Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-10-12
AUsTRALIAN cRIT1cIsM ANSWERED.

q other nations, none has been SO persistently
bitter and fault finding as that Of Australia.
HaWan has seen and heard good deal of it,
one way and another. Al good many people of
tins territory have friends who are Australians
o. travel in Australia and as the newspapers
q the southern continent have been particii-.
larry acrimonious the facts OF this criticism
are fairly well known in the territory. Some
q the harshest expressions have reused little
but amusement in American minds, but often
me raps have been of such q nature as to cause
deep regret that q country bound by many ties
g the United States could encourage such
views. 40
IS therefore relief e. find issued III Ans
tralia sane and intelIigently written little
pamphiet, playing the War Game; America
part which apparently is attaining wide cir
tulation. q
One 81 one the points argned against the
United States BY Australians are taken up and
examined by the author, Mr. A. Sheppard, and
one by one they are answered.
He declares for instance, not only that the
United States had neither moral nor legal rea-
eou toprDtest against German invasion Of Bel
ziunl, but that Great Britain, France, Russia
Ihe Entente Powers have not 1.-The past pro-
tested against violated neutrality even when
tytreaty they were both legally and morally
bound to do So.
He shows that the United States Is neither
sign6tdfy to the treaty Of 1889 guaranteeing
Ihe iptegitgsof Belgium, territory nor bound
bf The Hague Convention to uphold tile ihvios
|4bility e neutral territory Enlarging on this
after view, he points out that the European
Powers intending the Entente nations, also
signed The Hague convention but did not pro-
test when Austria assumed sovereignty over
Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1903 and when
Italy took Tripoli in 1911
He also quotes distinct reservation apply
ing to the United States made at the time Of
<igning The Hague convention. 1t is as fol-
lows, and it win be well for Americans to re-
member IL. ss#s
Nothing contained in this conyention shall be SO
e g sHsIs o1so s,as e no
me upon. nor interfering with or entanglng itself
& any oessn nor sss
thing contained In the said convention be construed
FSs sSs y tne D unisd ass
he further shows that for the United States
to have involved itself in the political question
Df Belgian invasion would have violated the !
ADDITIONAL American policy laid down by
Washington and jefferson, would have shaken
The foundation on which the Monroe Doctrine
rests and would have been fruitless Of prac-
teal effect
The author displays commendable open
nIindedness in discussing the question of
6lfocities drawing attention to the criticism
III Australia because the United States did not
protest against alleged German atrocities in
Belgium. He readily admits that both sides
have made charges of atrocities which probab-l
ii will not stand impartial investigation and
concludes that with mass of contradictory
testimony pouring in, for the United States 10 |
have lodged formal protest with Germany
would have been exceedingly unwise. IF the |
reports of atrocities are to be taken at fuceI
value, the author says, the United States would
be bound to protest to all belligerents
Dealing with the vigorous opposition of the
United States to the British plan of a CONNER
cial blockade in the war zone, the author in
Inmates that there has been unwarrantable In
reference with legitimate American trade.
The pamphlet also devotes considerable dis
cussion to the advantage it has been for the
Allies to have America disengaged from war,
SO that they may secure tremendous stores of
munitions and supplies. In fact, he finds in
this logical justification of American neutral
ity, from the standpoint of the Allies. It is |
not, however, the justification of neutrality
from the standpoint of a neutral. America, as
every good American citizen knows is stand
60 -