The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-11-03
AUSTRIA SENDS ANOTHER PROTEST TO U. 5. AGAINST
 SHIPMENT OF AMMUNITION

New York, November 3.-The full text of Austria Hungary's second note to the United States on the subject of shipments of munitions by American firms to Great Britain and her Allies is contained in Acknowledgements newspapers which have been received here. The note was received by the State Department at Washington on October 20, when it was announced that the State Department would not make public the full text. It con formed to the cabled summaries, it was explained and it was said that a reply would not be sent to Austria by the United3 States government, as the officials at Washington did not believe. from the tenor of the com munication that Austria expected a reply.
 While the text of the not does not disclose any new phrase of the situa- ton, it has value as of the documena- ary history of the relations betw cen the United States and the European belligerents. The note, as translated from the Austro-Hunga garian papers is as follows;
 From the Imperial and Royal Austro-
 Hungarian Minister for Foreign Af-
 fairs to the sATnbassador of the
 United States of America in Vienna. Vienna, September 24, 1915
 The undersigned has had the honor to receive the note of August 18th
 
 cy the Ambassador of the United States of America, MT. Frederick Courtland Penfie1d was pleased to de- fine the stand taken by the Govern ment of the United States of America toward the Imperial and Royal Gov ernment concerning the supply of war materials to Great Britain and her Allies.
 The arguments set forth by the Washington Cabinet discloses the various viewpoints that actuate the Federal Government in this connec- ton and in it's opinion, prevent it from taking into account the view express ed by the Imperial and Royal Govern ment. Although the Imperial and Royal Government has laid stress up on investigating most nninutelys the contentious of the Washington Cab inet,i their most careful examination cannot move it to depart from the point of view which it has made clear in it's note number 59465 of June 18th
 The remarks of the Federal govern ment are based upon the erroneous promises that the Imperial and Roy al Government has essentially denied the right conceded by Article of the Vth and xIIIth Conventions of the Hague to nationals of neutral powers to supply contraband to bel ligerents, whereas the Imperial and Royal Government had expressly
 
 wording-and the wording on1y--of the. clause referred to formally var ranted the sufferance4 by! the Fed era1 government of the trade in war materials as at present pursued by citizens of the United States of America. The Imperial and Royal government naturally never sought to prevail upon the Washington Cab inet to depart from an existing treaty. 1t only pointed out that, in it's opinion, an interpretation of said clause should be avoided that would be contrary to. the fundamental idea and. the highest principles of the laws of neutrality. A certain danger attaches to the gradual qualification of international law. inasmuch as the wording of the conventions. govern ing the laws of the nations might be the elementary principles underlying these laws when they have not been specifically formulated in interna- tiona1 treaties Such a limited inter pretation should be avoided, particu- IarIy with respect to the laws of neu- amb1e of the xIIIth Convention of the Hague (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) emphasizes that the stipulations of this agreement represent merely fragments that do not apply to all, the circumstances which may. arise in practice, and that therefore these -stipulations will have to be amends ed or completed according to the general principles of international law.
 The Imperial and Royal govern ment has accordingly confined it's arguments to the question whether the, interpretation of the already quot ed clause would not be limited by these principles; when, in supp ort of it's assertion that this would be so. it referred to the cafnion expressed. in international law, it naturally had in mind the authorities on the sub ject who have specially examined whether the Nexportation of war ma teriaIs, against which, no objection can be raised under nor1rs=r es-curn- stances, would not at times imply breach. of neutrality. The assertion to the effect that the authors una11i-. mous1y agree that the exportation of contrabandr is contrary to neutrality is not to be found in any paragraph of the note of Junes4 2 eth.
 Furthermore, the Imperial and Royal Government has in no way pleaded in favor of the principle of "equaIzation." Asia matter of fact it did not base it's suggestion con- corning the exportation of war ma teria1s on the fact that it was not in a position itself to import war ma teria1s from the United States of America; ;aeven if both groups of bel Hgerents were to share in the supply of war materials from the United States of, America. the Imperial and Royal government would nevertheless maintain. that. the excessive exporta- tion of war materials would be ob- jectionab1e. The Imperial. and Royal government never thought of Suggest ing that, because Austria-Hung gary cannot procure war materials from the territories of one neutral power, this disadvantage s41ou1d be balanced by prohibiting the citizens of that neutral power to carry on a normal trade in contraband with the enemies of the Dual Monarchy It, however, did protest against the creation of new and the extension of existing plants for the purpose of manufactur- ing and exporting war materials to