"All are most anxious for peace. However it is infinitely better to look at matters such as they are. It is evident that the military situation does not offer the least hope that the war can be immediately brought to an end. Successes have been achieved on both sides. But nothing decisive has yet happened. The armies are facing one another in defiant attitude. The belligerent nations, on both sides, have yet, and for a long time, great resources in man-power and money.""If Germany, which should first give up the fight in acknowledging her crime, is obdurate to final exhaustion, how can it be possibly expected that the Allies who were forced to fight, will submit to the humiliation and shame of soliciting from theircruel enemy a peace the conditions of which, they know, would be utterly unacceptable. Consequently they must with an indomitable courage and an invincible perseverance go on struggling to solve, for a long time, the redoubtable problem to which they are pledged, in honour bound, to give the only settlement which can reassure the world."
"All are most anxious for peace. However it is infinitely better to look at matters such as they are. It is evident that the military situation does not offer the least hope that the war can be immediately brought to an end. Successes have been achieved on both sides. But nothing decisive has yet happened. The armies are facing one another in defiant attitude. The belligerent nations, on both sides, have yet, and for a long time, great resources in man-power and money."
"If Germany, which should first give up the fight in acknowledging her crime, is obdurate to final exhaustion, how can it be possibly expected that the Allies who were forced to fight, will submit to the humiliation and shame of soliciting from theircruel enemy a peace the conditions of which, they know, would be utterly unacceptable. Consequently they must with an indomitable courage and an invincible perseverance go on struggling to solve, for a long time, the redoubtable problem to which they are pledged, in honour bound, to give the only settlement which can reassure the world."
I am still and absolutely of the same opinion. The present military situation has certainly much improved in favour of the Allies since 1916. However, looking at the question, first, from the standpoint of the developing military operations, there is no actual, and there will not be for many months yet—more or less—practical possibility of a satisfactory peace settlement.
Secondly, looking at the question from the standpoint of true statesmanship, it is very easy to draw the inexorable conclusion that, again, there is not actually the least chance of an immediate restoration of peace.
Statesmen, responsible, not only for the future of their respective countries, but, actually, for that of the whole world, are not to be supposed liable to be carried away by a hasty desire to put an end to the war and to their own arduous task in carrying it to the only possible solution:—A JUST AND DURABLE PEACE.
A broad and certain fact, staring every one, is that the Berlin Government will not accept the only settlement to which the Allies can possibly agree as long as her armies occupy French and Belgian territories. If Mr. Bourassa and his "pacifists" friends—or dupes—have really entertaineda faint hope to the contrary, they were utterly mistaken.
Present military events, however proportionately enlarged by the increased resources, in man-power and money, of the belligerents, are not without many appropriate precedents. History is always repeating itself. Great Powers having risked their all in a drawn battle, do not give in as long as they can stand the strain, considering the importance of the interests they have at stake.
For the same reason above stated, but reversed, the Allies will not negotiate for peace before they have thrown the German armies out of French and Belgian soil, and repulsed them over Teutonic territory. I do not mean to say that peace must necessarily be proclaimed either from Berlin or from Paris. But it will only be signed as the inevitable result of a final triumphant march on the way either to Berlin or to Paris. There is no possible escape from the alternative. In such matters, there is no halfway station.
Two of the most important propositions of His Holiness the Pope more especially deserve earnest consideration. They are indeed supported by the Allies who are purposely fighting for their adoption.
In his note of the first of August, 1917, addressed to the Rulers of the belligerent nations, the Pope says in part:—
"At first, the fundamental point must be to substitute the moral force of Right to the material force of arms."
No truer proposition could be enounced. If Germany had put this principle into practice, she never would have violated Belgian territory.
When England protested against the proposed invasion of Belgium, she did so in obedience to the sacred principle enunciated by the Sovereign Pontiff. She strongly insisted to the last minute thatthe moral forceof solemn treaties should prevail uponthe material force of arms.
In a letter dated October 7, 1917, His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri, Secretary of State to His Holiness, addressing the Archbishop of Lens, wrote as follows respecting conscription:—
"The Holy See, in his Appeal of the first of August, did not consider, out of deference for the leaders of the belligerent peoples, that he should mention it, preferring to leave to themselves the care of determining it, but for him, the only practical system and, moreover, easy to apply with some good will on both sides, would be the following: to suppress, with one accord between civilized nations, military obligatory service; to constitute an arbitration tribunal, as already said in the Pontifical Appeal, to settle international questions; finally, to prevent infractions, to establish universal "boycottage" against any nation attempting to reestablish military obligatory service, on refusing either to lay an international question before the arbitration tribunal, or to abide by its decision."
"The Holy See, in his Appeal of the first of August, did not consider, out of deference for the leaders of the belligerent peoples, that he should mention it, preferring to leave to themselves the care of determining it, but for him, the only practical system and, moreover, easy to apply with some good will on both sides, would be the following: to suppress, with one accord between civilized nations, military obligatory service; to constitute an arbitration tribunal, as already said in the Pontifical Appeal, to settle international questions; finally, to prevent infractions, to establish universal "boycottage" against any nation attempting to reestablish military obligatory service, on refusing either to lay an international question before the arbitration tribunal, or to abide by its decision."
Cardinal Gasparri then points to the ante-war British and American systems of military "voluntarism", in the following terms:—
"As a matter of fact, omitting other considerations, the recent example of England and America testifies in favour of the adoption of this system. England and America had, in effect, voluntary service, and, to take an efficient part in the present war, they were obliged to adopt conscription. It proves that voluntary service well supplies the necessary contingent to maintain public order (and is public order not maintained in England and America just as well, if not better, than in the other nations?) but it does not supply the enormous armies required for modern warfare. Consequently in suppressing, with one accord between civilized nations, obligatory service to replace it by voluntary service, disarmament with all the happy consequences above indicated would be automatically obtained without any perturbation of public order.""For the last century, conscription has been the true cause of calamities which have afflicted society: to reach a simultaneous and reciprocal suppression will be the true remedy. In fact, once suppressed, conscription could be reestablished only by a law; and for such a law, even with the present constitution of the Central Empires, Parliamentary approbation would be required (which approbation would be most improbable for many reasons and above all on account of the sad experience of the present war); in this way, what is so much desired, for the maintenance of agreements, would be obtained: the peoples' guarantee. If, on the other hand,the right to make peace or war was given to the people by way ofreferendum, or at least to Parliament, peace between nations would be assured, as much at least as it is possible in this world."
