"to order," or if the ship's papers do not show who is the real consignee of the goods.

It may not be clear why Great Britain, after banning all trade to and from Germany in its order of March 11, 1915, should take the trouble to specify treatment of contraband goods. If all goods going to or from Germany are contraband, why single any of them out for special mention? The reason becomes clear after a little reflection. Suppose we force England to rescind the Order in Council of March 11, 1915? We should still find this Order of July 8, 1916, banning all our exports. The diplomatic pro

cedure would then be to treat regarding the terms of the July 8th order, and regarding the propriety of including in the contraband lists each of the hundreds of articles carried there. The July 8 Order in Council provides a second, third and fiftieth line of trenches to be taken after we have stormed the order of March 11, 1915.

It is not quite a hopeless situation. It could have been-and could now be handled with firmness and success. International law emerges from each war as strong as the strongest neutral in the war has been able and willing to preserve it. We can still save the law of the sea. We can, if we choose, demand that all belligerents in this war observe the Declaration of London as a code

of naval warfare. No belligerent

has the force to resist such a demand from us. The Declaration of London would prevent any resumption of German submarine warfare, for it specifies visit and search as the only lawful method for a warship to proceed against a merchant carrier. The declaration would

settle the grave issues, and remove the graver dangers for the future which threaten us from the Orders in Council.

If we had at the outset forced, instead of merely recommended, the Declaration of London, our controversies with Germany and England would never have arisen. By its adoption these controversies can be settled now. In the Senate are two bills, one of Senator Walsh, empowering the President to declare an embargo on our exports to any belligerent unlawfully interfering with our trade; and one of Senator Gore, empowering the President to embargo ammunition exports or financial aid from us to a belligerent interfering with our trade contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of London. The levying of an embargo is not a hostile act; indeed, to-day England embargoes many exports to us and refuses to acept many of our goods. We shall have no satisfaction from England without the threat of an embargo, just as we had none from Germany without the threat of severing diplomatic relations and war.

The Declaration of London is, as it has been through the war, the key to the situation. It is the measure of our duty as guardians of neutral rights on the sea, and is the means by which that duty can be performed.

England that we proposed to force We have told both Germany and

them to return to the limits of law. On July 21, 1915, we wrote Germany:

The government of the United States and the imperial German government are contending for the same great object, have long stood together in urging the very principles upon which the United

States now so solemnly insists. They are both contending for the freedom of the seas. The government of the United States will continue to contend for that

freedom, from whatever quarter violated, without compromise and at any cost.

On October 21, 1915, we wrote England the same message:

The task of championing the integrity of neutral rights, which have received the sanction of the civilized world, against the lawless conduct of belligerents arising from the bitterness of the great conflict which is now wasting the countries of Europe, the United States now unhesitatingly assumes, and to the accomplishment of that task it will devote its energies, exercising always that impartiality which since the outbreak of the war it has sought to exercise in its relations with the warring nations.

On February 3, 1915, the President expressed at St. Louis the American people's longing for neutrality and their intention to preserve it. He said that he aspired to have the world say:

That it was we who kept the quiet flame of international principle burning on its altars while the winds of passion were sweeping away every altar in the world.

I want the record of the conduct of this administration to be a record of genuine neutrality, and not of pretended neutrality.

What do our words, what do the words of our President mean? Is neutrality a half-way thing? Is international law like other law, before whose eyes all offenders are equal? July 12, 1916.

ONE VICTORY SCORED-NOW

FOR ANOTHER!

President Wilson has triumphed. Humanity owes him a debt of gratitude deeper and greater because the victory he has won for it has come by the pen, not by the sword. For all time his example of patient but firm insistence upon the sacredness of life will endure in history as one of the brilliant triumphs of diplomacy-possibly in its final significance the most far-reaching ever scored by any American statesman. Not alone in his own country, but throughout the world, it will be realized that he has established a policy of humanity in sea warfare that will stand unchallenged for all time.

Germany, fighting to the last with characteristic determination to break down a barrier deliberately erected to starve her people at home and paralyze her industries, has yielded to her own better impulses and recognized the force and justice of President Wilson's appeal in behalf of civilization. Weak nations, like weak individuals, seldom have the courage to chance their course when they are shown to be in the wrong. Only the strong do that.

It must be conceded, therefore, that Germany has risen nobly to the high moral plane on which the American contention was based, and, with true sacrificial spirit, has joined in making a precedent which

no sea power will ever attempt to ignore. The extent to which the German government has gone in what might be termed a surrender of her interests can hardly be appreciated. It is not without possibly serious consequences to herself that Germany has put good will above material interests, and imperiled the fate of her own people for the good of humanity. It must not be forgotten that stealth is the essence of submarine warfare. The submarine is not a battleship. It cannot defend itself from attack. Its safetly is under the surface of the waters, and its sole usefulness lies in surprising enemy ships. Germany's acquiescence in the "visit and search" contention, therefore, places her whole submarine campaign on a less effective basis. To that extent, it is a distinct gain to. her enemy, England. Every English ship captain will sail the seas with far less concern hereafter, and seek outlets for England's trade with the certain knowledge that the powers at Washington and Berlin have robbed his voyage of its greatest terror. It is not the purpose of war to do that, yet that is precisely what German acquiescence does for Germany's enemies.

