Omaha daily bee., 1914-12-23
Neutrality and ExpOr is
From the Outlook .

From the Outlook.
Some American merchants have been engaged Ia
Supplying the belgeront nations Europe with NUM-
tons OF Is It rjsht for them 20 do so7 \ good
many Americans believe that Il s not Measures
have been introduced congress which " enacted
would forbid the expectation OF such commodities.
Thus Representative Bsrthodt declares that II sup
plies should be cut off from this country hostitcs
would cease that by allowing the expectation 81
plies for the armies the Emitted STAGES IL not at
present maintaining position Of neutrality as out
lined In President wilson's proclamation and that
we cannot maintain neutrality long one sid,
gets supplies that for various be OF
tanned by the other side. Senator Hitchcock says.
How Inconsistent It seems. then for our people 10
be selling arms and munitions Of abroad be
used to kill and main" Senator Works would starve
the belligerents into making peace. and would hold
mp not only arms and ammunition. but shoes. blau-
kets. foodsuffs-everything that would help sustain
an army.
There are three questions involved in these pro-
posals The first is question OF ethics Is It right
for any one TO supply army with anything that
VIII help IL in the work OF manning and killing? No.
answer those who believe that all war il essentially
wicked. War Is hell they argue and the soldiers
business Is but legalized murder those who supply
the soldier with food. clothing. shelter with
arms or horses machinery are accomplses in
crime. But is war always wicked? Is every soldier
murderer? We do not think We do not count
as murderers the fast disappearing veterans OF the
civil war. Rather, honor them, because they
were sacrificing themselves for others But they
could not have done their duty without shoes and
ton So the who supplied them were to be
honored IL they supplied good shoes and good blankets
and good guns and ammunition. Only those who are
willing TO say that the veteran OF the Grand Army Of
tho Republic Is iegazed murderer can consistently
hold that IL Ia always wrong supply the fighting
forces of nation their needed munitions Of war. We
do not believe the American people will take this
view. II the expectation OF and army supplies
is TO be prohibited it must be other than purely
ethical grounds
But may not the prohibition OF the export q
munitions Of war be Justified the ground that this
country Is neutral nston7 This raises the second
question. question OF neutrality: consistent
with the neutrality OF the United States that an
American should sell munitions OF war to a foreign
begerent? In time OF the right of the citizens
OF ono country to sell munitions OF war to another
country In unquestioned In time OF war this right
continues though such supplies subject to seizure
The law OF conraband should not be confused with
the law OF neutrality neutral nation observes
tralty only as its government treats all belilgerents
alike. IL does not maintain q neutral attitude II Il
declares by its acts that 1t intends TO
hgerent with which Il Ii at peace But Il Ia stated
that as Germany Is excluded from the sea in this
war. IL has not the chance of buying such s,-
plies as its enemies have. and that therefore IA,
United States in fairness should refuse 20 sell 20
those enemies OF Germany This means that the
United States should take part In the conflict bv
doing as far II oan TO the injury OF England and
France by a commercial operation what England has
done by naval operations to the injury OF Germany
This 10 urging, not that the United States be neutral
but that Il be unneutra II IN asking the United
states to take part in the war side without
avowing itself a belligerent. It may be that the
rules Of that grim game called not as COOL
rules they might be- but 1t Is not neutrality for
an avowedy neutral nation to undertake to change
those rules while that game In progress in order
to even the odds In favor Of and against the
other. On the ground, therefore of neutrality the
prohibition OF exports cannot be justified
There remains therefore, the third question, u
question OF permanent policy: In che prohibition Of
exporting such supplies that should rekari
as friendly and neutral II. the being reversed
We were at and wished to purchase supplies from
a neutral powerI At such a time this the United
States must make its decision guided by present
sentiment and feeling alone. but by its convictions
TO what 1t regards the policy OF permanent valid
lily under all circumstances Suppose the United
states at with Great Britain and had swept
the British navy from the "a supposition plainly
contrary 20 any conceivable facO. and con-
filming operations 20 defense along the Canadian
border; should regard II a friendly and neu-
trail act the part OF Germany and France Rus
STA and the other European powers II they Jointly
and severaly refused TO sell clothing our SOL
diers the ground that they wished be entirely
neutral and TO even matters because England had
lost its fleet? We do not think that Americans would
consider that sign OF neutrality and fiendiiness
II II would not be sign of neutrality and friendness
the part of Russia and France and Germany under
those conditions. II would certainly be a sign Of
neutrality part to do likewise under present
conditions.
We do not think. therefore, that the prohibition
of the export of munitions OF be justified
the ground OF ethics, the ground of neutrality,
on the ground OF consistent permanent policy"