"As a matter of fact, omitting other considerations, the recent example of England and America testifies in favour of the adoption of this system. England and America had, in effect, voluntary service, and, to take an efficient part in the present war, they were obliged to adopt conscription. It proves that voluntary service well supplies the necessary contingent to maintain public order (and is public order not maintained in England and America just as well, if not better, than in the other nations?) but it does not supply the enormous armies required for modern warfare. Consequently in suppressing, with one accord between civilized nations, obligatory service to replace it by voluntary service, disarmament with all the happy consequences above indicated would be automatically obtained without any perturbation of public order."
"For the last century, conscription has been the true cause of calamities which have afflicted society: to reach a simultaneous and reciprocal suppression will be the true remedy. In fact, once suppressed, conscription could be reestablished only by a law; and for such a law, even with the present constitution of the Central Empires, Parliamentary approbation would be required (which approbation would be most improbable for many reasons and above all on account of the sad experience of the present war); in this way, what is so much desired, for the maintenance of agreements, would be obtained: the peoples' guarantee. If, on the other hand,the right to make peace or war was given to the people by way ofreferendum, or at least to Parliament, peace between nations would be assured, as much at least as it is possible in this world."
It should be very gratifying indeed to all the loyal subjects of the British Empire to ascertain, from the declarations of Cardinal Gasparri, that the Pope is in so complete accord with England on this the most important question to be settled by the future peace treaty.
As proved in one of the first chapters of this work, the Government of Great Britain, supported in this course by almost the unanimous opinion of the peoples of the United Kingdom, was the first to suggest the holding of the Hague conferences to consider the best means to adopt to favour the world with the blessings of permanent peace. Their own view, which they forcibly expressed, was that the surest way to reach that much desired result was to limit the military armaments, both on land and sea. For more than twenty years previous to the war, they pressed, and even implored, for the adoption of their program.
I have also proved how obdurate Germany was in resisting England's propositions, and her successful intrigues to thwart Great Britain's efforts to have them adopted and put into practice.
England's policy has not changed. On the contrary, it is more than ever favourable to the limitation, and even to the complete abolition, of armaments, if one or the other can be achieved. It is the principal war aim of Great Britain, onlycoming next after her determination to avenge Belgium.
The future peace of the world could no doubt be well guaranteed by a large measure of disarmament. But it would certainly be much more so, if complete abolition could be obtained by an international agreement binding on all nations, with, of course, the allowance of the necessary forces required for the maintenance of interior public order.
The whole world can safely depend on the strenuous support of England for either the limitation or the abolition of armaments whenever the question is seriously taken up for consideration.
Evidently the problem will be difficult to solve. However, it should not be beyond the resources of statesmanship which, assuredly, ought to rise superior to all prejudiced aspirations after the terrible ordeal Humanity will have experienced during the present war.
The maintenance of internal public order, and permanent preparedness for foreign wars, are two very different questions to examine. The first can safely be left to the care of every nation sure to attend to it if willing to maintain her authority. The second has a much wider scope and will tax the ability of statesmanship to the utmost limit.
Will the great civilized nations decide, when the war is over, to completely abolish conscription to return to voluntary military service within avery limited organization, thus doing away by a bold and single stroke with a system which, for more than a hundred years, has been the curse of continental Europe?
Or will they, at least as an initial attempt, come to the conclusion to only limit armaments, maintaining compulsory service for the reduced strength of the armies?
If armaments are either abolished, or merely reduced, will they be so on sea as well as on land? I would answer at once:—of course, they should.
Looking at the question from the British stand-point—and I can also say from that of the United States—it should be easily solved.
Public opinion in Great Britain and all over the British Empire, as well as in the United States, has always been against conscription in peace times, until the present war.
Not exactly foreseeing the full extent of the effort she would be called upon to make, England entered into the conflict determined to meet the requirements of her military situation out of the resources of voluntary enlistment. Canada, joining in the struggle, did the same. Both have done wonderfully well during the three first years of the prolonged war.
I can, without the slightest hesitation, positively assert that public opinion, in the whole British Empire, and, not only in the United States, but in the whole of the two American continents, is, as a matter of principle, as much hostile to compulsorymilitary service as it was before the present war, and would exult at its complete abolition as one of the happiest results of the gigantic contest still going on.
It is to be deplored, but still it is a fact, that great questions of public interest too often cannot be settled solely in conformity with the principles they imply.
If Great Britain, if the United States, if Canada, could consider the question of conscription exclusively from their own stand-point, they would most surely decide at once, and with great enthusiasm, to abolish the obligatory military service they have adopted only as a last resort under the stress of imperious necessity.
Moreover, I have no hesitation to express my own opinion that whatever will be the military system of continental Europe after the war, the British Empire and the United States will certainly not be cursed with permanent conscription. They are both so happily situated that, in peace times, they cannot be called upon to go very extensively into the costly preparedness which the European continental nations will have again to submit themselves to, if they are not wise enough to put an end forever to the barbarous militarism they have too long endured for fear of Teutonic domination.
Under the worst European situation, England, with a territorial army of a million of men ready to be called to the Colours, or actually flying them,backed by her mighty fleet maintained to its highest state of efficiency, could always face any continental enemy. And such an army of a ready million of well trained officers and men, voluntary service would easily produce.
If future conditions would require it, Canada herself could do her share to prepare for any emergency by reverting to voluntary enlistment, but in improving the service so as to produce more immediate efficiency.
Very apparently, the United States will come out of the present conflict with flying Colours and will dispense with compulsory service under any circumstances in the peace days to follow.
What then will the continental powers do? Blessed they will be, if they make up their mind to do away, once for all, with a system which has crushed the peoples so unmercifully.
To speak in all frankness, I believe it would be almost vain, however much desirable it is, to indulge in fond hopes of the complete abolition of militarism on the European continent. The canker is too deep in the flesh and blood of nations to be extirpated as if by magic. Such a reversal of conditions grown to extravagant proportions, during more than a century, will not likely be accomplished at the first stroke. Let us all hope that, at least, a good start will be made by a large limitation of armaments which may, with time, lead to the final achievement for which the whole world would be forever grateful to the Almighty.I have positively stated that extravagant militarism should be discontinued on sea as well as on land. Such has been the policy of England for many years past. I have proved it by the diplomatic correspondence between Great Britain and Germany, and the solemn declarations of all the leading British statesmen for the last quarter of a century. How persistingly England has implored Germany to agree with her in stopping that ruinous race in the building of war vessels, we have seen.
So, the assent, nay more, the determination of England to adhere to her old and noble policy, is a foregone conclusion.
The closing sentence of the last quoted paragraph of Cardinal Gasparri's letter expresses the opinion that "the right to make peace or war should be given to the people by way of referendum, or at least to Parliament."