On the other hand, the English embargo to which the German submarine campaign was a response stands unchanged by any protest which this government has made to London.

Despite our attitude, England

still insists on a limitless expansion of her list of contraband. She adheres rigidly to a policy that not only seriously affects our interests, but is in direct contravention to her own traditional attitude. There is nothing in international law to justify a sweeping assertion that everything on the seas is contraband, even though its destination is indisputably not military.

President Wilson has used no uncertain language in his remonstrance to the English government and in demanding a revision of its orders in council. He stands on the broad ground outlined above. There is not an inch of it that can be justly disputed; nor can the principle be bartered away through an offer by England to buy the cotton we would be shipping to Germany were the seas as free to neutrals as they should be. The validity of international law is at stake in the recognition by England of President Wilson's contention. Bribery -for that is what England's cotton purchase plan amounts to-cannot be permitted by this government to gloss over a violation of principle.

No section of the country would resent acquiescence in such a bartering away of principle as would the South. It realizes that its whole future is involved in the recognition of its right to ship its cotton to every port in the world and under all conditions. It is not seeking a temporary adjustment, but the establishment of a permanent policy -or, rather, the recognition now by England of a code of law heretofore insisted upon by her, and universally recognized.

The vital and permanent interest that we as a nation have and the South as an integral part of our na

tion has, is shown by the fact that 65 per cent. of the world's cotton is grown here. It goes to Russia, England, Germany, Japan, as the chief centers of consumption. If it is not to have the fate of last year's crop, it must move freely over the seas at all times. Any sea law that challenges its right to do so instantly becomes a menace to the South's greatest interest, and remains so until this government insists upon a reversal.

That is the task President Wilson now faces.-Sept. 2, 1915.

THE SUBMARINE ISSUE

The President has been singularly consistent in his policy in regard to submarine warfare. He stands firmly on his basic proposition that the lives of noncombatant American citizens must be safeguarded by the exercise of "visit and search." No submarine must attack an unresisting passenger ship without giving passengers and crew an opportunity to save their lives.

This stand is based upon the highest conception of international law, and upon the instinct of humanity. His policy is supported by the moral sense of the American people, and in maintaining a code of law at sea he has the absolute confidence of the American people.-Sept. 11, 1915.

THE PRESIDENT'S VICTORY

In the name of his government, Count von Bernstorff has given assurance to the United States that "The orders issued by his majesty the emperor to the commanders of German submarines have been made so stringent that the recurrence of incidents similar to the Arabic case

is considered out of the question."

Therein lies the crux of the great victory which President Wilson has won by his diplomacy, a victory of which the American people may justly be proud, and for which the whole world owes a debt of gratitude to the man who achieved it, for it redounds to the benefit of the noncombatants of all nations.

What President Wilson has won is the recognition of a great humanitarian principle in the midst of the most sanguinary war that has stained the pages of modern history. Patiently but with unalterable persistence he has pressed for this point through a long series of diplomatic interchanges, covering a period of nearly five months since the world was startled by the awful tragedy of the Lusitania.

Harassed at home by an impatient people who sought to incite him to acts of indiscretion which would have plunged this nation into the frightful maelstrom of the European conflict, and heckled by many whose sympathies with the Teutons blinded their eyes to the outrage which had been committed upon helpless women and children, the President has closed his ears to the public clamor and has marched straight along the path which he felt sure would enable him to peacefully gain the end he had in viewnamely, safety for all persons who travel upon the sea upon peaceful errands.

The Evening Mail gratefully accords to President Wilson the fullest measure of praise for the triumph of his diplomacy, and believes that the American people, irrespective of partisianship or their sympathies toward either belligerent, will do the same.-Oct. 6, 1915.

THE ANCONA AFFAIR

To-day's dispatches make it clear that there will be no international complications arising out of the Ancona affair. The people of the United States will breathe a sigh of relief over this latest news. If there is one thing this country distinctly does not want, it is trouble of any kind with any of the belligerent powers of Europe.

For the present, at least, our differences with Germany have been adjusted; our grievances against England have been formulated and presented, and we may assume that these, too, are in a fair way to settlement. To have had a new cause of trouble arising between America and Austria would not only have had the effect of greatly increasing the nervous tension under which the American people have labored ever since the Lusitania affair, but would have appreciably dragged us one step nearer to actual embroilment in what is now almost a worldwide

war.

It is impossible to imagine anything more pitiful and heartrending than the sinking of a shipload of women and children. But according to the very plain and complete statements which came over the cable to-day, the responsibility for this tragedy rests with the unfortunate captain of the ship, who recklessly attempted to run away after he had been signaled by a warship to stop. Under all the rules of war, recognized in this country as well as in Europe, the commander of the submarine was acting entirely within his rights in firing upon a vessel which refused to stop when called upon to do so.

The heavy load of responsibility