Evening Republican, Volume 19, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 February 1915 — Jefferson vs. Wilson and Bryan on Subjects "Freedom of the Seas." [ARTICLE]

Jefferson vs. Wilson and Bryan on Subjects "Freedom of the Seas."

J. P. O’Mahony, in last Saturday's Indianapolis paper, had the following article, which makes a pertinent comparison between President Wiison and Thomas Jefferson. We believe Mr. O’Mahony’s view is entertained by most of our patriotic citizens. The article reads: Any careful observer of the present controversy between the United States and Great Britain in reference to the seizure of American ships and cargoes on the high seas must see that there is a constant serious danger of a clash that may land the United States in war before W’e know it. The aim of our administration should be to avoid war by every means, save and except the sacrifice of our national • honor and our rights as a great power among the nations. The writer believes we are far more likely to foe drawn into this world war by a weak and wobbling policy than by a policy of firmness and decision, bespeaking a thorough determination to insist on American rights on the high seas and everywhere else. To the writer’s mind both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bryan have very distinctly failed to assert the rights of our commerce in thefr various notes to Great Britain. Both claim to be devoted disciples of that great democrat, Thomas Jefferson, but how far foehind him they fall when dealing with the subject of “the frecdam of the seas.” This can best be observed by taking a look at the papers- and letters of Thomas Jefferson. We were at peace with Great Britain in 1801. At that time, discussing European troubles, Jefferson wrote: “The duties of neutrality require equal conduct toward both parties to the war.” Will any one assert that we are now treating M both parties equally ” We allow twenty-itwo uniformed English officers to land at New York, go to Bethlehem, Pa., and superintend the manufacture and shipment of munitions of war ordered for England. On the other hand we give Great Britain, through its consul®, the right to inspect and certify every cargo leaving our ports to. make sure nothing that might be considered contraband is aboard-for Germany, Austria or Turkey. More than that, we absolutely recognize its right to search our ships going to neutral ports with goods consigned to neutral merchants. President Wilson in his note t< England (or rather in Bryan’s note which was approved by the president), says: “Commerce which is not belligerent Should not be interfered with by those at war unless such interference is manifestly an imperative necessity to protect the national safey of those who are at war.” Observe how easily an English diplomat can come inside thiS elastic requirement by simply saying “our policy is to starve Germany and Austria out. It is manifestly imperative to prevent any American cargoes from getting to Sweden, Norway, Italy or Holland because they might ultimately get to Germany or Austria, and thus help them to defeat us.” I can see these well schooled English diplomats chuckling with unbounded joy over the liberality of President Wilson and Mr. Bryan. They have certainly given the English lots of latitude and then some. In a letter to Robert R. Livingston, Sept. 9, 1801, Jefferson discussed the high-handed action of England in a very different tone from that of the Wilson-Bryan note. We were then only about 5,000,000 in population and we had no fleet to speak of and had not

yet assumed the dignity of a world power. Mark the words of Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Livingston: War between two nation® or more can not diminish the rights of the nations of the rest of the world.* * * We believe that the practice of siezing what is called contraband of war is an abusive practice, not founded on natural right. * * * * * * * Either all intercourse between neutrals and belligerents must cease or all be permitted. Can the world hesitate to say which shall be the rule? Shall some nations, turning tigere, break up in one instant the peaceful relations of the whole world? Reason and nature celarly pronounce that the neutral is to go on in the enjoyment of all righs, that it’s commerce remain free, not subject to the jurisdiction of another, not consequently its vessels to search, or to inquiries, whether their contents are the property of an enemy or are those which have been called contraband of war. Great Britain may indeed feel the desire of starving an enemy nation, 'but it can have no right to do it at our loss, nor by making us an instrument of it. The firmness of Jefferson in 1801 prevented war with Great Britain, but, of course, war finally came in 1812, when it tried to exercise the right of search and seizure on the high seas. We fought and won that war with our primitive navy and ridiculously small army. • And now, when we are comparatively speaking at least a dozen times stronger and when Great Britain, according to that great official organ, the London Time®, "is in the midst of a fight for its very existence,” we permit it to hold up our commerce, keep our business at a standstill and search our ships, hauling down the American flag on the open ocean! And the president’s note gives it permission to do it, and all the latitude an English commander could desire. There is nothing Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in the way the Princeton professor and the erstwhile Nebraska “boy orator” are handling this situation. The writer is familiar with the mettle and pluck of Ameican sea captains, having been for five years a marine reporter on the Atlantic coast. Some American captain with the pluck of a Jack Barry, a Paul Jones, a Hull or a Perry will refuse to haul down the American flag from the mats lof a merchantman and then we shall be “in it” up to our necks. A call on the wireless may find an American cruiser- or destroyer or gunboat, and on the ocean they generally Stand by the flag without asking Washington. This clash can be avoided if we say firmly to Great Britain, ‘hands off American ships going to neutral ports.” There is no danger that England will fight us. It is unable to supply one-tenth of the men or ships needed even now. To use an AngloSaxon modernism “It is unthinkable” that it would bite off any more when it is not able to chew what it has at present. Her ally Japan might grab the Philippines, but -in a week we J would take Canada—the National Guard and volunteers of New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania would pull that off. That England would fight us now is absurd. But even if there were danger of that we should stand for our right a® stronly as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson did. When you’re looking for “peace at any price” you generally find war.