The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS SPEECH OF HON. ROBERT L. OWEN OF O K LA H O M A IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES M A R C H 4 (legislative day of M A R C H 2), 1917 WASHINGTON GOVER NM ENT PR INTING O FFICE 87001— 17147 1917 H O N . R O B E R T L. O W E N . The Senate had under consideration the bill (H . R. 21052) authoriz ing the President of the United States to supply merchant ships, the property of citizens of the United States and bearing American registry, with defensive arms, and for other purposes. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, it is my purpose to support the request of the President of the United States. I do so in the be lief that the great body of the people of the magnificent State of Oklahoma who sent me here desire that I should do so. I do so because I believe a public exigency of the highest importance requires it. I do so trusting in the representation made by the President of the United States in his message to Congress a few days ago. I place the utmost reliance on the words of the Pres ident in asking for the means with which to protect our mer chant ships. He sa id : It is devoutly to be Imped that it will not be necessary to put armed force anywhere into action. The American people do not desire it, and our desire is not different from theirs. I am sure that they will un derstand the spirit in which I am now acting, the purpose I hold near est my heart and would wish to exhibit in everything I do, I am anxious that the people of the nations at war also should understand and not mistrust us. I hope— Says the President— that I need give no further proofs and"assurances than I have already given throughout nearly three years of anxious patience that I am the friend of peace and mean to preserve it for America so long as I am able. I am not now proposing or contemplating war or any steps that need lead to it. I merely request that you will accord me by your own vote and definite bestowal the means and the authority to safeguard in practice the right of a great people who are at peace and who are desirous of exercisi ig none but the rights of peace to follow the pur suits of peace in quietness and good w ill— rights recognized time out of mind by all the civilized nations of the world. No course of my choosing or of theirs will lead to war. W ar can come only by the w ill ful acts and aggressions of others. Mr. President, before this unhappy war arose it was the international law—and I think that neutrals are still compelled under the rules of that international law to regard it now as the international law— that merchant vessels, with or without con traband, had and now have a free right to pass without being subject to destruction without notice through the high seas; that even those ships which carried contraband had and now have a right before being summarily sunk to be visited, to be examined, and an opportunity afforded to the crew of such vessels for safe conduct to port before being sunk. I am not unaware of the exigencies with which the Imperial German Government is faced. The Imperial German Govern ment can not command the high seas because of an ineffective naval force. The Imperial German Government, feeling keenly the blockade established by the superior naval force of the British Empire, has declared it a necessity of war to disregard the established international code and to carry on a submarine warfare that shall be ruthless, and to sink ships without notice 0 87001— 17147 3 in a certain zone, armed or unarmed, contraband or not contra band, with or without cargo. THE INTERNATIO NAL. LAW OF NEUTRALS. It was hoped a year ago that the United States had arrived at an adjustment with the Imperial German Government. In my own judgment the reservation of the Imperial German Gov ernment that it reserved the right to carry on the submarine warfare without notice to ships, to sink them without notice, was a reservation that was not permissible or recognizable by our Government under the international law governing neutrals as it has been recognized prior to the breaking out of this great controversy in August, 1914. We can not change this law with out violating our obligations as neutrals to other belligerents and setting a precedent which may fatally affect our own future. The President of the United States, in charge of the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States, found himself compelled to deal with the Imperial German Government in numerous cases in which American vessels were sunk in which American citizens lost their lives, and lie was compelled, as the Chief Executive of a great neutral power, to declare the duty of the United States and tire rights of the United States under inter national law as it existed. He solemnly declared this law and is compelled by the laws of neutrality to maintain it. The President of the United States was not responsible for the ships owned by individual Americans going from one port to another upon business voyages, which they in the course of commerce had the right under international law to make. It was not contrary to but in accordance with international law that ships should carry munitions no matter if distasteful to any nation affected by it. The unfortunate thing for the German Empire was that because she could not command the seas this law gave an advantage to Great Britain and her allies because they could in greater degree command the seas. The President was therefore compelled to take his course to defend the rights of the Government of the United States and of her citizens under international law. Having taken this