of the greatest intellec- 
 tual treats that was ever given them. He was a charming 
 man. I never agreed with the criticisms of Henry James in 
 this country ; and I do not now agree with the enthusiastic re- 
 ception for his expatriatism. If we are to accept that he was 
 never a greater American citizen than when he became ex- 
 patriated, it is difficult to suppress the inquiry, what kind of 
 
 — 18 — 
 
a citizen he had been. (Laughter.) To be perfectly candid 
 and plain, I do not call people names if they do not agree with 
 me. Why should I .' 1 do not call men Tories because they 
 sympathize with Great Britain., The sympathy of the de- 
 scendants of England is just as natural as the sympathy of 
 German descendants is for Germany. T do not quarrel with 
 either. T respect them both. My wife is of English descent. 
 Her people came over in lo\'>2. (Ijanghtcr.) 1 believe, for 
 instance, that at the time of the Revolution there were a great 
 many Tories who were very deserving men, honorable men, 
 brave men; who honestly believed that it would have been the 
 best policy for these colonies to continue the connection with 
 Great Britain as have Canada and Australia. Why .not? 
 That is a question of political opinion and wisdom. I do not 
 know why our school books should denounce 1 those men be- 
 cause they had announced another opinion. But neither do 1 
 see why American citizens should now apologize Tor the suc- 
 cessful Revolution by which their ancestors laid the founda- 
 tion for the greatest republic in history. (Laughter and ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 There is too much of the spirit of apology for the great 
 things that we have done, as with people who now apologize 
 for the Civil War. Many young people w ho now- enjoy un- 
 deserved comfort seem to feel that it would he very convenient 
 to throw in a slave or two. (Laughter.) There is too much 
 of that sentiment. 
 
 When it comes to apologizing for the great epochs in out- 
 history — and that is what it comes to— it is time to call a halt. 
 
 What is the charge now— this general principle charge- 
 under which the unneutral argument for one side is advanced? 
 It is contended that the fight must be made for civilization. 
 That sounds nearly as good as humanity. You know about 
 six or eight years ago it was conservation. The whole coun- 
 try was going to pieces for lack of conservation. After we 
 had defeated a few candidates and elected a few others we 
 
forgot all about conservation. Then we came to organization, 
 but somehow that did not work very well. Then we resorted 
 to humanity and civilization; and now we have come to pre- 
 paredness. I am in favor of preparedness and have been for 
 many years. My only fear is that there never will be a real 
 scheme of preparedness adopted, because the war will be used 
 as a slogan in a presidential campaign; and when we get 
 through with that we will be tired. (Laughter.) Now, pre- 
 paredness is a tremendous scheme. Some people no doubt 
 have in mind preparedness in connection with this foreign 
 Mar; but 1 do not think they have read to great advantage 
 about this war if they do. I am of opinion that if we entered 
 it, it would not affect the result of this war either way. 
 We arc not ready. Other people talk about preparedness as 
 though it involved nothing but a military appropriation. I 
 do not agree with them. I believe that we should have men 
 trained so that we could call out an army if it became neces- 
 sary in order that they may do their part in case of such a 
 disaster. Nor do I believe that the cost should be as great as 
 is promised; because if our appropriations were economically 
 applied we could have quite an army for Avhat we spend now. 
 The trouble is that a great many people think that if we make 
 an appropriation we have organized the army — just as easy 
 as that. Now it involves a comprehensive scheme of training. 
 A year and a half ago any man who was not against military 
 preparation— the outcome of the Prussian system was de- 
 nounced; and today anybody who is not in favor of that sys- 
 tem is also denounced; and we do not seem to remember that 
 we have changed our mind on the subject. The fact of the 
 matter is that the money cost is the smallest part of it. The 
 great need is the system, the training that the man and women 
 must have; that is what is needed. The system that produces 
 self-respect and order; a sense of duty, and a certain demo- 
 cratic regard of one for the other— that is what we need in 
 this country. We are traveling toward the class system a 
 
 — 20 — 
 
good deal faster than some other countries; and it is time for 
 us to know it. (Applause.) It' there is to be an army of 
 service, I believe in making it democratic, so that the man 
 who shouts will have to go himself [applause) ; so that he may 
 walk side by side with somebody else who has not shouted, 
 and listen to him for a while. That is democratic (laughter 
 and applause) and that is equality. 
 
