White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1915-09-19

be a hardship TO STOP their regular
,,no of business, which might be
.itheir only means of subsistence
Such reasoning has little application
70 a hinge national trade newly de-
welcomed for this war, and diyerting
onr industry from peaceful trade to
militarism. Even in international
Low ,he trade in arms and ammuni-
tion is on the thin n OF what Is
no.miseible. Governments can not
go into it without losing their neutral
The shipments OF private
,,,izans can be confiseated without re-
dress If captured, and even the ships
carving them can be DESTROYED In
eaee of need. Our nation would be
for eafer against the risk of war If
no ammunition We're being carried
m the same ships with peaceful sup
niles and passengers. Amid the ter
rible hangers of this world-war this
questionable private right should De
suspended for the sake OF our own
public welfare.
s. Our trade in arms is defended
on the ground that the sale OF arms
by neutrals protects small and peace
ful nations when attacked by strong
m%ilitaristie nations. Unless they
could purchase arms In case oil need,
they would have, to arm themselves
the more heavily during peace. IL
may be said in reply that great ma
tions maintain nayies for just such
cases. The small and peaceful Boer
republics had no chance to proht by
our war supplies. II was England
that bought them and used them
against the Beers. If the sale of
arms by neutrals were really in the
main to the benefit OF the little ma
lions. the great nations who have
written international Law would
doubtless long ago have abolished it.
AT any rate our war caterers are
hardly influenced by these unselfish
considerations Of international policy.
They are in the trade because II pays.
The rest Is smoke which clouds the
issue.
8. We are also told hat an en-
barge under the present circum-
stances would work hardship for
Great Britain and her allies only, and
therefore would have an unneutral
bearing. The reply is plain: the ex-
portation of arms under present cir
cumstances also works hardship for
one side only. and has a still more
u%nneutral look. The right to lay an
embargo is recognized by the Hague
convention. Our government pro-
hibited the expectation of arms to
Mexico for a time and declared that a
neutrality which enabled Huerta to
obtain arms through the possession
cf ports and prevented Carranza from
obtaining them through lack of ports.
vas a mere paper neutrality" There
has been nc explanation by our adj
ministration why that action would
not be a just precedent TO dealing
with the one-side war trade with
Europe.
10. Our trade in arms is bad be-
cause II is inhnman: II is also bad be-
cause II Is SO plainly and tremendous
~ one-sided that our whole n%eutrali-
~ is tilted 10 a dangerous angle and
needs the prop of labored arguments.
However our theories may run. the
fact IS that we are today part of the
economic and military system of
Great Britain and her allies. They
depend on us. We are so useful to
them as a neutral that they are In
doubt whether they want us to de-
clare war against Germany. Our
Partially Is all the more painful be-
cause we have allowed Great Britain
for many months 10Y TO close the
free highway OF the ocean against our
neutral vessels loaded with grain and
cotton for Germany. II Is safe to
say that II our republic were at war
and were thus treated, we should cry
u from ocean to ocean against such
neutrality and friendship.
IL. In analyzing our ethical po-
sition II is important to Inquire
whether we have unconsciously and
unwillingly been forced by circum-
stances into this false position. or
whether we inwardly consent to and
welcome the opportunity to be I'M
neutral in fact while We remain
neutral in profession. A New York
daily. In an argument for maintain