The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-08-25
REFUSES PROTEST
TEXT OF NOTE TO AUSTRIA ON
CONTRABAND EXPORTS
EMBARGO UNCONSIDERED

EMBARGO UNCONSlDERED
The U .ited States Flatly Rejects Aas
tria's Appea1-Lansing Shows That
Germany and Austria Have Always
Trafficked in Arms-Preceden1
Would Imperil Our Safety.
The text of the note follows:
"The government Of the United
States has given careful considera'
ton to the statement of the imperial
and royal governments in regard to
the expectation Of arms and ammu-
milton from the United States to the
countries at war with Austria-Hun-
gary and Germany.
"The government OF the United
States notes with satisf. ction the
recognition by the imperial and royal
government of the undoubted fact
chat it's attitude with regard to the
eXportation of arms :nG ammunition
IRON the United Sta.es is prompted
by it's intention to maintain the
strictest neutrality and to conform
10 the letter of the provisions Of in
ternational treaties but is surprised
to find the imperial and royal govern
ment implying that the observance of
the strict principles Of the lew under
the conditions which have developed
in the present war is insufficient, and
asserting that this government
should go beyond the long recognized
rules governing traffic By neutrals
and adopt measures to maintain an
attitude Of strict parity with respect
to both belligerent partiec.'
Can Not Accede to This Position
s'To this assertion of an obligation
to change or modify the rules of in
ternational usage on account of spe-
cial conditions the government of the
United States cen not accede. The
recognition Of an obligation Of this
sort, unknown to the International
practice Of the past, would impose
upon every neutral nation a duty to
sit in judgment on the progress of a
war and to restrict its commercial
intercourse with a belligerent whose
naval successes prevented the neutral
from trade with the enemy.
''The contention of the imperial
and royal government appears to be
that the advantages gained to bel
ligerent by it's superiority on the sea
should be equalized by the neutral
powers by the establishment of sys-
TEN Of non-intercourse with the VIC
tor.
"The imperial and royal govern
ment confines its comments to arms
and ammunition, but, if the principle
for which it contends is sound, it
should apply with equal force to all
articles of contraband. A belligerent
controlling the high seas might pos
sess an ample supply of arms and
ammunition, but be in want Of food
and clothing. On the novel principle
that equalization is a neutral duty,
neutral nations would be obligated to
place an embargo on such articles
because one Of the belligerents could
not obtain them through commercial
intercourse.
On Land as Well as Sea
"But, if this principle, so strongly
urged by the imperial and royal gov
ernment, should be admitted to OBJ
tain by reason Of the superiority of a
belligerent at sea, ought it not to
operate equally as to belligerent
superior on land? Applying this the
ory of equalization, belligerent who
lacks the necessary munitions to con-
tend successfully on land ought to be
permitted to purchase them from
neutrals, while a belligerent with an
abundance of war stores or with the
power to produce them should be de-
barred from such traffic.
"Manifestly the idea Of strict neu-
trality low advanced by the imperial
and royal government would involve
neutral nation in mass OF per-
plexities which would obscure the
whole field Of international obliga-
ton, produce economic confusion,
and deprive all commerce and indus
try of legitimate fields Of enterprise,
already heavily burdened by the un-
avoidable restrictions OF war.
Going to the Record
"In this connection it is pertinent
to direct the attention Of the lmpe-
rial and royal government to the tact
that Austria-Hungary and Germany,
particularly the latter, have during
the years preceding the present Euro
.pean war produced a gre"t surplus
of arms and ammunition, which they
sold throughout the 'forld and espe-
cially to belligerents. Never during
that period did either Of them sug-
gest or apply the principle now adVo-
Gated by the imperial and royal gov
ernment.
During the Boer War between
Great Britain and the South African
republics, the patrol of the coasts OF
neighboring neutral colonies by Brit
ish naval vessels prevented arms and
ammunitions reaching the Transvaal
or the Orange Free State. The allied
republics were in situation almost
identical in that respect with that IN
which Austria-Hungary and Germany
find themselves at the present time.
Yet, in spite of the commercial lsola-
ton of one belligerent, Germany sold
to Great Britain, the other belliger-
ent, hundreds of thousands of kilos
of explosives, gunpowder, cartridges,
shot and weapons, and it is known
that Austria-Hungary also sold SINH
lar munitions to the same purchaser,
though in smaller quantities. While,
as compared with the present war,
the quantities sold were small "a
table of the sales is appended), the
principle of neutrality involved was
the same. If at that time Austria
Hungary and her present ally had re-
fused to sell arms and ammunition to
Great Britain on the ground that to
do so would violate the spirit Of strict
neutrality the imperial and royal gov
ernment might with greater consist
ency and greater force urge its pres
ent contention.