Washington, June 9, 1915.
My reason for resigning is clearly stated in my letter of resignation,
namely, that I may employ, as a private citizen, the means which the
President does not feel at liberty to employ. I honor him for doing
what he believes to be right, and I am sure that he desires, as I do,
to find a peaceful solution of the problem which has been created by
the action of the submarines.
Two of the points on which we differ, each conscientious in his
conviction, are:
First, as to the suggestion of investigation by an international
commission, and,
Second, as to warning Americans against traveling on belligerent
vessels or with cargoes of ammunition.
I believe that this nation should frankly state to Germany that we are
willing to apply in this case the principle which we are bound by
treaty to apply to disputes between the United States and thirty
countries with which we have made treaties, providing for
investigation of all disputes of every character and nature.
These treaties, negotiated under this Administration, make war
practically impossible between this country and these thirty
Governments, representing nearly three-fourths of all the people of
the world.
Among the nations with which we have these treaties are Great Britain,
France, and Russia. No matter what disputes may arise between us and
these treaty nations, we agree that there shall be no declaration and
no commencement of hostilities until the matters in dispute have been
investigated by an international commission, and a year's time is
allowed for investigation and report. This plan was offered to all the
nations without any exceptions whatever, and Germany was one of the
nations that accepted the principle, being the twelfth, I think, to
accept.
No treaty was actually entered into with Germany, but I cannot see
that that should stand in the way when both nations indorsed the
principle. I do not know whether Germany would accept the offer, but
our country should, in my judgment, make the offer. Such an offer, if
accepted, would at once relieve the tension and silence all the
jingoes who are demanding war.
Germany has always been a friendly nation, and a great many of our
people are of German ancestry. Why should we not deal with Germany
according to this plan to which the nation has pledged its support?
The second point of difference is as to the course which should be
pursued in regard to Americans traveling on belligerent ships or with
cargoes of ammunition.
Why should an American citizen be permitted to involve his country in
war by traveling upon a belligerent ship, when he knows that the ship
will pass through a danger zone? The question is not whether an
American citizen has a right, under international law, to travel on a
belligerent ship; the question is whether he ought not, out of
consideration for his country, if not for his own safety, avoid danger
when avoidance is possible.
It is a very one-sided citizenship that compels a Government to go to
war over a citizen's rights and yet relieve the citizen of all
obligations to consider his nation's welfare. I do not know just how
far the President can legally go in actually preventing Americans from
traveling on belligerent ships, but I believe the Government should go
as far as it can, and that in case of doubt it should give the benefit
of the doubt to the Government.
But even if the Government could not legally prevent citizens from
traveling on belligerent ships, it could, and in my judgment should,
earnestly advise American citizens not to risk themselves or the
peace of their country, and I have no doubt that these warnings would
be heeded.
President Taft advised Americans to leave Mexico when insurrection
broke out there, and President Wilson has repeated the advice. This
advice, in my judgment, was eminently wise, and I think the same
course should be followed in regard to warning Americans to keep off
vessels subject to attack.
I think, too, that American passenger ships should be prohibited from
carrying ammunition. The lives of passengers ought not to be
endangered by cargoes of ammunition, whether that danger comes from
possible explosions within or from possible attacks from without.
Passengers and ammunition should not travel together. The attempt to
prevent American citizens from incurring these risks is entirely
consistent with the effort which our Government is making to prevent
attacks from submarines.
The use of one remedy does not exclude the use of the other. The most
familiar illustration is to be found in the action taken by municipal
authorities during a riot. It is the duty of the Mayor to suppress the
mob and to prevent violence, but he does not hesitate to warn citizens
to keep off the streets during the riots. He does not question their
right to use the streets, but for their own protection and in the
interest of order he warns them not to incur the risks involved in
going upon the streets when men are shooting at each other.
The President does not feel justified in taking the action above
stated. That is, he does not feel justified, first, in suggesting the
submission of the controversy to investigation, or, second, in warning
the people not to incur the extra hazards in traveling on belligerent
ships or on ships carrying ammunition. And he may be right in the
position he has taken, but, as a private citizen, I am free to urge
both of these propositions and to call public attention to these
remedies, in the hope of securing such an expression of public
sentiment as will support the President in employing these remedies
if in the future he finds it consistent with his sense of duty to
favor them.