The system preconized by the Eminent Cardinal has been in existence in England for a number of years; ever since the day when complete ministerial responsibility was adopted as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. That system was carried to the letter by Great Britain with regard to her intervention in the present war.
The right to declare war and to make peace is one of the most important prerogatives of the British Crown. This prerogative of the Crown, like all the others, is held in trust by the Sovereignfor the benefit of the people and exercised by HimONLY UPON THE ADVICE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF HIS MINISTERS.
In conformity with this great British constitutional principle, what happened in London, in August, 1914? The then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, in his own name and in those of his colleagues, advised His Majesty King George V. to declare war against Germany because she had invaded Belgian territory in violation of the treaties by which these two countries were, in honour bound, to protect Belgium's neutrality. They were constitutionally responsible to the Imperial Parliament and to the people of the United Kingdom for their advice to their Sovereign.
In his admirable statement to the British House of Commons, Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said:—
"I have assured the House—and the Prime Minister has assured the House more than once—that if any crisis such as this arose, we should come before the House of Commons and be able to say to the House that it was free to decide what the British attitude should be, that we would have no secret engagement which we should spring upon the House, and tell the House that, because we had entered into that engagement, there was an obligation of honour upon the country."
The British House of Commons, had they considered it to be their duty, had the right to disapprove the foreign policy of the Cabinet and tocensure the ministers for the advice they had given, or had decided to give, to the Sovereign. On the other hand, the House of Commons had the right to approve the stand taken by the Government. They did so unanimously, and were most admirably supported by the people.
I must say that I consider it would be very difficult, if not absolutely impracticable, to have questions of war or peace dealt with by way of "Referendum." Crises suddenly created lead almost instantly to declarations of war. But this outcome could hardly be so rapidly produced that Parliament could not be called to deal with the emergency.
How could France have been able to oppose the crushing German invasion, in 1914, if her Government and her representative Houses had been obliged to wait for the result of a "Referendum" whether she would fight or kneel down?
But the whole world—outside the Central Empires and their Allies—witnessed with unbounded delight the spontaneous and unanimous decision of the heroic French nation to fight to the last. She threw herself with the most admirable courage against the invading waves of Teutonic barbarism, and succeeded by the great and glorious Marne victory in forcing them to ebb, thus giving England and the other Allies the time necessary to organize and train their armies which, by their united efforts will save Civilization from destruction and the world from the threatened German domination.
The hostilities, once opened as the direct consequence of Germany's obduracy, many of the most influential leaders of public opinion in the United States foresaw that the conflict taking such a wide range, the great American Republic was most likely to be, sooner or later, involved in the European struggle. They were of two classes. Those out of office, holding for the time no official position, were, of course, not bound to the same careful discretion in judging the daily developments of the military operations, and their far reaching consequences, as those who were at the helm of State.
In appreciating the course followed by the United States since the war commenced, it must never be forgotten that if an autocratic Empire, trampled upon by a domineering military party, can be thrown in a minute into a great conflict, a Republic like that of our powerful neighbours cannot be dragooned into any hasty action. In a free country, under a responsible government, public opinion is the basis of the success of any important official decision.
The political men and the numerous publicists who incessantly called the attention of our neighbours to what was going on in Europe and on the seas, have rendered a great service in moulding public opinion for the grand duty the Republic would eventually be obliged to accomplish.
Having ourselves decided to participate in the war at once after its outbreak, and deeply engaged in the task, we, Canadians, felt somewhat uneasy about the apparent determination of our neighbours to stand aside, and let the European Powers settle the ugly question. As a rule, we were all wishing to see the United States joining with the Allies in the fray.
Once again, we had some black sheep with us. Whilst all the loyal Canadians were anxiously waiting for the day when they would applaud the American Republic's declaration of war against Germany, our Nationalists were getting more nervous at the increasing signs of the growth of public opinion amongst our neighbours against the criminal German cause and the crimes by which the Teutons were supporting it. Their leader, Mr. Bourassa, was doing his best to persuade the Americans that they had much better to remain out of the struggle. He expected he would succeed, as he had done in the Province of Quebec, in influencing, by his erroneous theories, many of the French Canadian element in the United States.
The wish being always father to the thought, Mr. Bourassa easily came to the conclusion thatMr. Wilson, the president of the United States, was decidedly opposed to any intervention of the Republic in the war, and would prevent it at all hazards. How prodigal he was of his eulogiums, of his advices, to the American "pacifists," with the President as their leader, to know one has only to read his newspaper "Le Devoir."
How disappointed, how crest-fallen, he was when he discovered how much mistaken he had been!
When Mr. Wilson, who had long been waiting for the right hour to strike the blow at the Teutonic autocratic attempt at domination, rising grandly to the rank of a great statesman, supported by the splendid strength of the public opinion he had wisely and skilfully rallied in favour of the decision he had taken, was a sad day for our Nationalists and their heart-broken leader. Blind, prejudiced, as they were, meekly pandering to pan-Germanism which they considered as the best antidote to the Anglo-Saxonism they abhor, they could not understand that the Lusitania horror, the slaughtering of hundreds of American citizens in violation of all the principles of International Law, the crimes of the Teutonic submarine campaign more than justified the intervention of the United States in the war.
What our neighbours have done since they have joined with the Allies, what they are doing and promise to do, is worthy of all admiration. Like the British Empire, like France, the UnitedStates have given the inspiring example of a most enlightened patriotism, of a splendid unity of purpose, of a boundless confidence in the triumph of the cause of Justice and Right.
Such a grand spectacle of true national unity offered a striking contrast with the sad exhibition of the narrow Nationalism Canada has had to endure without, however, hindering to any appreciable extent our loyal and patriotic effort to help winning the war.
Mr. Bourassa, who had been out of his natural vituperative tune in complimenting Mr. Wilson on his supposed peace proclivities, was sure to turn his guns against the President of the Republic the moment he boldly and energetically took his stand against German barbarism as exhibited since the beginning of the war. Mr. Wilson had especially protested against such outrages as were perpetrated on the seas by Teutonic orders. He had repeatedly warned the Berlin Government what the inevitable consequences of such proceedings would be, and going to the full length of what friendly relations between two Sovereign States could permit, had demanded that an end be put to a kind of warfare most formally condemned by International Law, contrary to all justice, to all human notions of civilization.
When the cup of German iniquities overflowed with new crimes, American reprobation was also raised to the high water mark. Indignation was at the height of its exasperation. Public opinionhad rapidly rallied and ripened at the horrible sight of so many American citizens, women and children, murdered in mid-ocean, their dead bodies floating over the waves, and their souls from above crying for vengeance.
