The Washington times., 1915-07-26
TRUTH OF MUNITIONS TRADE

A clear statement of the facts and
principles underlying the traffic by
a neutral in munitions of war is
given by Prof. Theo. S. Woolsey in
Leslie's. Prof. Woolsey long occu-
pied the chair of international law
at Yale. His analysis of the whole
subject leaves little of the argument
which prof. Germans have so gener-
ously employed, and if possible
rather less of the "facts" they have
cited.
First, is the traffic violation Of
international law? The answer is in
Art. 7, Convention XIII, of the 1907
convention at The Hague:
A neutral power is not bound to pre-
| vent the export or transit, for the use
of either belligerent of arms. ammuni-
tions or. in general. Of anything which
could be of use to an army or fleet.
Neutral governments are bound
not to engage in this trade, as gov
ernments; but this is entirely differ
ent from permitting their citizens
to engage in it, and the conventions
make this clear.
The United States manufacturers
would sell munitions to either of
the belligerents, precisely as Ger
many sold munitions to both sides
in the Russo-Japanese war, but Ger
many is not now able to get them
delivered. England sold munitions
in vast quantities to both North and
South in the civil war. In the Bal
kan wars there was competition be-
tween Krupp and Creusot, German
and French, for the munitions
business. Germany sold immense
amounts of munitions to the Beers
early in the Boer war; later, when
the Beers were cut off from COM
munication with the sea, the Ger
mans with perfect nonchalance
turned about, and sold to the Brit
ish, who could deliver the goods.
This was a precise parallel to pres
ent conditions. The Germans would
be able to get munitions in the
American market if they could con-
troll the sea lanes. They can't buy
munitions here for the same reason
that the Beers couldn't buy them
in Germany after the early stages
of the war.
Prof. Woolsey declares that every
belligerent has bought and every
neutral has sold munitions since
modern war began. England sold to
both sides in the Franco German
war. If it were agreed that neu-
trails should not sell munitions dur
ing war, then every nation would be
forced to maintain supplies and
manufacturing facilities capable of
meeting every possible demand,
which would be fearfully wasteful
proceeding. Prof. Woolsey pro-
ceeds:
But let us argue the question on eth
ical grounds alone / can see no diff
ference between peace trade and a
war trade from the humanitarian
standpoint. between armng a neighbor
by our exports in preparation for war
and rearming him during war. In both
cases we help him to kill. Now. If one
regards all war as wrong, aid in Wag-
ing war by trade in munitions, whether
in peace time or war time. should be
abhorrent to ones conscience. A
Quaker gun is not only a paradox, but
a sinful one.
Most of us, however, believe that a
defensive war, against aggression
} threatening the life and liberties OF a
nation. is Just and right. In the pres
ent war both parties claim to be fght-
ing in self-defense. We are not their
Judge; we must take both at their
word; what we owe both, ethically is
simply equality of treatment.
Facts are stubborn things; and the
facts fail utterly to provide any JUS
tification for the pro-German de-