The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-04

are very grave. The right Of neutrals
TO trade with each other is involved.
and there arises the serious point that
Great Britain In even considering the
possible regulation OF a neutral coun-
try's importA In q word, Great Brit
ain has been trying to make over inter-
national law in her own interests IN
order that Germany may suffer. Such
IA the chief feature of the Anglo
American disagreement Cotton was
not eontrahand of war. yet Great
Britain seized such carsoes and paid
for some OF them herself rather than
have them enter Germany. This was
far from satisfying 10 the supposedly
neutral consignees. and the shippers
were of like mind Great Britain has
suggested the purchase Of the entire
export cotton crop of the United States.
In the case of actual coutraband
the legal aspects assume somewhat
different Tsnase. International law
provides that the actual destination
Of cargo determines its character.
no matter If IL Is shipped from ons
neutral port to another. This prin-
ciple is a hundred years old. Thus
a cargo of contrahand copper shipped
from neutral New York to neutral
Rotterdam. but with the German Gov
would clearly be liable to seizure. The
question then arises, How do you
know that II is intended for Ger
many" Great Britain answers: We
do not dare 70 take the risk" Next
comes the inevitable diplomatic clash.
Angio-Swedish Clash
So excessive have become certain
importations into countries adjacent
to or near Germany that Great Britain
feels called upon to forbid more than
normal importafions of such articles.
fearing that the surplus IL finding
its way into Germany. The relation
between Sweden and Great Britain are
particularly involved In this respect.
: The well meant Hague rules of war.
those which were Intended to soften
the Mars whom they could not destroy
have gone to pot. Article XVI, to
which all Of the helligerents have been
signatories or. as in the case OF Great
Britain. adherents, says: The con-
tracing Powers agree TO abstain from
the use of proJectiles the object OF
whic, is the diffusion of asphyxiating
or deleterious gases"
Then TO ask for her known use Of
poisonous gases on the battlefield
Germany replies. IN effect: For one
thing, that rule was signed fifteen
caFs ago ana IL NOW cutiAWeu. tot
another. We are not using projectiles
that diffuse poisonous gas. but are
projecting the gas itself"
Another rule OF war is that no. bel
figerent shall employ arms or pro-
jectiles or materials calculated to
cause unnecessary suffering. This
would cover gas, dumdum bullets
almost forgotten in the aggregate of
greater cruelties and other and newer
processes of destruction. The bullet
that left a clean wound and was hailed
by some as humane" now has for
counterpart the explosive bullet, or
the bullet which. containing poison,
occasions lasting Illness. liquid fire.
anything, everything, including the
poisoning OF brooks. with which to
no longer to disable. but to extermi-
nate.
Perhaps IL Ia only fair to say that
all of the belligerents have been ac-
cused by one another OF using dunn
dunn bullets. Very likely such use
In Individual or confined to groups and
without official order as affecting gen.
eral operations. Soldiers have been
known TO transform ordinary bullets
into dumdums by biting the top off.
and 1t Is the veteran who tires Of
seeing his smooth bullet fail to down
his enemy who Is tempted to reshape
the missile 90 that It will have q
.mushrooming" effect.
1t is hardly worth while TO detail
the atrocities" OF war. The accounts,
official and unofficial are legion, and
no belligerent has escaped arraign-
ments which range from petty larceny
to indescribabie forms OF murder and
torture. All such have been forbid
den by international law: but inter-
national law. a. has been pointed out.
Ia in the waste basket, while the prin-
ciple that might makes right ignores
The Hague trade mark.