The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-21
THE ERMAN IN THE BoER
WAR.
Our Note 70 Austria Hungary From
the Teutonic Point Of View.

To THE EDITOR OF THE suN-Str. II
the reply to the Austro-Hungarian Gov
eminent were what the newspaper say
II Is they would not need to warn the
people of the near treason of CRITICS.
Ing II.
From news reports I believe that the
United States had "A legal right. based
on all precedent, to permit the sale of
arms n ammunition to one belliger-
ent against the protest OF another. Ger
many was represented as an extensive
supplier in time Of war OF the worlds
requirements OF arms. From the pub
lished note II appears that Germany
furnished Great Britain an average OF
one carload OF arms n ammunition a
week In the year 1900. the year In which
the greatest quantity was shipped.
IL In not likely that the Beers knew
anything about II, and II may not have
been brought to the attention OF the
German Government. II the Beers did
not know about II, II is not likely that
they would think II worth while 10 pro-
test. the quantity being negligible. II
they did protest. the probability Is hat
the Kaiser or any Government not es-
pecialiy friendly 10 Great Rritain would
most graciously accede. II the Beers
protested and Germany declared an en-
barge II could hardly be more effective
than to allow but one carload a week to
cav the country for the use OF Great
Britain. The stun may not have been
for use against the Beers at all. and
the note does not say II was. A carload
OF ammunition a week may not be suf-
ficient for Britain's target practice In
time of peace.
Instead OF the supplying OF arms to
belllgerents tending toward peace and
limitation OF military establishment.
there could be but few actions more
conducive to the opposite effect. II Is
only our military establishment that
causes Germany to hesitate TO take dras-
tic measures TO prevent the shipment
Of arrns and ammunition 10 the Allies.
Any nation Is more apt to be dragged
into an existing war by supplying bel
ligerents with arms than by refusing
to supply them. A ~belliserent is unable.
and II would not be worth while. to
force a neutral to the production ard
sale OF arms, no matter how weak the
neutral might be. Some belligerents
have difficulty in Fastening the produce
ton OF arms and ammunition Ia their
own countries. 1t is only Its military
establishment that will enable any ma
ton to commit a positive act that either
belligerent considers unneutral. The
belligerents are the Judges OF a nations
'HN'S'' N'''' 80
arms to a belligerent must support a
great military establishment FOR It's own
protection, in addition TO supplying the
military establishment OF others.
The other instances of arms furnished
belligerents by Germany are even In
the note declared not To be analogous.
and there Is 10 suggestion that the
trade was objected to at the time.
To the statement that according TO
all authorities on international law who
concern themselves more properly with
the question" expectation should be pre-
vented when this traffic assumes such a
form or such dimensions that the neu-
trality OF a nation becomes involved
thereby" our nute replies Less than
oue-hfth OF the authorities consulted
advocate unreservedly the prohibition OF
the export OF c~ontraband."
That is manifestly no answer. even
though II was prefaced by reframing
the Austrian convention TO read I'm
view Of the positive assertion in the
statement of the imperial and royal
Government as TO the unanimity Of opin-
ion Of text writer's as to the exporta-
ton of contraband being unneutral.' &c.
NJ. L. c.
PROVIDENCE. r. l.. August 90.