 People forget. For illustration, 1 have been brought up 
 as an admirer of the English system — worshiped at its shrine. 
 I admired things in Germany, but English is the language of 
 our country. 1 read more English hooks, of course; our in- 
 stitutions are based on the English system, and 1 not only 
 studied it, but I treasure it. Today 1 admire England's great 
 men. 1 put Burke and Erskins and Pitt with Washington and 
 Hamilton and Lincoln on my walls. But some years ago I 
 began to ask questions. I said, what is the matter? England 
 has politically great freedom, but she seems to have more of 
 a class system than some of the countries that are called bu- 
 reaucratic. What is happening? Now, the war has disclosed 
 man} 7 things; and one of them is that Great Britain with her 
 voluntary system had more professional soldiers than Ger- 
 many. (Laughter.) Few people believed that. Why is this 
 true? Because the great majority of her men never served, 
 and the rest of them served all the time. In France and in 
 Germany every man who is able-bodied has to serve long 
 enough to prepare himself for actual service when he is 
 needed. When he has done that, he has to get out of the army 
 and go to work. That is the system and that is what we need. 
 
 Since we speak of preparedness, our industrial system is 
 if anything more important than our military plan. In case 
 of a modern Avar, if such a thing should befall us, the mere 
 fact that we have so many soldiers and so many guns and so 
 much ammunition, is not sufficient, unless we have an indus- 
 trial system that will support the army, and will keep the 
 civilians employed and sustained at home to protect the coun- 
 
try while the hoys are at the front. If you have not that pro- 
 vision you will be lost. Why has Germany developed her 
 strength, people ask me. She has developed it because she 
 has one comprehensive system. We hear complaints about 
 Germany's laws and administration. Remember, she has not 
 as many laws as we have, but she enforces more. (Laughter.) 
 I had not been there for forty years; but I had read about 
 Germany for some years, and my attention was being aroused. 
 I relied upon an English hook. The author made it perfectly 
 clear thai Germany had a comprehensive plan, military and 
 industrial and social. When they ask me now, how her armies 
 do it, I answer that they do not do it alone The shaft that 
 drives the army is the industrial and social system of Ger- 
 many; and this is w hat we need. If Ave are to have a plan of 
 preparedness, we must have an industrial system that will 
 come to the support of the government which is responsible 
 for the conflict. A system upon which the government may 
 lean, to which it may look. 
 
 We must have more than that. We must have a system 
 by which citizenship may be conserved. That is what we need. 
 When thc\ used to talk about conservatism of timber and coal, 
 I thought it all fine enough; but I favored conservation of the 
 human family as well. (Applause.) That is what Germany 
 has done. You may argue about it as much as you will— that 
 is the one country that has tackled the modern problem. She 
 has succeeded in giving protection to the individual without 
 coddling him. Whenever we protect anybody he leans on us 
 twice as hard. We have not caught the idea. I do not know 
 whether we can do it in a republic. I assume we cannot do 
 what Germany does; but I know that we must get the result, 
 if we are going to have preparedness, if we want to win either 
 in the field of battle or in the commercial struggle. It all 
 comes back to the fibre and spirit and wholesomeness of the 
 men and women and children of the nation. That is the real 
 question. (Applause.) 
 
 — 22 — 
 
Now if our entering the war would not affect the result, 
 as I think it would not: why does anybody want us to enter? 
 Well, people usually have a reason for wanting a thing done. 
 I have no doubt that there are some people who think that 
 perhaps the bonds which have been sold in this country would 
 be more secure if we did enter the war. 1 do not know. 1 
 have none of the bonds. I have refused to go into any part 
 of the game. I have no stock in any concern that makes am- 
 munition. I sold wherever I suspected that a company had 
 engaged in that business, and the dividends that I suspected 
 might in part he the result of ammunition contracts, I gave 
 to the Red Cross or to charity. I want to feel that I have not 
 profited by it. I am not criticising other men ; it is their busi- 
 ness. For my part, 1 sleep better, and 1 think my children 
 will like it better to feel that what little I leave them has not 
 got the red thread running through it. (Applause.) 
 
 There is a stronger reason for getting us into the war; 
 and that is our position at the close of it. It is admitted by 
 both Englishmen and Americans that we cannot do more for 
 the Allies than we are doing now. So why should we go to 
 any further trouble ? Because at the end of the war it is pro- 
 posed to make treaties to isolate Germany and Austria. Who 
 will be party to that treaty? (J rent Britain, France, Italy, 
 Russia and perhaps Japan. Do you think such a treaty would 
 be effective if we were not a party to it? Do you think we 
 could be made a party unless we were at war with Germany 
 and Austria at the end of the conflict? There is just one way 
 of getting us into the plan and that is by having us excited 
 enough to do so mad a thing; that, in my judgment, is the 
 purpose now. Would not that be a fine exhibition? We have 
 just abrogated our treaties with Russia because she would 
 not recognize our citizens of Jewish confession. We could not 
 help it. People were so indignant about it — the press was so 
 excited, that it had to be done. Then the result at the end of 
 this war would be, without asking any more questions, to make 
 
 — 23 — 
 
a new treaty with Russia, among others, and against the coun- 
 tries that have always been friendly with us— Germany and 
 Austria-Hungary. How long do you think that would last? 
 We make some decidedly sharp turns in this country. The 
 people of the United States represent a great many inherit- 
 ances; and in my judgment we should not trifle with sentiment 
 that is honest and well founded. 
 
