Evening journal., 1914-09-05
American Neutrality
(From the New York SUM

"The neutral Power is under no
obligation to prevent its subjects
from engaging IN the running of
llockades. in shipping or carrying
contraband or in carrying troops or
despatches for one of the belliger-
ents: but. on the other hand, neutral
subjects so engaged can expect no
protection from their own Govern
ment against such customary penal
ties as may be imposed upon their
conduct by the belligerent who is ag
grieved by it.
DIR. WOOlsey OF Yale;
"The neutral ought not TO be sub
iected by the quarrels OF others to
additional care and expense. Hence
by the practice of nations he is pas
slve with regard to violations of the
rules concerning contraband, block
hde and the like, and leaves the po-
Icing of the sea and the Furnishing
or reprisal power in the hands or
those who are most interested, the
limits being fixed for the punishment
by common usage or law.
Il is admitted that the act of carrying
to the enemy articles directly useful
in war is a wrong. for which the
injured party may punish the neu-
tral in the act"
We quote finally the very precise
and luminous passage in which Dr.
| John Bassett Moore discusses the
subject. This opinion is all the more
| interesting because it is from the
authority to whom the question would
I have been referred by Mr. Bryan had
it. been raised before Mr.. Moore's re-
/ tirement from the post of Counsellor
for the Department of State:
Much misapprehenson as to the
/ quality of the act of supplying con-
traband articles, such as arms and
munitions of war, to the parties to
an armed conflict has arisen from the
statement so often made that the
trade in contraband is lawful and not
prohibited This statement when
used with reference to the preventive
/ duties of neutral Governments is
( quite correct. but if applied to the
duties of individuals It is quite In
1 correct. The acts which individuals
are forbidden to commit and the acts
which neutral Governments are
! obliged to prevent are by no means
/ the same; precisely as the acts which
/ the neutral Government is obliged to
prevent and the acts which it is for
( hidden to commit are by no means
/ the same. The supply of materials
of war, such as arms end ammuni-
ton to either party to an armed
conflict, although neutral Govern
ments are not obliged to prevent it,
/ constitutes on the part of the indi-
viduals who engage In Il a participa-
! ton in hostilities. and as such is
confessedly an unneutral act. Should
/ the Government of the individual it,
self supply such articles it would
! clearly depart from its position of
neutrality. The private citizen un-
dertakes the business at his own
risk. and against this risk his Gov
} ernment cannot assure him protec-
] ton without making itself a party to
his unneutral act. These PROPOSE
tions are abundantly established by
authority"
SO It appears that there would be
no basis in law or fact for any Ger.
man protest against an alleged "vio.
lation of the neutrality of the United
States; while if it was intended
merely as declaration that indi.
! vidual Americans were doing unneu-
trail acts. at their own risk and with
out right to protection from Wash
ington. the protest would be with
out diplomatic significance.