step in pursuance of international law, the quesjo n vutli which he is confronted, as our representative, is, Snal 1^ lie withdraw from the assertion of the rights of le United States as a great neutral or shall he stand " I - ! th°se rights, not changing them in the midst of lliis gigantic conflict, but observe them as he is obliged to ou /n eu trn btv'lv-ci^n ^ .V Bd.st0 chause he would violate ‘ } hh Great Britain and her allies and give them serious grievance under international law against us. The ?aw whether u J T 18 in thi* 1X,^tion under international Pe01,'C W1U “ 0,<l “ IS h” ndS In my judgment it would be a great national calamity if the people of the United States and if the C o n f e s s o f the United States should refuse to hold up the h ands^f The Chiel L S live of this Nation under these painful circumstances. The Imperial German Government has notified the world that all neutral ships of commerce, even if unarmed, free from contra>and, loaded \\ith passengers on lawful voyages, innocent of wrongful intent to anyone, will be sunk on the high seas with out notice, v itliout a chance for their passengers to escaoe 87001— 17147 4 with their lives. That Government seems determined to force ns to acknowledge her right in the midst of this conflict t<> change the law of nations and bring us in conflict with her an tagonists. In that exigency the President of the United States calls upion Congress and says: I ask a sufficient credit to enable me to provide adequate means of protection where they are lacking, including adequate insurance » the present war risks. Thp miestinn for Congress is. Shall that reasonable request he granted or shall it not? , Mr. President, if prayers or sacrifice could adjust this gi gantic conflict in Europe we would all be glad, I think, to make our just contribution to secure peace on that torn and unhappy continent; but this conflict will only terminate by the triumph of the strongest arms. It is a conflict unrelenting, ruthless, carrying on means of destroying human life, gigantic, novel, and of extraordinary efficiency in the engines of destruction. W E M U ST CO NSID ER T H E FUTURE. It is well for us, in considering the eventualities that will flow in the immediate future from the triumph of one or the other of these titanic forces to consider what these great powers in conflict stand for in relation to the United States if one or the other be victorious. On the one side I believe are lunged, in many forms, great democracies— Great Britain with her colonies and dependencies, France and Italy and Belgium and their colonies, Itussia and her democratic people. On the otliei side are ranged many military autocracies, those of Germany, o f Austria, of Bulgaria, of Turkey, ruling by so-called “ divine right ” and by organized military power and not “ by the consent of the governed,” except by the involuntary consent \\hieh dare not oppose superior, force. On the one side are the ideals i of democracy, of the right of the people to rule themselves justly and with liberty under the principle declared by Abra ham Lincoln as expressed in his message to Congress, in which he said. “ Let us have faith to believe that ‘ right makes might.’ ” , t, And on the other side is the military ideal that m ig h t M A K E S R IG H T .” T H E DOCTRIN E “ M IG H T M AKES R IG H T ” ? Mr President, the doctrine that lies at the base of military autocracy is a fixed ideal of power alone, a permanent ambition to rule by force of the cannon’s mouth and machine gun, an ambition long maintained and without the shadow of a doubt as to its significance. I call your attention to the bronze cannon on the north entrance of our War Department Building, a great cannon whose name is “ Le Marechal le Due d Humieres, cast by the Bourbons nearly two centuries ago, and on its face in three different mottoes is this false doctrine that uiignt makes right.” „ . „T At the mouth of the cannon you will find these w ords: la1 passe par tous the passway through everything ’’—the can non’s mouth the passway, it may be, through justice and mercy and innocence and righteousness and industry and honor “ Might makes right.” t , „ VT On the base of that cannon you will find the words, Aec pluribus impar ”— “ not unequal to many.” The cannon com mands the people, and is “ not unequal to many.” It can slay 87001— 1 114 » 5 and dominate and tax millions without the consent of the gov erned. On the body of that Bourbon cannon you will find the phrase, “ Ultima ratio regum ”— “ the final argument of kings.” When the people argue that right is right, they hear the final argument of kings— the cannon’s roar— and learn that m i g h t MAKES BIGHT. Do you think that this is merely a romatic suggestion cast in bronze in honor of le Due d’Humieres? Not at all. The doctrine of armed power over the people with or without thenconsent is at the base of the German Empire to-day. This was the doctrine of Frederick the Great and of his father, the Great Elector, and this is the doctrine of William, the present Emperor. I.OCAI. DEMOCRACY RULED BY AUTOCRACY. It is true that after the Fra neo-Prussian War Bismarck made many concessions to the democratic sentiment of the German people in the management of their local affairs and developed si very high degree of democratic efficiency through various forms of municipal ownership, so that in a city like Munich the people not only controlled, through their own municipal powers, such as city water works, city gas works, electric light, heat, and power plants, city hospitals, city schools, city tram ways, but city bakeries, city packing houses, and city breweries. The