The Nome daily nugget., 1915-08-21
HAS AMERICA THE RIGHT TO SHIP
 ARMS TO EUROPE?
By Prof. Ellery c. Stowell, Authority
 on International Law.

The simplest way to reach an un- derstanding of the question of the shipment of arms and ammunition frop America to Germany's enemies without entering into confusing tech nical details, will be to answer the fol- lowing questions:
 1. Have we a right to ship arms to the allies?
 ?. Have we a right to prohibit such shipments?
 B. What course will best serve our national interests?
 A. What can Germany do?
 l. Have the citizens of the United States right to ship arms and am- intuition to the allies?
 There can be no serious discussion of this point; for over hundred years it has been recognized that citizens of neutral countries might sell and ship arms and ammunition to belligerents.
 Whatever the popular feeling in Germany or elsewhere, this rule is so well understood that the German gov ernment has not made, nor would 1t make the claim that such shipments were contrary to international law.
 ?. Has the Government of the United States right to prohibit such shipments?
 We cannot so simply answer this question by an unequivocal yes or no Tn the first place, undoubtedly in time of peace we could decree that in future wars American citizens should be pro- hibited from engaging in the traffic of arms, but when neutral during the progress of this great conflict we have no right to modify our neutrality re- gulations in any way such as mater ially to affect the interests of either belligerent. unless such modification is necessary to protect our interests or to provide for our national security.
 At first sight such a situation might seem to exist. since by prohibiting the exportation of arms and ammunition we could avoid all danger of war with Germany. To modify our regime in order to avoid friction with one befIi- gerent would as surely involve us with the other.
 We should, in fact, be taking the further disadvantage of establishing precedent that the rights of Ameri- cans when neutral to carry on their commerce must be modified when tenn porarily inconVenient to some powerful belligerent.
 The humanitarian aspect of the question will be discussed further on; suffice it to say now that the time to make a modification of our neutral practice out of regard to such consid- erations is before the war has com- menced. When the war is in progress even though such action might seem in the interest of humanity, it would be at the cost of a violation of the precious rules of neutrality them selves, one ol lHe Sfedtesl pui"diNs oi national liberty.
 We must not destroy one good and struction of another which may seem for the moment of great importance.
 Furthermore, if either of the belli- gerents should disregard the rights of American citizens to trade with the other, the United States might in it's discretion retaliate by prohibiting all exports of arms to the bel1igerents re- sponsible for such illegal interference with Americas rights as a neutral to carry on it's commerce as allowed by the rules of neutrality
 9 What course of action will best serve our national interests?
 There can be no reasonable doubt that our interests demand that we should not interfere with the shipment of arms and ammunition during the present war: first, because to do so would have us absolutely at their mercy should they wish to retaliate.
 The subjusation of America would present no great difficulties to the allies; not that we lack courage or re- sources, but We are totally unprepared.
 second reason is that we need to stimulate the manufacture of arms and ammunition to make up in some slight measure for our lamentabIe state of unpreparedness.
 More important than these reasons of temporary application is the fun damental consideration of permanent national efficiency.
 To cut off the shipment of arms from neutrals would lead to the establish ment of great governmental arsenals by all the Powers and would mean