The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-09-22
NEUTRALITY.
Judge Pendieton Discusses Its various
Aspects, Including the Question OF
war Loans by Ncutrais to IBeIIigercnts.

AilIIt MUM anu Nhi fhpitSSlph VI
opinion in the public press and else
where. From much of this It is evident
that the purposes and objects of the
doctrine of neutrality, as known to in
ternational law, are in many instances
little understood.
The progress Of the struggle for the
recognition Of the rights OF non-com.
batants In time Of war has not been
uniform. Powerful belligerents In pur-
suance Of their own immediate purposes
have been often ready TO give little con
sIderation TO the rights or interests Of
others. The assertion OF the rights VI
neutrals is intended to secure that non
belligerents shall he as little incom-
modcd as possible, and that those In no
way involved In the struggle shall not
he made to suffer unnecessarily AS has
been said, Neutrality cHrves out from
war q realm of peace" Whatever tends
to extend and affirm the sphere Of
| neutrals' rights by just so much re-
strcts and curtails the area of wars
injury to mankind at large and the
general commerce of the world.
In much that has recently appeared
the mistaken notion seems to prevail
that neutrality involves the refusal (,
/ supply to warning nations the where
withal to prosecute the struggle az Il
means for bringing about the cessation
| Of hOstilites by rendering their pro-
| longation impossible. The latter Is.
/ however, not the purpose Of neutrality
and such "A course Of conduct would bc
exactly the opposite 81 neutrality, as II
would range neutral nations at once
On one side OF the controversy.
! England Il has been said, il always
within q measurable distance " starva-
| ton. and II when she Is enga ged in war
! neutralr under the Ruise Of neutrality
/ should refuse TO supply her with food
stuns they would thereby put her at
the mercy Of her enemy. II is true such
a course might shorten war, but II
would do so by virtually an alliance
| with her opponents as substantial -
would he direct military intervention.
The well known writer Mr.. II. q.
/ Wells has recently issued an appeal to
{ the American people to refuse To fur
nsh food supplies To Germany as OIL.
means " destroying militarism." Apart
from the lnhumanity to innocent women
and children. this II not an appeal 10
Geutrality but "A frank bid for our par
ticipation on the side Of the allies IN
the existing contest.
II is "A well settled canon OF !nterna
tional law. and recognized in the presi-
dents neutrality proclamation, that neu-
trail citizens are entitled t. sell and
export to belligcrent States as well ~
10 their citizens all products Of every
kind subject only tn the risk in ease
Of merchandise known a contraband I
war To seizure hv the other belligcrcnt
in transit. a risi. ~ Cours" 20 he born"
by the con1gn,r or consignep. as may
be determined between them. and prob
ably in final analysis in practice taken
care Of 10y Insurance and represented
} in the selling price.
Under the proposals Of the London
conventisn the right OF seizure of food
, stuffs IL limited 70 direct shipments Ia
belligerent ports for belligerert uses, In
other words. eliminating the doctrine of
ultimate destination. Although the pro-
pnsal as framed lacks something IN
clearness. IL il unquestionahly a long
step in advance in the effort To secure
and safeguard neutrals' rights,
No neutral Government can allow It's
dominions To be used IA a ntting out
place for military expeditions on land
or sea by one belligerent against an
other and it was for failure in this re
spect that England was held liable in
the Alabama claims arbitration. The
same principle prohibits the use OF neu-
trail territory to collect and furnish In
formation for the use OF belligerent ~
its ports as harbors Il safety foI
bcllgcrcnt vessels Of war from which
To- conduct their activities.
with the foregoing limitations true
neutrality requires the 50 far as posi-
n Bile unrestricted commercial intercourse
impartialy with all belligerents, and II
would seem at this juncture to he in ou'
own interest, with large surplus crop,
, to sell. as we'll as our duty To posterity
, To assert the rights OF Eeutrals IN then
fullest sense.
II has been reported in the public
I press that France has sougat To effect s
loan Of 100000 900 through a New Yort
banking house, the money to be eH
!. pended in this country in the purchas'
Of supplies. 1t has also been reported
that high authority has expressed tn
81 opinion that while American bankers
n might property make a loan 10 a neutra
state such as Switzerland, To do 80 e
l one Of the hclligerents would not be II
French proposal really amounts to TN
sale II goods on credit. The net resul
= Of the transaction would have been a
( far as the two countries were concerne'
r. AN exchange OF surplus products 10
5 French promises To pay.
That the sale OF our goods is entlrel,
compatible with neutrality has heei
above pointed Out and that We Shout
do SO on credit rather than for casl
. cannot affect the permissihlity of III
transaction. Whether or not to do 81
las u business proposition, or for otho
% reasons, presents different questions en-
d tlrely outside the present discussion.
. Aside, however from the particula
y feature Of the French proposition, is IL
p fact the loan Of money To helllgeren
u state by citizens of "A neutral breac
Of real neutrality? Loans by neutral
' To belligerents have been customary /
l. the past. The most generally accepte
\. modern view is that while loans by tn
- Government OF neutral state To
hcllgerent are prohibited bona hde loan
ON "A commercial basis as distinguish
from voluntary contributions by en-
! zens Of the neutral state are Above,
The distinction ls marked. Maxim
~ loans is not within the ordinary prov
n incr uf government while lending by i'm
n divduals is part Of the commerce Of III
- world. Formerly even the GoNcrnmer