Then the President, Congress, statesmen, politicians, publicists, loyal Americans numbering almost a hundred million, all of one mind, of one heart, pledged their national honour to avenge the foul deeds of Teutonic barbarity, and to do their mighty share in rescuing Freedom and Civilization from the threatening sanguinary cataclysm which was cruelly saddening our times and darkening the prospects of our children.
How powerfully, how grandly, how admirably they have kept their word, all know. The laws necessary to prosecute the war with the utmost vigour were unanimously passed by Congress. The organization of the man-power of our neighbours has been made on a grand scale. The calls to the financial resources of the Republic have been patriotically answered by the people who poured out billions and billions of their hard earned and prudently saved money to support the national cause so closely identified with that of the Allies. Besides spending innumerable millions for their own gigantic military effort, the United States are lending billions of dollars to their associates in the great struggle to curb down German autocratic criminal ambition.
The universe, as a whole, gratefully applaudedthe magnificent effort of the leading nation of the New-World in defending the old continents of Europe, Asia and Africa against the new invasion of the Huns.
The only shadow to this ennobling picture is that which our Nationalists, from this side of the boundary line, try to breathe on it, expecting that their treacherous whisper will find some echo amongst the French Canadian and the German elements of the Republic.
The following lines are a sample of the kind words Mr. Bourassa has addressed to Mr. Wilson—the warrior—not the pacifist. On August 30, 1917, respecting the answer of the President of the United States to the Pope's appeal in favour of peace, he wrote in a gentle mood:—
"Truth and falsehood, sincerity and deceit, logic and sophism are sporting with gracefulness in this singularly astonishing document. One would imagine that the President, persuaded that the European Governments are playing an immense game of "poker" having the life of the peoples at stake, wanted to go further and to prove to them that at such a game the great American democracy is their master. Perhaps did he believe that the "bluff" outbidding would succeed in tearing to pieces the mask of falsehoods, of ambiguities and hypocrisy, by which the national Rulers are blinding the peoples in order to lead them more readily to be slaughtered."
On perusing such outrageous writing, one cannot help being convinced that Mr. Bourassaconsiders all the distinguished and most patriotic political leaders who, for the last four years, have guided with so much talent and devotion France, the British Empire, and their Allies through the unprecedented crisis they have had to face, are a criminal gang of murderers.
So, in Mr. Bourassa's kind opinion, when Mr. Wilson and all the members of the two Houses of Congress, with a most admirable unanimity of thought and aspirations, called upon the American nation to avenge their countrymen, countrywomen and children, murdered on the broad sea, they were criminally joining with European Rulers in a game of "bluff", going further than all of them in order to tear to pieces the falsehoods and hypocrisy they were using to blind their peoples to the facile acceptance of the slaughtering process. A very strange way, indeed, of unmasking others' hypocrisy by being more hypocritical than them all.
The next day, in a second article on the same subject, the Nationalist leader said:—
"Since the outbreak of the war, more especially since the exhausted peoples have commenced to ask themselves what will be the result of this frightful slaughter, the supporters of war to the utmost have tried hard to create the legend that Germany wants to impose her political, military and economical domination over the whole universe. To this first falsehood, they add another one, still more complete: the only way to assurepeace, they say, is to democratize Germany, Austria and all the nations of the Globe."
Two falsehoods no doubt there are, but they are not asserted by those who affirm Germany's aspiration at universal domination, and who believe that if true free democratic institutions were to replace autocratic rule in many countries, peace could be much more easily maintained. They are circulated by those who deny that such are the two cases.
Whose fault is it if the almost universal opinion, outside the Central Empires and their few allies, is that Teutonic ambition, for many years past, has been to dominate the world?
Whose fault is it if, for the last forty years, autocratic rule has once more proved to be the curse of the nations which it governs, and of the peoples it subjugates?
Has not Germany only herself to blame? If she had respected the eternal principles of Divine Morals; if she had been contented of her lot and mindful of the rights of other nations; if she had been guided by the true law that Right is above Might; if she had followed the ever glorious path of Justice, she would not be presently under the ban of the civilized world rising in a mighty effort to crush her threatening tyranny out of existence.
So much the worse for her, if she falls a victim to her insane ambitious dreams and to the atrocious crimes they have inspired her to commit. In her calamity, the Nationalists' sympathies willavail her very little, as they will everywhere meet with the contempt they fully deserve.
At page 116, in a virulent charge, Mr. Bourassa says that Mr. Wilsonthough a passionate and obstinate pedantic of democracy, is as much of an autocrat as William of Prussia.
Blinded by his fanatical antipathies towards every one and every thing, directly or indirectly, favouring England, the Nationalist leader fails to see any difference between the man who blasphemously claims by Divine Right the power to hurl his whole Empire at the throat of staggering Humanity, to satisfy his frenzied lust of domination, denying to his subjects any say whatever in the matter, and the responsible chief of State who, holding his temporary functions from the expressed will of the people who trusted him, calls upon that same nation to avenge the murder of a large number of her citizens, of her women and children, and the barbarous crimes committed in violation of her Sovereign Rights.
If Mr. Bourassa is conscious of the enormity of the stand he has taken, and of the views he has expressed, he is indeed much to be blamed; if he is not, he is greatly to be pitied.
At page 109 of his pamphlet—entitled:—"The Pope, arbiter of peace," Mr. Bourassa has written the following monstrous proposition, after having said that peace must be restored "without victory":—
"The more the results of the war are null, forboth sides, the more chances there are for the peoples, astounded at the frightful uselessness of those monstrous slaughters, to protect themselves against a new fit of furious folly. To become odious to men, war must be barren."
So Mr. Bourassa has emphatically proclaimed that the war must be barren of any practical results, that the extraordinary sacrifices of lives, of resources of wealth, must be without reward of any kind; that the world must return to the ante-war conditions. And this, he asserts, would be the best means of preventing a renewal of the monstrous slaughters which have been the outcome of Germany's horrible attempt at dominating an enslaved Humanity.
In all sincerity, it is very difficult to suppose that the exponent of such outrageously abominable views is conscious of what he says.
A red hot "pacifist," Mr. Bourassa clamoured as best he could for "PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY," claiming that it wasthe only kind of peace that could be "just and durable."The time was when he pretended—surely without any show of reason—that such was the sort of peace Mr. Wilson wanted and suggested.
Even as far back as December 31, 1915, Mr. Bourassa, no doubt desirous of giving full vent to his new year's wishes to all, had written:—
"In spite of the lies, of the impudent "bluff," of the sanguinary appeals and of the false promises of victory of the partisans of war to excess, inall the warring countries, popular good sense commences to discern truth.... The more victory(the issue)will be materially null and sterile for all the nations at war, the more chances there will be that peace will be lasting and that the peoples will be convinced that war is not only an abominable crime but an incommensurable folly."
