FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65  
66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   >>   >|  
nce to the Anglo-French loan for $500,000,000, placed in the United States in the autumn of 1915.] [Footnote 12: The Marquis Imperiali.] [Footnote 13: Rustem Bey, the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, was sent home early in the war, for publishing indiscreet newspaper and magazine articles.] CHAPTER XV THE AMBASSADOR AND THE LAWYERS References in the foregoing letters show that Page was still having his troubles over the blockade. In the latter part of 1915, indeed, the negotiations with Sir Edward Grey on this subject had reached their second stage. The failure of Washington to force upon Great Britain an entirely new code of naval warfare--the Declaration of London--has already been described. This failure had left both the British Foreign Office and the American State Department in an unsatisfactory frame of mind. The Foreign Office regarded Washington with suspicion, for the American attempt to compel Great Britain to adopt a code of naval warfare which was exceedingly unfavourable to that country and exceedingly favourable to Germany, was susceptible of a sinister interpretation. The British rejection of these overtures, on the other hand, had evidently irritated the international lawyers at Washington. Mr. Lansing now abandoned his efforts to revolutionize maritime warfare and confined himself to specific protests and complaints. His communications to the London Embassy dealt chiefly with particular ships and cargoes. Yet his persistence in regarding all these problems from a strictly legalistic point of view Page regarded as indicating a restricted sense of statesmanship. _To Edward M. House_ London, August 4, 1915. MY DEAR HOUSE: ... The lawyer-way in which the Department goes on in its dealings with Great Britain is losing us the only great international friendship that we have any chance of keeping or that is worth having. Whatever real principle we have to uphold with Great Britain--that's all right. I refer only to the continuous series of nagging incidents--always criticism, criticism, criticism of small points--points that we have to yield at last, and never anything constructive. I'll illustrate what I mean by a few incidents that I can recall from memory. If I looked up the record, I should find a very, very much larger list. (1) We insisted and insisted and insisted, not once but half a doze
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65  
66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Britain

 

Washington

 
criticism
 
London
 
insisted
 

warfare

 

Department

 

Edward

 

regarded

 

American


incidents

 

exceedingly

 

Office

 

points

 

international

 
Footnote
 

failure

 
States
 

United

 
British

Foreign

 

losing

 
dealings
 

lawyer

 

persistence

 

problems

 

legalistic

 

strictly

 

cargoes

 

Embassy


communications

 
chiefly
 

August

 

indicating

 

restricted

 

statesmanship

 

memory

 

looked

 

record

 

recall


larger

 

illustrate

 

Whatever

 

principle

 

uphold

 

friendship

 
chance
 
keeping
 
constructive
 

continuous