You evidently look upon yourselves as Irishmen who are entitled to American protection. But you are nothing of the kind; you are Americans who have renounced your Irish nationality; and I wish to tell you distinctly that you cannot be Irishmen and Americans at the same time."

WITHIN the last decade as the country has increased in population, the descendants of the Irish emigrants have learned to love this land and have become good Americans, and the Irish vote is no longer the terror of the city politician, and the Irish question has practically disappeared from our politics only to be revived at rare intervals by hotheads without influence like the late O'Leary, whom Mr. Wilson buried so deep during the campaign. Certain German organizations have taken the Irishman's place in their attempt to dictate the International policy of the United States. Like the Irishmen of thirty years ago, its members are Germans first, and after that Americans if it suits them to be so. Why are there no English-American or Canadian-American or FrenchAmerican or Italian-American or Russian-American Societies anywhere in this country while the German-American Societies and Clubs and Alliances are everywhere? A man is often very proud of his native State, though fortune may have taken him to make his home in another. Virginia or New York or Kentucky or Vermont may be very near to him, but he never thinks of calling himself a Virginian-American or a New York-American or a Kentucky-American or a Vermont-American. The reason is that no matter where he may have been born he is an American first of all. When one comes to think of it seriously what an insult it is to our nation that any one of its citizens should insist that because he or his ancestors was born on a foreign soil, the country which has adopted him or in which he was born, whose constitution and laws he has sworn to support and obey-that this free and generous nation is entitled to nothing more than a secondary allegiance. If this is not so why do the Germans always put America after the hyphen and not before it. If a person of German birth or descent wishes to keep this fact constantly in evidence, as to which there can be no objection, he should call himself an Americanized German. But this would, of course, be possible to those only whose motto was America First, and would be utterly impossible to those who assemble in German-American halls in the centers of our city life and boldly proclaim "Germany over all."

JUST think for a moment what would happen were the shoe on the other foot. Imagine the United States and Great Britain at war and Germany a neutral. There is, we will suppose, much bad feeling in Germany growing out of our navy having sunk

some of Germany's merchant vessels and drowned scores of German subjects. There are in Berlin and other German cities a number of native Americans who have lived in Germany a long time and have become German subjects and numerous native Germans whose forefathers were Americans. They form societies which they name the "American-German Alliance," and they threaten to do all sorts of things to the German Government if it tries to punish the United States for these outrages. And they make these threats in their own American-German halls on the walls of which are the legends, America First, and they open their meetings by singing "America over all." It is safe to say that there would be but one meeting of this kind before the traitors would be on their way to jail and the hall would be permanently closed by the police. And is there a German-American who would not say that the Government was right? But we are an easy-going people, and until the conspirators begin to shoot, our rulers let things go, for America laughs at such insults simply because she does not fear them. But some day America may find that she is mistaken, for it is this, as Kipling sings of the American:

"That bids him flout the law he makes,

That bids him make the law he flouts,

Till, dazed by many doubts, he wakes,

The drumming guns that have no doubts."

IN THE first days of the invasion of Belgium, President Wilson was evidently persuaded that neutrality was incompatible with the free expression of opinion as to the merits of the Casus Belli, and as to the observance by belligerents of the rules of war established by the usages of civilized nations. Hence his admonition to all American citizens to be neutral even in thought, which was like father saying to his sons, "the man across the street is killing his wife; but don't think of running over to help her, for he is an awful strong man and you might get hurt; and boys, don't even let yourselves think he is doing wrong, because for all we know he may have some good reason for murdering her." This silent neutrality doctrine is an absolutely new one to the world, and President Wilson is the first of our Executives to proclaim it on this continent. Again and again has England raised her voice against the spoliation of a smaller by a more powerful state. In 1846, for example, when the Republic of Cracow was destroyed in flagrant breach of the treaty of Vienna, and the city occupied by the Russians and Austrians, the three neutrals, Great Britain, France and Sweden, made a solemn protest against the breaking of that treaty, and the Queen, Victoria, sent this message to Parliament: "The extinction of the free state of Cracow has appeared to me so manifest a violation of the treaty of Vienna that I have commanded that a protest against the act shall be delivered

to the Courts of Vienna, Petersburg and Berlin, which were parties to it." In 1822, when Greece was struggling with Turkey, then a great military power, President Monroe, in a message to Congress, declared that the sympathy of the American people was with the Greeks, and his successor, John Quincy Adams, himself sent a message of sympathy and support to the President of the Greek Republic.

