The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-16
Principles Of International Law.
Safety Of Nations With Small
Armies and Navies and Neu-
trality Itself Forbid
LANSING SAYS AUSTRIAN
ATTITUDE INCONSISTENT
Secretary Of State in Reply to.
Protestof Royal Government
on june 70 Sets Forth at
Length Reasons Why Rules
Cannot Be Modified

Cannot be Modlficd
washington, d. c.. Aug. i5.-The
full text of the reply to the Austrian
note of June 20 Is as follows.
The Secretary OF State to Anbassa-
dor Penfield:
Department of state,
Washington. August IL, 1915. Y
Please present q note to the royai
foreign once in reply TO its note OF
June 20 In the following sense:
The Government of the United
States has given careful consideration
TO the statement Of the Imperial and
royal government In regard 70 the
expectation Of arms and ammunition
from the United States to the coun-
tries at war with Austria Hungary
and Germany The Government 81
the United States notes with satisfac-
ton the recognition By the imperial
and royal government of the I'M
doubted fact that its attitude with
regard TO the expectation of arms and
ammunition from the United States Is
prompted by it's intention to mann
tai nthe strictest neutrality and 70
conform to the letter Of the provisions
Of international treaties, but Is sur
prised to find the imperial and royal
government implying that the obsery-
ance OF the strict principles OF the
In " under the conditions which have
developed in the present war Is In
sufficient. and asserting that this gov
eminent should 30 beyond the long
recognised rules governing SUCH trAI-
10 D. neutrxls ana adopt measures
lto an assit.aae sssaes
e4lEf
$3.50
Cannot s1odify RuIes.
70 this assertion Of an obligation:
ii change or modify the rules OF m
gternaftcnal usage on account OF spe-
c,aI conditions. the Government OF the
United states cannot accede. fne.
recognition OF an obligation Of tnis
lort unknown to the international
practice OF the past. would impose
upon every neutral nation duSJ
10 at in Judgment on the progress or
4 war and to restrict Its commercial
intercourse with a belligerent whose
naval successes prevented the nsu-
trail from trade with the enemy. The
contention Of the imperial and royai
government appears to be that the
advantages gained TO bellfEerent BY
its superiority on. the seas should be
eQuaiized by the neutral powers ~
the establishment OF a system OF non
perial and royal government confines
its comments 10 arms and Ammuni-
ton. but. IL the principle for which
1t contends Is sound. il should apply
with equal force to all articles of con-
traband.
Al helligerent controlling the high
seas might possess An ample supply
of arms and ammunition but be IN
want OF food and clothing. On the
1 .x~- ~ VxA am "a
neutral duty. neutral nations would
be obligated to place an embargo on
such articles because one OF the bel
iigerents could not obtain them
through commercial intercourse.
But. III this principle, so strongiy
urred BY the Imperial and Royal gov
arnmcnt. should be admitted to OBJ
tain BY reason of superiority Of a
heafieerent Mt sea. ought It not TO
operate equally as to q beliigerent
superior on land 2. Applying this theory
OF cauaIixation. a beliigerent who
lacks the necessary munitions to con-
tend successfully on land ought to be
permitted to purchase them from neu-
trails, while q belligerent with an
abundance OF war stores or with the
power TO produce them should be de-
barred from such traffic.
Manffestly the idea Of strict neu-
trality now advanced by the Imperial
and Royal government would invoivo
= neutral nation In a mass Of per-
piexities which would obscure the
whole field Of international obliga-
ton. produce economic confusion ars
deprive All commerce and industry OF
Legitimate fields of enterprises. already
heavily burdened by the unavoidab BILE
restrictions OF war.