citizens of the United States that might be construed as showing preference to one of the belligerents. He had in mind the neutrality of a people far removed from the conflict. Yet by the second part of this statement the President did not mean that the United States should cut intercourse with the various nations; it was not his thought that the United States should draw off from the sea, but merely that its treatment of the nations should be impartial within the well-recognized agreements of international law. Where there was not agreement, the positions taken by the United States in earlier conflicts should furnish the guide.

In keeping with his offer of mediation the President avoided any step that would seem to indicate that his nation was passing judgment upon the conduct of nations at war. In response to appeals made in September of 1914 by both the French and German governments, and for different reasons by a commission from Belgium, the President stated that "it would be unwise, it would be premature for a single Government, however fortunately separated from the present struggle, it would even be inconsistent with the neutral position of any nation which like this has no part in the contest, to form or express a final judgment." (Statement No. 22.) In refraining from a protest upon the invasion of Belgium President Wilson was following the tradition of non-interference in the affairs of Europe. That he was acting in accordance with the general expectation at that time will not be de

nied, in spite of the overwhelming tide of sympathy for the people of Belgium among the people of the United States.

In these replies the President referred to the existence of treaties between the belligerent nations for the settlement of just such disputes as these protests had brought to his attention. It is of interest to note that within a period of two weeks following the outbreak of the war, the United States Senate had ratified treaties with eighteen countries, each of them providing for commissions of inquiry.1 Moreover, on September 15, 1914, treaties of a like nature were signed at Washington with Great Britain, France, Spain and China. Secretary Bryan stated at this time that twenty-six nations had signed such treaties and that Russia, Germany and Austria were being urged to do likewise. Nothing could be clearer than that the existence of the European war had not, as yet, affected the purpose of those whose aim it was to devise additional means for preventing international conflicts.

In mid-September the President made an informal proposal to Germany that negotiations looking to peace be undertaken, presumably under the auspices of the government of the United States. The nature of the German reply which asked that the United States obtain from the Allies a statement preliminary to a conference led the President to proceed no further at that time.

In October it became known that the proposal of the

1 For text see American Journal of International Law, VII, 824. Record and list of ratifications, ibid., VIII, 565; IX, 175.

United States for the general acceptance of the Declaration of London, although accepted tentatively by Germany and Austria-Hungary, had not been adopted because the Allies under lead of Great Britain had named qualifying conditions. Consequently the government of the United States withdrew its suggestion of August 6, 1914, and fell back upon the already accepted rules of international law and the treaties then in existence, reserving the right to protest and demand reparation in each case of violation of its own rights.

ATTITUDE UPON BRITISH POLICY

Daily the American government was becoming more involved in the struggle, owing in large measure to the presence of American shipping in European waters and the disagreement among the belligerents as to the definition of contraband and the treatment of cargoes bound for neutral ports in Europe. The situation was of such a character as to increase in difficulty. The British Orders in Council of August, September and October steadily increased the control that Great Britain presumed to exercise over the commerce of neutrals.1 As Great Britain was in control of the sea the primary American grievance seemed against that government.

On December 26, 1914, the United States filed a lengthy protest against the seizure and destruction of cargoes bound for neutral ports. Great Britain was charged with

1 Department of State, Diplomatic Correspondence, European War Series, No. 1, pp. 11-18.

violation of the rules in cases of both conditional and absolute contraband. It was pointed out that peace, not war, was the normal relation between nations, and the request was definitely made that Great Britain "refrain from all unnecessary interference with the freedom of trade between nations which are sufferers, though not participants, in the present conflict." (Statement No. 25.) The tone of this note and the practice of the Department of State in filing notes of protest in each specific case made it clear that it was the purpose of the administration to consistently and completely present the American contention and to wait upon a more happy time to press the matters to a decision before courts of arbitration.

The President's point of view had been stated in October when he said before the American Bar Association, "The opinion of the world is the mistress of the world, and the processes of international law are the slow processes by which opinion works its will." (Statement No. 23.) Yet in the same address the President revealed that he was thinking of the possibilities, as yet largely hidden, in the struggle for power in Europe. For he spoke of the time of world change when men were going to find out just how, and in what particulars, and to what extent the real facts of human life and the real moral judgments of mankind prevail.

66

PLANS OF THE ADMINISTRATION

If, however, Woodrow Wilson was quickening to a realization of the months of diplomatic strife that were

before him, he gave no hint of it in his second annual message to Congress in December of 1914. (Statement No. 24.) "No one," said he, "who speaks counsel based on fact or drawn from a just and candid interpretation of realities can say that there is any reason to fear that from any quarter our independence or the integrity of our territory is threatened." He spoke at length of the need to develop better measures for trade with Latin America, and in general to put American shipping upon the sea while opportunities were offered by the engrossment of European nations in the war. The unprecedented destruction of men and goods in Europe made it necessary because the time was approaching when as never before Europe would need American aid. "We should be ready, more fit and ready than we have ever been," urged the President.

While thus urging the passage by the Senate of a specific shipping bill, endorsed in an earlier session by the administration, the President paused to ask favourable action by the Senate upon a matter of a very different nature. This was a bill granting to the people of the Philippines a larger measure of self-government. Within a few months of taking office the President had made known his general attitude in this matter, but in addressing the Congress at this time he placed the need upon quite other grounds, significant in view of his later utterances upon the European war. "How better," he asked, "in this time of anxious questioning and perplexed policy, could we show our confidence in the