industrial conditions of Germany have been wonderfully stimulated by democratic cooperation among the people, stimu lated by the Imperial Government, and the Imperial Govern ment; has provided many forms of democratic cooperation, such as State insurance against old age, industrial accidents, and diseases, vocational education, rural-credits associations, co operative marketing and buying, the cartel system. State-owned railroads, telegraphs, telephones, and parcel post. etc. The Imperial Government has thus greatly benefited the de velopment ol the German people and is entitled justly to very gieat credit for this service rendered to the people by using the powers of the people in the interest of the people This has led to a warm attachment of the people to their uivoi1'', G? ' ei: n’ " en!; und j ustl.v it has led to a magnificent V°.f the germ an people which is the admiration of «ui or the lovers of men, but, nevertheless alon(r with thi^ theeidomiimmeal / ,e" loc'™tic‘ organization there has remained the dominance ot the German Empire bv Prussia and the d/rm'USShl, ! , y /,lle Hm,se Hohenzollern, dainfing ink b,\ (hunt tight—the right to rule the neonle with or navy° and Die F m n lr o V ^ hght t0 cominand the army and the highly* or°--miyp<l miilt UlS )ecome surrounded by a tremendous 1orgamzed nulltary power of which he is made either willingly or unwillingly, the spokesman ’ t It was this group, I believe, who forced the sword into w n Jr SJ* THE SECRET * ° siEU *■* T REATY OF VERONA— W O RL D -W ID E DEMOCRACY — T H REA TE N ED \ call your attention again to the secret treatv of Yerom which 1 I,ml printed h, the I S on April ^ 1916 for the purpose of attracting the attention of this country to the policy which lies at the basis of these great contending powers Urn treaty, the secret treaty of Verona, was framed by Metternich, ot Austria, m 1822, after Napoleon had seized 87001— 17147 6 the organized powers of democracy and turned them into an engine of monarchy which out-Heroded Herod and was over thrown. Listen to the philosophy and historical admonition of the secret treaty of Verona: The undersigned, specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows : A rticle 1. The high contracting powers being convinced that the sys tem of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine riaht, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner, tp use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative gov ernments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known. A rt. 2. As it can not be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own States but also in the rest of Europe. The King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria were the real autocratic monarchs behind this deadly compact to destroy the democracies of the world and establish “ world power ” for themselves and their allies as the military autocrats of mankind. Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to ask him a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla homa yield to the Senator from Illinois? Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator. Mr. LEWIS. Would the Senator forgive me for merely call ing his attention, in support of his very classic and historic address, to the fact that the very treaty to which he alludes had for its purpose the preventing of Spain and Portugal, which had broken out then into the form of a republic, from emulating the form of this, the United States of America, in both its democracy and republicanism of form, to prevent the spreading of our doctrines to Europe? Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, this treaty continues, in the fourth article, as follows: A rt. 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an end to them, engage to assist her in the manner which may the least compromit them with t-heir own people and the people of France by means of a subsidy on the rart of the tw?o empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of the signature of this treaty to the end of the war. Spain had established a limited monarchy based on recogni tion to some degree of the rights of the people. These nations sent armies, under Louis X VIII, into Spain for the purpose of reducing this limited monarchy to an absolute monarchy, icith the same prince on the'' throne. The contest was absolute military autocracy against any form of democracy. They sent an army into Italy also— an Austrian army—to reduce a like limited monarchy to an absolute monarchy, the same issue of absolute military autocracy against the principle of democracy, and then they proposed after succeeding in Spain and Italy to send their armies to the Western Hemisphere for the purpose of reducing all revolting colonies of Spain and Portugal, overthrow ing western democracy and establishing absolute military autoc racy and then it was that Great Britain, the greatest of all democracies, through Canning, the prime minister, notified the Government of the United States of this dangerous purpose, and 87001— 17147 notified the Holy Alliance, so-called, that Great Britain would regard with disfavor any attempt by the Holy Alliance to reduce the revolting colonies of Spain and Portugal in the Western Hemisphere. The matter was considered by Thomas Jefferson, and he regarded it as the most important occurrence that had transpired since the establishment of the United States of America. It led to the doctrine, the so-called Monroe doctrine, in which President Monroe sent a message to Congress in which it was stated that the United States would regard it as an un friendly act for any European power to attempt to establish its system of government on the Western Hemisphere, and that prevented the Holy Alliance from subjecting the Western Hemi sphere to the powers of absolute monarchy which would have destroyed the democracies of the Western Hemisphere at their birth. VOX B ER N H A RD I. Mr.