Evidently it had already become a hobby on the brain of the Nationalist leader. He dogmatically proclaims that war between peoples—not the wars formerly fought by mercenary armies,—is acrime,—abominable,—and afolly,—incommensurable.
True it is on the part of a State tramping upon all the principles of Justice and of International Law to gratify her guilty ambition.
But honourable, glorious, is war on the part of peoples rising in their patriotic might to resist a sanguinary enemy, to defend their countries, their homes, their mothers, their wives and their children from oppression, to stem the conquering efforts of barbarous invaders.
No doubt it was a crime on the part of Germany to break her pledged honour by solemn treaties, and to violate Belgium's territory.
No doubt it was a crime for Germany—and one abominable—to overrun Belgium, spreading everywhere desolation, devastation, incendiarism, murder.
But can it be said that the admirable andheroic resistance Belgium has opposed to her tyrannical invaders was a dastardly crime?
No doubt it was a crime—and one most abominable—for Germany to order the sinking of the Lusitania and hundreds of merchant ships, without the warning required by the Law of Nations, murdering by hundreds non-combatants, children, women, and old men.
But can any one be justified in asserting that, after exhausting, for the redress of such abominable wrongs, all the resources of diplomacy, the United States were committing a crime when they accepted the criminal teutonic challenge and decided to join with the British Empire, with France, Italy and their Allies, to rescue human Freedom and Civilization from the impending destruction?
It is an aberration of mind—incommensurable in depth—for a publicist, or any one else, to be so blinded by prejudices, so lost to all sense of justice, as to place on the same footing, on the same level, the assailant and he who defends his all, the murderer and the victim.
I positively affirm that I am not actuated by the least ill-will or ill-feeling against the Nationalist leader, in judging his course and his views as I do. Thank God, I know enough of the teachings of Christianity to wish good to all men. But I cannot help being deeply sorry and deploring that one of my French Canadian compatriots is buried in such mental darkness as to be unable to perceive the difference—incommensurable—there is in thepresent war between the hideous Teutonic guilt, and the commendable and meritorious defence by the Allied nations of the most sacred cause on earth:—outraged Justice.
And with all sincerity, I express the profound wish that during the prolonged recess the timely war measure adopted to censure and prevent all utterances detrimental to the best Canadian effort in the conflict, the Nationalist leader has the pleasure to enjoy, he will reconsider the whole situation and his opinions—too much widely circulated. Is it yet possible to hope that, at last, he will see the dawn which will lead him to the full light with which the great and noble cause of his country and of the world is shining?
It is no surprise that such opinions utterly failed to have any echo amongst the liberty loving people of the neighbouring Republic. They died their merited shameful death before crossing over the boundary line, buried deep under the heap of the profound feelings of reprobation they provoked.
The Nationalist leader even missed the mark where he felt sure his shot would strike. We can rest assured that the large majority of the United States Germans, by birth or origin, would not change the responsible President of their new country for the autocrat Kaiser from whose absolutist power so many of them fled to breathe freely in the new land of promise it was their happy lot to enter.
Mr. Bourassa met with a complete failure inhis expectation to arouse the feelings of his compatriots over the frontier against the intervention of the Republic in the war.
It has been a profound satisfaction for us, French Canadians, to learn that from the very moment war was declared by the Republic against Germany, the French Canadian element in the United States has been to the forefront of the most loyal of our friendly neighbours in fighting the common enemy.
The French Canadians of the United States, either by birth or origin, have wisely turned a deaf ear to the Nationalist leader's seductive but prejudiced theories, to the wild charges he was wont to level at all the national rulers of the Allies, and, as a final attempt, at those of the American Republic. They have rallied to their Colours with enthusiastic patriotism.
They have nobly done their duty. They are doing it, and will continue to do so to the last: to the final victory for which they are fighting with the patriotic desire to share in the glory of the triumph of their country.
Since its outbreak the great war has, and, before it is over, will have, played havoc in many ways in the wide world. Criminal aspirations have been quashed, extravagant hopes shattered, an ancient throne overthrown almost without a clash, an autocrat sovereign murdered, another forced to abdicate and go into exile.
In the open airs, on land, over the waves, under sea, the fighting demon has been most actively at work, ordering one of the belligerent, eager to obey, to spare no one, young, weak or old. Death has been dropped from the skies on sleeping non-combatants, assassinating right and left. On the soil Providentially provided with the resources necessary to human life, homes have been ruined, their so far happy owners brutally murdered. On the ocean the treacherous and barbarous submariner, operating in the broad light of the day, or in the darkness of the night, has sent, without remorse, to the fathomless bottom, thousands and thousands of innocent victims, children, women, old men, wounded soldiers spared on land but drowned at sea.
Viewed from the height of a much nobler standpoint,the war has developed a superior degree of heroism perhaps never equalled. Belgians, Serbians, Poles, Armenians have endured, and are still suffering, their prolonged martyrdom with a fortitude deserving the greatest admiration.
The nations united to withstand the torrent of German cruel and depraved ambition are writing, with the purest of their blood, pages of history which, for all times to come, will offer to posterity unrivalled examples of the sound and unswerving patriotism which has elevated them all to the indomitable determination to bear patiently, perseveringly, all the sacrifices, in lives courageously given, in resources profusely spent, in taxation willingly accepted and paid, in works of all kinds cheerfully performed, which the salvation of human Liberty and Civilization shall require.
The collapse of the ancient and hitherto mighty Empire of Russia will undoubtedly be one of the most startling events of the "Great War." For the present, I shall not comment, on the causes of this momentous episode, incidental to the wonderful drama being played on the worldly stage, more than I have done in a previous chapter. Still the important change it has made in the respective situation of the belligerents, with the prospective consequences likely to follow, one way or the other, calls for some timely consideration.
Evidently, the downfall, first, of the Imperial regime, second, of thede factoRepublican government by which it was replaced, throwing the greatEastern ally of Great Britain, France and Italy under the tyrannical sway of the "bolchevikis" terrorists, most considerably altered the relative strength of the fighting power of the belligerents. Very detrimental to the Allies, it was largely favourable to the Central Empires. The "Triple Entente" as first constituted, was much weakened by the desertion of one of the great partners in the heavy task they had undertaken, whilst the "Triple Alliance" was strengthened in a relative proportion, at least for the time being and the very near future.
Evidence, incontrovertible, is coming to light, proving what had been soundly presumed, that "bolchevikism" was not merely the result, as in other instances, of the violence of sanguinary revolutionists overpowering a regular progressive movement of political freedom and reform, but that it has been the outcome of German intrigue easily succeeding in corrupting into shameless treason the "bolchevikis" leaders.