 We see everywhere the disposition to denounce that sen- 
 timent. It is the dominant note in the war discussions; and 
 we recognize it in the new inunigration bill. It is the same 
 idea. I believe in strengthening the immigration law, but I 
 do not believe in doing it in the way that has been adopted in 
 this bill. The South can afford it because they have all the 
 cheap labor they want and they will be glad if the North has 
 no cheap labor. That is true. There is, however, one good 
 thing about this immigration bill. If it goes through, we up 
 here who are talking so much about preparedness will have to 
 go to work ourselves. That will be a very wholesome thing 
 for a good many of us. That is the silver lining on the cloud. 
 But the prejudice which prompts the bill and the war criti- 
 cisms will never triumph. You can not dispose of a whole- 
 some, sound, well-grounded sentiment; and that is all I am 
 contending for. I respect the English. I cannot understand 
 this feeling of animosity in this country for another people. 
 Why should I change my mind about a people because these 
 governments are at wai f The peoples have not changed; and 
 several of them constitute practically the same race. I like 
 the Irish— always did. 1 have a warm feeling for the French 
 -who would not! May I not respect the distinguished men 
 of Italy ? I need not go through the category. Why am I not 
 permitted to respect other people! Is my patriotism to be 
 tested by my admiration for a particular one? It is not fair. 
 Of course, I am the son of immigrants. They had a right to 
 stop in England if they wanted to. England was then called 
 the cradle of liberty. A great many refugees did find pro- 
 
 — 24 — 
 
tection there. But my parents thought that this was a sep- 
 arate country — the United States — with a distinct form of 
 government, giving an opportunity for the fulfillment of the 
 promise of liberty. They came here in the forties, in an old 
 sailing vessel, landing at New Orleans. They drove across the 
 plains with an ox team, into the interior of Texas. They 
 started as all other pioneers do. Would you have me disavow 
 my ancestry to prove my patriotism I 1 say 1 have pictures of 
 Englishmen on the wall, and English hooks on my shelves; in 
 spite of the atrocity reports, Bryce's volumes among them. 1 
 have the picture of my great-grandfather on the wall, and the 
 Bible from which he took the texts for his sermons on my 
 shelves. He was a Lutheran clergyman of Northern Prussia. 
 Am I to take them down I It does not stand to reason. Shall 
 I not hold them sacred still '! We must remember that we are 
 one people; and if we plan for preparedness, the first condi- 
 tion is a united people. If we do not stand together our coun- 
 try cannot live either in peace or in war. We are put to- 
 gether as no people in history ever has been. We are not one 
 race overrun by another in conquest. We are not one supreme 
 race with a little filtering of others. But we are a people 
 drawing upon every nation of the earth ; assembled under one 
 flag to test out the success of a republican government. We 
 are the United States, and only that— not English or German 
 or French or Italian. We are moving along in the right direc- 
 tion, if we can just survive this attempt to disrupt us. We 
 are being amalgamated just as other nations have been. 
 There is no pure race in any other great nation on the other 
 side. The English people are not a pure race. Few peoples 
 are more mixed. Germany is not. The Russians are not. We 
 above all and beyond all have endeavored to bring to our aid 
 the strength and the virtues of all the peoples of the earth; 
 and upon that and our ability to eliminate the vices depends 
 the triumph of our institutions. (Applan.se.) That is our 
 problem— based on broad toleration. The traditions of these 
 
 — 25 — 
 
different nations are valuable. Many of them have sweet cus- 
 toms that serve to improve our conditions. Some of them 
 have literature and others have songs; and some have both 
 that we must not neglect. I cannot forget the German songs 
 that I heard my father sing. Would you have me forget 
 "Fine feste Burg ist mser GoW't I cannot do it. I cannot 
 surrender it, [f I did my loyalty as a citizen would become a 
 sham and a pretense. 
 
 So I say, we are by degrees being amalgamated; and we 
 are gradually becoming a distinct type. Look where you will, 
 upon shop or school or farm, a new people has arisen. It 
 represents a new type — our type — the American people. 
 (Prolonged applause.) 
 
 -26 -