-President, in October, 1911, there was published a work of profound significance by Gen. Friederich von Bernhardi. trans lated by Allan H. Powles, entitled “ Germany and the next war.” I think it is generally understood and conceded that Gen. von Bernhardi represents the view of the military powers of Ger many, that he may be fairly called a spokesman for that group, and for that philosophy, if we may call it philosophy. Let me read just a few words from Gen. von Bernhardi. He said that “A rude shock was needed to awaken the German people.” to awaken the warlike instincts of the German people, and compel them to show their military strength. He speaks of them as “ a peace-loving, almost too peace-loving, nation.” He speaks of the good-natured character of the German people, and with that I agree, but he says that it is necessary to move them to war. He says: I must try to prove that war is not merelv a necessary element in the life of nations but an indispensable factor of culture in which a true civilized nation finds the highest expression of strength and vitality. • He says further: Our people must learn to see that the maintenance of peace never can or may be the goal of a policy. The policy of a great State has positive aims. It will endeavor to attain this by pacific measures so l o n g as that is possible and profitable. He says further: The inevitableness, the idealism, and the blessing of war as ah indispensable and stimulating law of development must be repeatedly emphasized. The apostles of the peace idea must be confronted with Goethe s manly words : Dreams of a peaceful day? Let him dream who may ! ' W ar ’ is our "allying cry, Onward to victory ! ” Mr. President, lie says: The Great Elector laid the foundations of Prussia's power by suc cessful and deliberately incurred wars. Frederick the Great followed the e x a m p l e of his glorious ancestors. He noticed how his State occu pied an untenable middle position between the petty States and the great powers, and showed his determination to give a definite char acter (.decider cet Ptre) to his anomalous existence: it had become essential to enlarge the territory of the State and carnger la figure de la Prusse, if Prussia wished to be independent and to bear with honor the great name o f k i n g d o m . The King made allowance for this political necessity and took the bold determination of chal lenging Austria to fight. None of the wars which he fought had been 87001— 17147 8 forced upon h im ; none of them rlul h° postpone as long as possible. H e had always determined to be the aygressor— Frederick the Great had always determined to be the aggres sor, and he still is the idealized leader of the military group that now controls the German and the Austrian Empires, and we were given a testimonial of this idealism by the United States being presented by Wilhelm recently with a figure of Frederick the Great, which stands in front of our War College. H e had always determined to he the ay pressor, to anticipate bis opponents, and to secure for himself favorable prospects of success. Mr. President, this book glorifies war. It lips a chapter en titled “ World power or downfall,” and the outline of the next war is indicated, the forces that will take part in it, the part that must be played by the German Empire. There is a wide distinction between the German people and their autocratic leadership that has led them to ruinous war. Mr. President, I can hardly say whether I feel a keener sym pathy for the unhappy people of Germany or the distressed people of France and Great Britain. The German people are by nature, outside the military autocrats, peace loving, good natured, lovable—the people of France and of Great Britain are by nature even more peace loving and lovable and are moved by a magnificent patriotism and spirit of joyful self-sacrifice and enthusiasm—but when Wilhelm gives the order for mobilization and for war the people of both countries are thrown into a frenzy of war, and the insane passion of war finds expression in unnumbered excesses and violence beyond all belief. When the order of mobilization was given by the Emperor of Germany it mattered not how peace loving or good natured or lovable the people w ere; they had no choice whatever but to respond to the battle cry. The German citizen had no choice but death except to march to the trenches under the command of this military autocracy, and, Mr. President, if this military autocracy wins in this war, if this military autocracy by virtue of this war can dominate the democracies of France and Italy and Great Brit ain and Europe, it will become, indeed, the “ world power,” idealized and prayed for by the military autocracy, and our country, from a peaceful, industrial, happy democracy, where liberty is idealized, may by military force be driven to become a part of a great military machine, controlled by the same forces which are in control now of the central Empires. Mr. Presi dent, if war does come by virtue of our sustaining our neutral rights, I shall be reconciled in the belief that at least the United States has at last thrown her great powers on the side of de mocracy. on the side of liberty and justice and mercy and humanity, on the side of the doctrine that “ right makes might ” and against the infinitely pernicious doctrine that “ might makes right.” 87001— 17147 o f
@FedFRASER