As a Sovereign State, as an independent nation, Russia was, in honour bound, pledged not to consent to a separate peace, and to make peace with Germany only with conditions to which all the Allies would agree. Acceptance of, and concurrence in, all peace agreements, were the essential clause of the pledge Great Britain, France and Russia had reciprocally taken in going to war with the Central Empires. With this sacred pledge Italy concurred fully on joining the Allies.
To that solemn pledge, the American Republic has emphatically assented when she threw her weighty sword in the balance against blood stained and murderous Germany.
The "bolchevikis'" treacherous government repudiated the solemn engagement of their country, threw her honour to the winds, sold her dearest national interests by the infamous Brest-Litovsk treaty. Betrayed Russia was out of the war, leaving her Allies to their fate.
From a military point of view, the consequences were easily foreseen. Freed from the danger of further attacks on the eastern front, both Germany and Austria could send their eastern armies, the first, on the western front in France, the second, on the Italian front. Germany, only requiring a sufficient force to keep down trodden Russia under the yoke treacherously fastened on her neck by the traitors who had ignominiously sold their country to her enemy, and anxious to profit to the utmost by her success in coercing the Russians to agree to dishonourable peace conditions, hurried more than a million men over to the western front. Austria did likewise, sending a large force with the hope of smashing the Italians out of the fight.
Those were no doubt very anxious days. All remember how the Italian army lost in a very short time all the ground they had so stubbornly conquered.
Germany made formidable preparations to strike, in the very early spring of the present year,a decisive blow by which she fully expected to reach and take Paris. We shall never forget the feverish hours we lived when came the successive reports of the crushing advance of the Teutonic hordes so close to the illustrious capital of France.
For a while, it seemed to be—and really it was—a renewal of the first terrific invasion of northern France, in 1914. Fortunately, it was Providentially decreed that the second onslaught was to meet with a second Marne disaster. The Huns were forced to retire after a tremendous loss of men and war materials, the allied armies, brilliantly led and fighting heroically, redeeming all the lost territory and, at the moment I am writing, moving steadily towards the German frontier.
The great good luck of the Allies, treasonably sacrificed by the Russian bolchevikis terrorist government, was the solemn entry of the United States into the European conflict.
Preparing for the grand effort which she confidently expected would be final, Germany rashly decided to resume her barbarous submarine campaign, positively determined to criminally violate all the principles of International Law regulating warfare on the seas. That outrageous decision was her fatal doom.
Its direct result was to bring the American Republic into the war. And then the whole world was called upon to witness, with unbounded delight, the very impressive spectacle of millions of fighting free men being successfully transported over the sea, and landed on the French soil, to jointhe grand army which, for the last four years, had been resisting the full might of the autocratic forces.
However difficult it is to foretell what the political developments of the present deplorable Russian situation will be, still it is not illusory to believe that, history once more repeating itself, the present sanguinary Russian regime will hasten its well deserved ignominious downfall by the very brutal excesses it multiplies in its delirious tyranny. There are too many elements of the immense population of Russia favourable to an orderly and sensible government, to suppose that they will long fail to gather their strength in order to redeem their country's honour, and to remove from power the traitors who are the shame of their fair land. When the infallible reaction sets in, it will increase the more in momentum that it will have been longer repressed by foul means.
The most important point of the present Russian situation to consider is that of the best initiative the Allies could, and ought to, take respecting the military question.
Many are of opinion that it would be possible, for the Allies, to help Russia out of the present difficulties by an armed support. Such views have been more especially expressed in the United States. Could they, or can they be carried out? I must say that in a large measure I share the opinion of those who would give an affirmative answer to the question.
It is well known that the matter has been most seriously considered by the Allies, and a favourable solution seems on the way of a satisfactory realization.
To the armed intervention of the Allies in Russia, following closely upon the infamous Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, there was a very serious obstacle of German creation.
It was evident, at the very start, that if intervention there was to be, the one Ally to play the most important part in the great undertaking would be Japan.
The British statesmen who, several years ago, brought about the treaty of alliance between Great Britain and Japan have deserved much from the Empire and from the world generally. Surely they had a clear insight of the future. True to her treaty obligations Japan at once sided with Great Britain in the war. All those who have closely followed the trend of events since the outbreak of the hostilities, know how much Japan has done to assist in chasing the German military and mercantile fleets from the high seas, more especially from the Pacific ocean. Canada owes her a debt of gratitude for the protection she has afforded our western British Columbia coast from the raids of German war ships.
Foreseeing that the proximity of Japan to eastern Russia was an inducement for the Allies to decide upon an armed intervention which, starting from Siberia, might roll westward over the broad lands leading back to the European easternwar front, Germany lost no time in trying to poison Russian public opinion against the Japanese. Her numerous representatives and agents told the Russians that if they allowed Japan to send her army on Russian territory, they would be doomed to fall under Japanese sway. They recalled the still recent Russo-Japanese war, amplifying the supposed aims of Japan so as to stir up the national feelings of the Russians. Such a cry, assiduously and widely spread, was no doubt a dangerous one.
Under those circumstances, Japan wisely decided to remain in the expectation of further developments before moving. She took the safe stand that she would intervene only upon the request of the Russians themselves, pledging her word of honour that her only purpose would be to free Russia from German domination, and that she would withdraw from Russian territory as soon as complete Russian independence would have been restored and the treacherous Teutonic aims foiled.
Evidences are increasing in number and importance that the Huns' propaganda in Russia against Japan is being successfully counteracted by the good sense of the people, realizing how much their vital national interests have been trampled upon by Germany in imposing her peace conditions on their country betrayed by the bolchevikis rulers.
An armed Allied force has been sent to, and has been, for some weeks, operating, in Siberia so far with commendable results.
For one, I have most at heart an expectation which I would be most happy to see realized. It seems to me that there ought to be a chance, nay more, a possibility, for the Allies to organize, between this day and next spring, a strongly supported intervention in Russia. In that event, Japan of course, would take the lead. She could rapidly send to help the Russians to resume their part in the war against Germany at least a million of men; two millions if they were needed. As a guarantee of Japan's good faith, the Allies, more especially the United States, could send over contingents to Siberia.
There is no doubt whatever that so supported, the revulsion of Russian public feeling, once set in motion, would soon overwhelm the bolchevikis. A sensible and patriotic government, once at the helm of the state, could easily and rapidly reorganize a powerful army out of the numerous available millions. The financial aspect of the question would certainly be the most difficult for Russia to meet, after the exhaustive strain she has had to bear. But however great their moneyed effort, the United States could yet do a great deal to help Russia financially.
