Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1915-08-24
A PARELLEL CASE.

A pretty good answer to those whit
insist it is morally wrong, even if lie
gally right, for this nation to furnish
munitions to the European allies, i
contained in an article published il
one of the New York papers, the au
thor of which hides his identity be
hind the convenient nom de plume
IA Student Of Diplomacy. (" This
writer draws a comparison between
conditions as they exist today, and as
they might have existed had the Uni
ted States declared war against Mex
leo two years ago. Suppose, he sug
gests, the United States, following
the Vera Cruz occupation or because
of some incident growing out of that
expedition, had seen fit to declare wal
against Mexico. Neither the United
States or Mexico was at that time
prepared for war Both countries
would have to look to Europe fol
munitions, which would have meant
to Germany, the great arsenal of mil
itary preparedness.
German merchants would have will
lingly sold guns and ammunition to
both the United States and Mexico
as they would have had a perfect
right to do under international law.
Unquestionably both nations would
have made extensive purchases in the
German market. But the war would
not have been in progress any time
to speak of before the United States
blockade Of Mexican ports would
have made it impossible for any for
eign power to deliver munitions to
that country. The Mexican govern
ment would not have been able to
prevent us receiving at least most of
the shipments sent us.
The parallel with the present claim
of certain pro-Germans that the Uni
ted States should not sell munitions
to the allies is perfect In this mag
mary case the United States navy
would prevent Mexico from taking
advantage of Germany's willingness
to sell her arms, just as the British
navy now prevents Germany from
taking advantage of our willingness
to supply her And the United States
would be able to import about all the
guns and ammunition she purchased
from Germany, just as the allies
with occasional losses-are able now
to get the munitions they buy in this
country.
Now, to continue the analogy, sup
pose Mexico had unofficially protested
to Germany, through Mexicans and
descendants of Mexicans residing in
that country, that it was an unneu-
trail act for Germany to sell guns to
the United States Is it probable
Germany would have paid any atten-
ton to the protest, especially in view
Of the fact that she had always main
tained the right of neutrals to sell to
belligerents under any and all circum-
stances?
The fact that Mexico is a compara-
lively weak nation and that Germany
S very strong one cannot have any
bearing on the right and wrong of
he case. Neither does it have
bearing that in the United States
here are several million people whose
are with Germany in this
var, while there probably would be
comparatively few people in Germany
lnder the conditions imagined who
would especially sympathize with
Mexico.
Neither international law or COM ,
non morality would have required {
iermany, under such circumstances, c
o establish an embargo on arms to $
he United States, and nobody with a
ommon sense believes she would have (
lone so. She would have replied to
he Mexieans-and truthfully-that
o heed their protest would constitute
N unfriendly act against the United |,
states. p