THIS "silent" neutrality has stood in the way of our government making any protest where our rights are menaced or oppressed by the Central Powers, unless some of our citizens are killed or some of our property is destroyed or injured. The sinking of an enemy merchantman without warning and the consequent destruction of its crew and passengers is wrong, and a violation of the rules of maritime warfare, the President declares-but if there are no Americans among the victims, it is all right so far as we are concerned. Such a doctrine, in THE DOCKET's opinion, is fundamentally wrong, for it ignores not only the source but also the sanction of International Law. What is International Law? It is the sum of those usages which civilized nations have agreed shall be binding upon them in their intercourse one with another. And as it is not "the usage or custom of one nation or practice or law of any one nation that can make a law of nations, and if international law, as is the fact, is in large measure usage, custom and practice is not and cannot be the usage, custom and practice of any one nation, it follows that each nation must either co-operate in the process or must accept the results of the process in order that the law of nations thus formed shall bind it. Lest the practice of a nation, claimed by that nation to be in accordance with international law, may seem to be accepted by silence of the nations and thus become international law, it behooves a nation objecting to that practice to state its objection, and to make it clear that it will not be bound by it." It is Dr. James Brown Scott, one of the leading International lawyers of this country and who has been one of the advisors of the State Department, who writes the two sentences just quoted. The mere claim to exercise a right desired by or inconsistent with international law gives, concludes Dr. Scott, the right to protest, and the right to protest is not postponed until the neutral has been injured. The very moment that the act of a belligerent violates the neutral right of any nation, it becomes the right and duty of every neutral nation to protest, because the violation of the right of any neutral nation is the violation of a right common to every neutral, and a claim to violate the right of one is in effect a claim to violate the right of any or all if the belligerent shall believe it be to its advantage so to do. The material injury is, it is believed, the violation of the principle of law, not merely the injury to the life or property of the citizen of the neutral nation, because life and property depend upon

the principle of law, and when this is withdrawn the guarantees of life and property fall with it.

What is well described as the classic example of the protest of neutral nations whose rights were menaced, although the persons and property of their subjects were not injured, is the protest of France, Austria and Prussia, in the case of the Trent. This well-known case is of special interest to us, for it arose during the American Civil War, and the protest was made by neutral nations who, according to President Wilson's doctrine, were not concerned at all. The Trent, a British and therefore neutral vessel, was proceeding from Havana, Cuba, a neutral port, to London, England, a neutral port, and had on board Messrs. Mason and Slidell, Commissioners of the Confederacy to European countries. On November 8, 1861, the Trent was stopped by the American man-of-war San Jacinto, under the command of Captain Wilkes, and Messrs. Mason and Slidell were taken off the steamer, which was allowed to proceed to its neutral destination. England protested against this violation of one of its vessels and of its flag in a series of notes quite as strong as any that President Wilson has written to any of the belligerents during the past two years. But the point of interest to the world to-day is that England was not the only power to protest. France, Prussia and Austria, though none of their ships had been invaded and none of their citizens harmed, were equally indignant at the act of the American captain and were equally strong in their protests. The French Government did not hesitate to tell ours that the action of Captain Wilkes was contrary to the accepted rules of International Law on the subject and affected France as well as England. "If," said the French Secretary of State, "it were admissible that under such conditions a neutral flag did not completely cover the persons and cargo on board, its immunity would be merely an empty word. The commerce and navigation of third Powers would constantly have to suffer for their innocent or even indirect relations with one or the other of the belligerents. The latter would consider not only that they had the right to require complete impartiality of a neutral, to forbid his taking part in hostile acts; but they would likewise hamper his freedom of commerce and of navigation with restrictions, whose legality modern international law has refused to admit. In a word, there would be a return to vexatious practices, against which in times past no Power has more loudly protested than the United States." The German Government was even stronger in its protest. "This occurrence, wrote Count Bernstorff, the then Secretary of State, "has,produced in England and throughout Europe the most profound sensation, and thrown not Cabinets only, but also public opinion, into a state of the most excited expectation. For, although at present it is

England only which is immediately concerned in the matter, yet, on the other hand, it is one of the most important and universally recognized rights of the neutral flag which has been called into question. I need not here enter into a discussion of the legal side of the question. Public opinion in Europe has, with singular unanimity, pronounced in the most positive manner for the injured party. As far as we are concerned, we have hitherto abstained from expressing ourselves to you upon the subject, because in the absence of any reliable information, we were in doubt as to whether the captain of the San Jacinto, in the course taken by him, had been acting under orders from his Government or not. Even now we prefer to assume that the latter was not the case. Should the former supposition, however, turn out to be the correct one, we should consider ourselves under the necessity of attributing greater importance to the occurrence, and to our great regret we should find ourselves constrained to see in it not an isolated fact but a public menace offered to the existing rights of all neutrals.' And the Austrian ambassador joined in the protest, not only in the name of his own country, but "in the interest of the affairs of the world at large." The protests of the great neutrals were effective. The Government at Washington admitted that Captain Wilkes did not have the right to remove the Confederate Commissioners from the Trent, and returned Messrs. Mason and Slidell to Great Britain.

THE Trent case was, superficially, between the United States and Great Britain, but the Great Powers, France, Germany and Austria, felt that the admission by neutrals of the right of the United States to violate International law in the case of Great Britain would be an admission that the United States could violate International law as regards others members of the society of nations. And this would soon wreck the entire structure of International law, as it is being wrecked today largely through the passive policy of the neutral nations, most of them through fear and some of them through wrong thinking. And of all the neutral nations, the United States will have to bear the largest share in the great calamity because the United States is the only neutral strong enough to make its protest effective.

AMONG the books in THE DOCKET's library which record the sayings and doings of lawyers and judges, is a two-volume work which was much read in its day, but is now almost forgottenForney's Anecdotes of Public Men. John W. Forney was a prominent journalist and politician in Pennsylvania before the Civil War. He was a Democrat and an Abolitionist, who left his party after Buchanan became President. He was clerk of