Will the hopes of so many be realized, and will Russia, resuming her place of honour in the glorious ranks of the Allies, be found battling once more with them when together they will finally crush the German tyrannical militarism? God only knows, and time will tell.
I was writing the last pages of this work when the surprising news was flashed over the cable that Austria-Hungary had taken the initiative of suggesting peace discussion, which proposition she had communicated to all the belligerents, to the neutral governments and even to the Holy See. Without delay the rumour proved to be true. The very next day the full text of Austria's communication was published all over the world.
I have read it with great care and, I confess, with profound amazement.
From several stand-points, this document is astonishing and weighty: astonishing as it reveals more than ever before the astuteness of the inspiration which dictated it; weighty because it derives its importance from one of the most serious situation of the world's affairs ever recorded in History.
It is difficult to suppose that the Austrian Government really expected that their move would be considered as the outcome of their own initiative. Not the hand, but the sword—the dominating sword—behind the Throne is clearly visible.
The carefully drafted document, issued fromVienna, was evidently dictated from Berlin. It is stamped with the Teutonic seal.
After the experience of the last four years—I can safely say of the last half century as well—over credulous is he who believes that, swayed as she has been by her overpowering northern neighbour, Austria would have dared to address such a proposition to the Allies if she had not been asked by Germany to do so.
It is rather amusing to read the news cabled from Amsterdam, Holland, on the 20th of September, that an official communication issued in Berlin said that the German Ambassador in Vienna that day presented Germany's reply to the recent Austro-Hungarian peace note. The purport of the note was that Germany agreed to participate in the proposed exchange of views. This is indeed high class cynicism.
The document would certainly call for somewhat lengthy and strong comments, but they can be dispensed with after the curt, sharp and decisive reply it has elicited from those it was intended to seduce and deceive.
President Wilson was the first to answer a positive, a formidable NO, which, thundered out from Washington, was echoed with equal force in London, Paris and Rome. So that the astute attempt to deter the Allies from the glorious course they were forced to adopt by Germany, and by Austria herself, was doomed to failure, and bound to meet with the contempt it deserved.
But a few remarks expressing the retort that strikes one's mind on reading the Austrian communication, are in order and had better be made. The whole stress of the document is that peace should be restored as soon as possible on account of the sacrifices and sufferings war nowadays entail, and in conformity with the unanimous wishes of the peoples engaged in the conflict.
Did Austria ever suppose that, when she addressed that sadly famous and outrageous ultimatum to Servia, dated the 23rd of July, 1914, which she well knew would bring about the cataclysm she now feigns to deplore—and which Germany and herself were longing for—the war would be only a child's play, a game of golf, or something of the kind? Was Austria at that time cherishing the kind feelings of the German Kronprinz who, on being asked by an American lady, in a social event, at Berlin, why he was so desirous of seeing a great war, replied that "it was only for the fun of the thing?"
That war, when once declared, would have terrible consequences, would cost millions of dear lives, would cripple many more millions for the rest of their earthly days, would cost innumerable millions—even billions—of hard earned money, would destroy an immense amount of accumulated wealth, would delay for years the onward march of Humanity towards more and more prosperous destinies, was not only long foreseen before it broke out, but was positively known to be pregnant with all such disasters.
But what was not foreseen, not known, nor imagined as at all possible, after nearly twenty centuries of Christianity, was that, war being on, Germany, the Power responsible for it, guilty of the crime of having let loose the frightful hurricane, would multiply the horrors inseparable from military operations, with unconceivable barbarous acts condemned by all international, moral and Divine laws.
It was not foreseen, nor supposed possible, that heroism would be challenged by murder, that the glorious defenders of their country's rights would have to fight against sanguinary savages obeying the barbarian orders of a modern Attila.
It was not foreseen that hundreds of children, women, old men, wounded soldiers, would be assassinated on the open sea and sent to their eternal watery graves.
So far as the horrors of regular warfare were concerned, they were, as I have just said, very well known. And was it not on account of this knowledge that Great Britain and France had exhausted all their efforts in favour of the maintenance of peace?
Was it not out of this knowledge that England had, for more than twenty years, implored the Berlin Government to agree at least to partial disarmament, to discontinue, or, at the least, to reduce war ship building operations?
When Austria, bowing herself down to the ground under the German tyrannical lash, unjustlyand cruelly declared war against weak Servia, she knew what the horrors of the conflict could not fail to be. How is it that at that time she was not moved by the sympathetic feelings expressed in her recent appeal for peace negotiations?
How is it that Austria, and her inspiring angel, Germany, are getting so nervous about the misfortunes of war, just at the time when they are forced to admit that they are utterly unable to realize the aims for which they brought on the frightful struggle?
How is it that those who could order with clear conscience and fiendish delight the violation of Belgium guaranteed neutrality, the sinking of the Lusitania and so many other ships carrying non-combatants, children, women and old men, the murder of so many innocent victims, the Belgian deportations, the destruction of the monuments of art—the work of human genius—are suddenly moved to pity just as they see the hand writing on the wall warning them that their days of foul enjoyments are at end?
How is it that the voice who dictated the following sentence was not silenced and choked by the abominable lie it contains? How is it that the hand that wrote it was not instantly dried up at the impudent falsehood it expresses?
Austria's official communication says in part:—
"The Central Powers leave it in no doubt thatthey are only waging a war of defence for the integrity and the security of their territories."
But why is it that the Central Empires are now only waging a defensive war, if it is not because after having opened the game with the certainty of crushing their opponents by the tremendous power of their formidable military organization, they are getting beaten and overpowered by the unrivalled heroism called forth by their criminal attempt at destroying weak nations and enslaving Humanity?
The Austrian and German Governments wilfully forget that the important point is not to consider who are the belligerents that areNOWforced by the fortune of arms to wage a defensive struggle. It is to ascertain who started the conflict of anOFFENSIVEwar.
To that question, the voice of the truly civilized world has answered with no uncertain sound. It was given, and ever since most energetically emphasized, the very day the first Austrian shot was fired at Belgrade, the first thundering German gun and the first German soldier ordered to cross over the Belgian frontier.
The Austrian tentative peace document pretends "that all peoples, on whatever side they may be fighting, long for a speedy end to the bloody struggle."
This is so evidently true that the writer of the communication might very properly have dispensed with asserting it.
But have the Austrian and the German Governments forgotten that the peoples were equally longing for the maintenance of peace during the many years of intense war preparation prior to the outbreak of the hostilities in 1914?
