ly concordant with the magnificent
attitude of impartiality, nay, not even with the international duties of
neutrality, which intellectual and official America professes to keep.

We cannot explain to ourselves that a neutral power should suffer the
selling of arms and ammunition by its citizens to one of the belligerent
parties, when no such selling to the other party is practically
feasible; we cannot understand why America should meekly submit to the
dictates of England, declaring all foodstuffs and manufacturing
materials contraband of war, with not even a show of right and with the
clear and openly proclaimed intention of starving Germany and
Austria-Hungary; why, on the other hand, America should use an almost
threatening language against Germany, and against Germany alone, when
the latter country announces reprisals against the English trade, which,
under given circumstances, can be considered only as acts of legitimate
self-defense against an enemy who chooses to wage war not on our
soldiers only, but on our women and children, too.

With all the respect we feel for the United States, we cannot find this
attitude of their Government either fair or dignified. I offer these
remarks in no spirit of uncalled-for criticism, but because I see how
much the moral authority of the United States and their splendid
situation as the providential peace makers of some future--alas! still
far off--day has been impaired by the aforementioned proceedings. We
cannot help considering them as so many acts of ill-disguised hostility
against ourselves and of compliance with our foes. How can you expect,
then, to have your good offices accepted with confidence by both
belligerent parties when the times are ripe for them? It seems like the
throwing away of a magnificent opportunity, and I think that those who,
like yourself, cherish for your country the noble ambition of being some
day the restorer of peace, should exert themselves to prevent practices
which, if continued, would disable her to play any such part.

In your letter you strike the keynote of what I cannot help considering
the partiality of Americans for the Entente powers. It is the idea that
"in the western area of conflict, at least, there is an armed clash
between the representatives of dynastic institutions and bureaucratic
rule on the one hand with those of representative government and liberal
institutions on the other." I can understand that it impresses some
peop