TaÌˆgliches Cincinnatier volksblatt. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1885-1919, 1914-12-07

uuty Oh neuIIh sthtc W pre-
vent. This rule has been confirmed by
the supreme Court Of the United
States, not as an Interpretation Of our
own municipal law, but as rule Of in
ternational law. Our courts even &c
farther and say that the very intent tc
afford aid to belligerent is a viola
ton of international law. "n any per
son does any act, or attempts to dc
any act, towards preparing OF vessels
within our jurisdiction for snbsequen'
hostile operations with the intent that
the vessel shall be employed in hostile
operations, he is guilty without re-
ference to the completion OF the pre-
parations or to the extent to which they
may have gone.,'
The Editor OF the Sun seems to lay
particular stress on the absence of any
prohibition in our neutrality laws
against the building OF vessels. This may
exculpate the Bethlehem Iron Works u
they supply submarines or sections
thereof to belIigercnt countries. but il
will not relieve the Government and the
people of the United States from
serious responsibility. The Editor oi
the Sun ought to know that the duties
and responsibilities Of neutral state
are fixed and determined, not by Inuni
cipal but by international law. nen.
trail state may resort to measures oi
prevention, in respect TO its subjects oil
other persons within its jurisdiction, al
il may leem prudent or expedient to
accomplish that purpose. or 1t may issue
proclamations or promulgate regliia
tions; with all this international lew
has nothing to dc. such statutes do not
dimini.L the responsibility OF the nsti
trail State. II they are inadequate tc
their purpose, the inadequacy Cannot
he pleaded in cxtenuation Of VIOLA
ton OF neutral duty.
What did England plead in the Ala
bama Case? Her defence was that mn
der her neutrality law she did not deem
il violation of its provisions 10 con
struct ship in her harbors, even for
an admitted war like purpose, II M
portion OF its equipment and armament
was contributed by its builders. OF
placed on board within british terrific
rial jurisdiction. What did the U. ;
reply TO this deieneel I'VE are moi
concerned with English neutrality laws
we protest against violation OF IN
ternational law" The Editor OF the
Sun certainly knows that the U. )
exacted satisfaction and reparation for
the building OF confederate cruisers in
English jurisdiction, by threat OF war
Such precedent established by the
United States themselves would cut
off any and every defense II our coun-
try should be called to account for per
mitting marine boats to be shipped oii'
of our jurisdiction, complete or in sec
tions, and the a.ormous responsibility
that In such case would rest on oui
country ought 70 have brought the
editor OF the Sun TO more thorough
study OF the question. Submarines are
the most powerful Instruments OF mo
dcrn naval warfare, even SURPRISING
drcadnoughts IN destructive effect
Supplying a belligcrent with such i'm
plements OF war would furnish just
cause for treating the United States as
hostile country.
Fortunately. the President has aecor
ding to Washington reports adopted oui
view in this matter and arrived at thu
deci sion that submarines must not b'
supplied, complete or in sections, to bel
ligerents and We hope that he VIII moi
permit even a fragment Of submarines
to be sent to Canada where, according
TO the same reports. the submarines
are to be constructed. This decision o.
the President ought in view Of the grea'
responsibility involved be sustained ans
not discouraged by an utterly incorrect
statement OF the rules of internationa
law applying to the case under discus