If they are not yet aware of it, the Central Empires must be taught that the Allied nations have another longing than that for peace, to which they have given precedence and for which they will continue to fight strenuously until it is fully gratified. They long for an honourable, a just and lasting peace. They long to see once more the old landmarks of Civilization and Political Liberty emerging safe and radiant from the waves of Teutonic Barbarism. They long, and most earnestly, for peace restored under such conditions as will put an end to extravagant, ruinous and autocratic militarism, which will henceforth relieve the peoples from the drastic obligation of maintaining, at a cost more and more crushing, an ever increasing military organization for fear of being suddenly subjugated by an ambitious foe bent on dominating the world.
Using the very words of the most admirable speech addressed by President Wilson to the United States Congress, on the 11th of February last, the Allied Nations long for a peace which will provide "that peoples and provinces are no longer to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game, even the great game now for everdiscredited of the balance of power; but that every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned and not as a part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims amongst rival states."
The Allied peoples are longing for a peace by which "all well defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them without introducing new or perpetuating old elements of discord, and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe and consequently of the world."
Thepacifistsof the Allied nations who have, like the Nationalist leader and his henchmen in the Province of Quebec, clamoured for peace by compromise, must have had a few hours of delightful enjoyment after reading Austria's communication. It is evidently the echo of their oft repeated views and has been carefully drafted to stir them to further exertions in favour of a settlement which will gratify their ill disguised Teutonic sympathies.
Austria's document is a plea intended to be strong for peace by negotiations irrespective of the war situation and its probable result.
This is the kind of peace dear to the heart of the Nationalist leader and his friends. The newspaper "Le Devoir" is their daily organ in Montreal. A Sunday paper called "Le Nationaliste" is the weekly edition of the daily organ.
By what mysterious inspiration was "Le Nationaliste" able to forestall the publication of the Austrian peace document by an article in its issue of Sunday, the 13th of August, which summarizes the leading reasons given by the Government of Vienna to induce the Allied Governments to agree "to a confidential and unbinding discussion" of the conditions of peace, "at a neutral meeting place?"
Since the official publication of the document, our Nationalists, who had been subdued by the Order-in-Council tightening the censure of disloyal writings and speaking, and reduced to the necessity of merely whispering their fond hopes of an early peace which would relieve the Central Empires, Turkey and Bulgaria from the deserved chastisement of their crimes, are getting again more outspoken in the expression of their views and of their Teutonic proclivities. The street corner propaganda is being resumed with more discreet vigour than formerly when loud talk was considered safe. New efforts, better guarded against a compromising responsibility, to instil the virus in the body politic, are tried over again. They creep in a few newspapers well known for their hardly disguised hostility to the cause of the Allies and to the participation of Canada to its defence. All this under the hypocritical cover of a longing for the restoration of peace and the cessation of the sacrifices the country is still making for the victory for which all loyal British subjects are praying and doing their best to secure.
Germany has prudently—cowardly is the more proper word—remained behind, satisfied, for the time being, to play the part of prompter to her vassal, Austria. But, however desirous of remaining free to repudiate publicly, if considered more advisable, Austria's move, she could not help showing her hand. She betrayed herself by the peace offer she has had the outrageous audacity to make to Belgium she has barbarously crucified.
And what are the terms of this astonishing proposal? I will mention only two of them.
First: "That Belgium shall remain neutral until the end of the war."
That Germany should have decided to address such a demand to Belgium is truly inconceivable. Has she forgotten the days when Belgium was neutral, and determined to remain so, under the joint protection of England, France and Germany, bound by solemn treaty to uphold Belgian independence? Does she not realize that if Belgium has not been neutral up to this day, she has been the cause of it in tearing to pieces thescrap of paperwhich should have been the sacred shield of the nation she criminally martyred? After having violated Belgium's frontier, overrun her territory, destroyed her happy homes, murdered by thousands her children, her women, her mothers, her old men, ransomed her to the tune of hundreds of millions, without granting her liberty, shattered her monuments of arts, she has the impudence to ask her to betray those who hastened to her defence,and who are pledged to require the restoration of her complete independence with due reparation as one of the essential conditions of peace. A more brazen outrage cannot be imagined. It is on a par with that addressed to England whose neutrality Germany wanted to secure at the cost of her honour in betraying France.
What was the true object of Germany in making such a proposition? Was it not to protect herself against the increasing likelihood that the Allied army would soon be able to enter on German soil by passing through Belgium. But in that event, so much to be hoped for, there would be that difference that whilst Germany invaded Belgium in sheer violation of her solemn treaty obligations, France, England and the United States would honour themselves in turning the guilty invaders out of the soil they have sullied by their hideous presence and their horrible savageness.
The second German peace proposition to Belgium reads as follows:—"That Belgium shall use her good offices to secure the return of the German colonies."
And such a request is made by the Power that, in spite of the treaties it was in honour bound to respect, ordered the German army to conquer Belgium in a dastardly rush, in order to reach France at once and crush her out of the conflict before she could be helped by Great Britain and her Colonies! Incredible indeed!
Germany and Austria knew very well that their proposals would be indignantly and contemptuouslyrejected. But they had a twofold object in making them. First, they wanted to stir up their own peoples to further efforts in carrying on the struggle by throwing upon the Allies the apparent responsibility of refusing even a confidential and unbinding discussion of the question of the restoration of peace.
Second, they were anxious to make a strong bid for the support of thepacifistsof the Allied countries.
How much will they succeed in galvanizing the enthusiasm of their peoples for another grand effort, remains to be seen.
So far as their attempt to move ourpacifiststo exert themselves in favour of a peace by compromise, it has already met with a complete failure. Our Nationalistpacifistsare getting so few and so far between, that they will most likely once more disappear and give up the street propaganda.
On completing the reading of the official communication of Austria, President Wilson at once gave his reply, authorizing the Secretary of State to issue the following statement, dated the 16th of September and published broadcast on the next day:—
"I am authorized by the President to state that the following will be the reply of this Government to the Austro-Hungarian note proposing an unofficial conference of belligerents:
"'The Government of the United States feels that there is only one reply which it can make tothe suggestion of the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Government. It has repeatedly and with entire candor stated the terms upon which the United States would consider peace and can and will entertain no proposal for a conference upon a matter concerning which it has made its position and purpose so plain.'"
On the eleventh day of February, 1918, President Wilson, instead of addressing as usual a message to the two Houses, went personally to meet the Senate and the House of Representatives, in Congress assembled, and, in a most admirable speech, replied to the then recent peace utterances of Count von Hertling, the German Chancellor, and Count Czernin, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, fully explaining the only principles by which the Government of the United States would be guided when peace negotiations do take place. This most important statement is published as an appendix to this book. It is worthy of the great statesman who made it, and deserves the most attentive reading on account of the lofty views and noble principles it expresses, of the large issues it involves and of the ardent patriotism it inspires.