The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-01-20
DUTIES or A NEUTRAL.
The international and Moral Oblig atIons
Of the United states In This War.

war supplies II has bean argued
First That \ neutral nation may at
the outbreak Of conflict prohibit the
export of war supplies without violating
neutrality, and that, therefore. the United
States could have done 20 at the outbreak
of the European war.
Second-That it would be no less con-
sistent with the maintenance of our ncu-
trdlity IN we should now prohibit the ex-
port OF war supplies the objection that
"a rule n1 International raw would be
altered while the war is still In progress
being, as one Of the advocates OF this
policy contends purely of a technical
nature" and one which may therefore
be dsregarded"
The answer to these contentious is
obvious.
First--As a matter Of fact, at the ou;-
break OF the European war tho United
states did not adopt the policy Of pro-
hiniting the export OF war supplies on
the contrary. IL adopted exactly the re-
verse policy In the successive proclana-
lions Of neutrality issued 10y President
Wilson the following preamble occurs
And whereas the lave and treaties Of the
Tinted states. UitbOut jnterfrttEg 'rih ne
tree expression 81 opinion and sympathy o.
Wth me commercial mdnHfdct1t ~ sf'e ~
upon persons who may Ne IN their territory
and jurisdiction the duty OF impartial neutral
ity during the existence OF the contest
And in the body of each proclamation
IL contained an explicit recognition OF
the right to manufacture and sell muni-
lions OF WAL as folows:
And / do hereby warn all citizens Of the
Emitted States and al persons residing or BEN,
IN ns territory or jurisdiction snd
that. ante 0N prisons may idirtnNV 7rNh0hf
resurrection by y'ds0H ~ The dforesmd Nrtr
af ircr manufacture oHd seU ,riihjn the tmted
~ .Ttt.f gf
article, ordirdyiW kuOWn as "coHtrGb1hd o.
icdr' vet they cannot
These nroclamations were issued sue
ccssivcIy on August {, August 5. August
:. August l3. August II, August IS.
Angus. -, august p, september anu
November g.
In the recognition OF tine free and un-
restricted right to manufacture ana sell
munitions 81 war to he.ligercnts these
proclamltious simply followed the tiIdi-
tioun' policy OF this country, established
as far back ae the year 1893 and MS uni
forIuly expressed IN our procllWa'ionS oI
neutrality. The President therefore could
not have done otherwise. not al least Win
ont the authority " Congress. and con
srcss, which was then In session, did not
attempt to take any contrary action
THIS traditional policy Of our country
is based upon the sound principles or
justice and national welfare, has been
accepted and acted upon without debate
or question since the foundation OF our
Government. both In the purchasing by
us of munitions Of war from neutral ma
tions when We were at war and ln our
selling munitions OF war to belllgereuts
when We were neutral and IL should es-
peclally commend itself to our pacihsts'
since II relieves our country from the
burden Of maintaining extensive plants
for the manufacture OF arms and ammuni-
ton Moreover, this policy is in accord
ance with A we'll settled principle OF IN
ternational law and one which was spe-
cincally recognized and approved with
out dissenting vote in the Hague CON
venton Of 1901
! In addition TO our proclamattons OF
| neutrality there was issued from our De-
/ partmcnt OF state on october 10, 1919
a formal notice to the public upon the
/ sub! ect Of Neutrality and Trade in Con-
/ traband." This notice was issued because
/ as stated In the notice. The popart-
rnent OF State has received numerous IN
! uuiries from American merchants and
other persons as to whether they could
| sell to the Governments or nations at war
! contraband articles without violating the
( neutrality OF the United states, and the
/ Department has also received complaints
! that sales of contraband were being made
| or the apparent superstition that they
were unneutral acts which TINS Govern
/ ment should prevent"
! For the express purpose OF removing
I all misapprehensions on this point the
/ notice specifically states that such sales
are not unneutral acts and that "a cit'
zen OF the United States can sell to .
/ helliRerent Government or its agent any
article OF commerce which he pleases.'
In the light OF the foregoing there car
| he no question that tho rule deliberately
adopted by our Government al the out
break OF the war was the rile Of permit
ting the export OF war supplies. And this
| rule is IN accord with our traditional
| policv and natural interests, with inter
! national law and usage and with TN
recommendations OF the Hague confer
ence
Second-This rule or policy having
been adopted and proclaimed to all TN
I world at the outbreak Of the war ctnno
now rlghtfully he changed
1t is a sound principle Of internationa
Justice that a rule or policy adopted by
neutral country at the outbreak OF hos
tIlities should not be altered In the cours'
OF the war. and this principle was speclt
ically recognized and approved in III
preamble To Convention XIII. OF IN
Hague conference OF 1907. The obviou
reason OF this is that the beigerents ma!
have acted In reliance upon the rule AM
made their plans and preparations &C
cordingly. And this reason applies witt
great force TO the present war. For, Il
reliance upon tho rule in question ant
the traditional policy OF our country, sol
EMMY reafflrmed IN our proclamation
OF neutrality and the official notice iron
tho state Department, many foreign GOV
ernments have placed here large contract
for supplies. and TO the extent OF IN
contracts placed here these Government
have neglected to make provision 10
their needs at home.
To change our policy now, therefore
would be plainly unneutral act; ant
more than that. Il would plainly involv
breach OF honor. violation OF law
renudiation OF our contracts and obliga
tions. and, since war contracts are per
formed by delivery In this country,
conhscation Of the property OF foreig
!, Governments with which We profess TO b
on terms OF amity and friendship.
one OF the advocates OF an embarg
, has expressed the opinion, as state
above. that the objection TO reversin
our policy now is purely OF a technics
, nature and may therefore be disregarded
But II il impossible to believe when h
= formed this opinion that he could hav
taken into account tire foregoing element
OF the problem TO Justify such tan opir
ion Il would be necessary TO carry IN
scrap of paper theory as TO propert
; rights and the obligations OF treaties an
contracts and the rules OF internationi
law To a point that would shock the mora
I tod AV,1 d ~.