FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182  
183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   >>   >|  
ircumstantial Note to London in which they demonstrated that the English blockade was a breach of international law and definitely stated that this blockade was neither effective, legal nor defensible. Further, that the United States could not, therefore, submit to an infringement of her rights as a neutral through measures which were admittedly reprisals, and, consequently, contrary to international law. That she could not with equanimity allow her rights to be subordinated to the plea that the peculiar geographical position of the enemies of Great Britain justified measures contrary to international law. The conclusion of the Note read as follows: "It is of the highest importance to neutrals not only of the present day, but of the future, that the principles of international right be maintained unimpaired. "This task of championing the integrity of neutral rights, which have received the sanction of the civilized world against the lawless conduct of belligerents arising out of the bitterness of the great conflict which is now wasting the countries of Europe, the United States unhesitatingly assumes, and to the accomplishment of that task it will devote its energies, exercising always that impartiality which from the outbreak of the war it has sought to exercise in its relations with the warring nations." The above programme was in accordance with the proposal of the American Note of 21st July, which had touched on the subject of co-operation in realizing the "Freedom of the Seas." It was, however, clear to me, apart from anything else, that the United States would not expend energy in championing the rights of neutrals so long as a conflict with Germany threatened. The settlement of the _Arabic_ question gave grounds for hope that the views of the two Governments on the question of submarine warfare would coincide. This appeared to me to be the most important point; the American Government, however, insisted on the settlement of the _Lusitania_ incident, which I foresaw was going to prove a very difficult problem. Even in the _Arabic_ affair it was only by my own independent action that it was possible to avoid a break. The _Lusitania_ question, however, was much more unfavorable to us because at that time the old instructions to submarine captains were still in force. I should, therefore, have been glad to avoid negotiations on the _Lusitania_ question, but Mr. Lansing insisted on a settlement before he
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182  
183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

rights

 

international

 

question

 

States

 
United
 
settlement
 

Lusitania

 

neutrals

 

contrary

 

insisted


Arabic

 
conflict
 

American

 

measures

 
blockade
 

submarine

 
championing
 
neutral
 
grounds
 

Governments


energy

 

subject

 
Freedom
 

operation

 

expend

 
Germany
 

threatened

 

touched

 
realizing
 
instructions

unfavorable
 

captains

 
Lansing
 
negotiations
 

Government

 

incident

 

foresaw

 

important

 
coincide
 

appeared


proposal

 
independent
 

action

 

affair

 

difficult

 

problem

 

warfare

 

assumes

 

subordinated

 

peculiar