The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-08-25
REFUSES PROTEST
(Continued from first Age.

government of the. United States is
convinced that the adoption of the
theory would force militarism On the
world and work against that unlVer-
sal peace which is the. desire and pur-
pose Of all nations which exalt JUS
tice and righteousness in their rela-
tions with one another.
"The government Of the United
States in the foregoing discussion Of
the practical reason why 1t has ad-
vocated and practiced trade in NUM-
tions of war, wishes to be under
stood as speaking with no thought Of
expressing or implying any Judgment
with regard to the circumstances OF
the present war, but as merely put
ting very frankly the argument IN
this matter which has been conclu-
sive in determining the policy Of the
United States.
/ The Austrian Assertions
while the practice of nations, 50
we'll illustrated by the practice OF
Austria-Hungary and Germany dur
ing the South African War, and the
manifest evil which would result
from a change Of that practice rem
der compliance with the Suggestions
of the imperial and royal government
out of the question, certain assertions
appearing in the garlan
Statement as grounds for its conten-
tions can not be passed over without
comment.
"These assertions are substantially
as follows:
'"{1) That the expectation of arms
and ammunition from the United
States to belligerents contraVenes
the preamble Of The Hague conVen-
ton No. 13 of 1907; (2) that it IS
inconsistent with the refusal Of this
government to allow delivery Of sup
| niles to vessels Of war on the high
seas: (3) that according to all au-
thorities on international law who
concern themselves more properly
with the question, expectation should
be prevented when this trafllc as
sumes such form or such dimen-
sions that the neutrality Of a nation
becomes involved thereby.
| "As to the assertion that the eS-
| nortation Of arms and ammunltlons
contrayenes the preamble of The
Hague convention No. 13 Of 1907
this government presumes that ref
erence is made to the last paragraph
of the preamble, which is as follows
"Seeing that, in this category Oh
ideas. these rules should not, in prin'
ciple, be altered, in the course OF the
war, by a neutral power, except IN
case where experience has shown the
| necessity for such change for the pro,
lection Of the rights of that power.
"Manifestly, the only ground te
change the rules laid down by tne
convention, one of which, it shoulo
be noted, explicitly declares that
neutral is not bound to prohibit the
exportation Of contraband OF war, Il
the necessity of neutral power tc
do so in order to protect its owl
rights. The right and duty to deter
mine when this necessity exists rest:
with the neutral, not with belllger
ent. It is discretionary, not manoa
tory. If a neutral power does no
avail itself Of the right, a belligeren
is not privileged to complain, for II
doing so it would be in the position
of declaring to the neutral poWe
what is necessary to protect ina
powers own rights. The lmper1a
and royal government can not bu
perceive that complaint Of this ma
ture would invite just rebuke.,
Consistency of Washington
with reference to the ASSERTED
inconsistency of the course adopted
by this government in relation tt
the expectation Of arms and ammu
milton and that followed in not allow
. ing supplies to be taken from it
ports to ships of war on the hlgl
seas, it is only necessary to point ou
: that the prohibition Of supplies U
ships of war rests upon the principle
that a neutral power must Lot per
nit its territory to become naVa
base for either belligerent. A war
ship may, under certain restrictions
obtain fuel and supplies in a neutra
port once in three mouths. To per
nit merchant vessels acting as ten
ders to carry supplies more Otter
/. than three months and in unlimited
amount would defeat the purpose O.
the rule and might constitute I'M
neutral territory naval base: Fur
thermore, this government is on
aware that any Austrla-Hungarla1
ship of war has sought to obtain sup
plies from port in the Unltet
States, either directly or indirectly
This subject has, however, alread!
been discussed with the imperial gov
ernment, to which the position OF th1'
government was fully set forth De
cember "a, 1914.
What the Authorities Say
"In view Of the positive assertion
in the statement of the imperial ant
royaI government as to the unanlmf
ty of the opinions Of text writers a.
TO the expectation Of contraband be
ing unneutral, this government ma
caused a careful examination OF tn'
principal authorities on internatlona
law to be made. AS result OF tnl'
examination it has come to the con
clusion that the imperial and roya
!. government has been misled and na
inadvertently made an erroneous as
sertion.
LESS than one-fifth Of the authorl
I ties consulted advocate unreserVedl!
the prohibition Of the export OF con
traband. Several of those who con
stitute this minority admit that th'
practice Of nations has been other
wise.
'It may not be inopportune to di
rect particular attention OF the decla
ration of the German authority Pau
Einicke, who states that at the be
ginning of a war belligerents have
never demonstrated against the enact
ment of prohibitions on trade IN con
traband, but adds that such prohlol
tions may be considered as violation:
of neutrality, or at least as unfrlend
| " acts. if they are enacted during
war with the p lrpose to close uneX
pectedly the sources Of supply to
party which heretofore had relied or
them.
"The government Of the Unltet
|