Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1915-08-16
United States Strictly Neutral,
Secretary Lansing Tells Austria

Washington, Aug l6.-The Teutonic
allies cannot expect to disrupt com
merce and industry and produce econ.
omic confusion through appeals to neu.
tral powers because Great Britain rules
the seas.
This is the sense of the administra.
ti0n s note replying to Austria 3 pro.
test against the shipment of munitions
from the United States to the allies. 1t
was expected today that with the re.
ceipt of the American note in Vienna,
discussion of the subject may end, at
least for the president Austria pro.
tested that the shipment of munitions
to the allies was not in keeping with
this government s position Of neutral.
ity, and the administration has merely
reiterated its previously expressed
views and has given further reasons
why it would be an unneutral act to
prohibit ammunition expectation.
Austria is told that its position is
apparently that advantages gained by
other belligercnts by controlling the
sea should be equnlized by neutral pow
ers by prohibiting intercourse with the
yictors If this principle should be
| applied to arms and ammunition, il
might also be applied to food, clothing
and other articles, the note declared
and the question is asked whether II
might not also be applied because Of
/ the superiority of belligeuent zen land
It is declared that sucn theory of
strict neutrality as is advanced by Aus.
tria would involve "neutral nation
in n mass of perplcXites which would
obscure the whole field Of international
obligation produce economic confusion
and deprive all commerce and indus.
| try Of legitimate fields Of enterprise,
already heavily burdcned by the I'M.
avoidable restrictions Of war"
The essential part Of the note reads
as follows:
"'The government of the United
States notes with satisfaction the rec.
ognition by the imperial and royal gov.
ernment Of the undoubted fact that its
attitude with regard to the expectation
Of arms and ammunitions from the
United States is prompted Dy its inten'
tiOn TO maintain the strictest neutral.
| ity and to conform to the letter Of
the provisions Of international
treaties, but is surprised to find the
imperial and royal government imply.
/ ing that the observance Of the strict
principles Of the law under the condi.
| tions which nave developed in the pres.
ent war Is insufficient, aud asserting
that this government should 90 beyond
the lWgrccognzcd rules governing
such traffic by noutrnls and adopt
measures TO maintain an attitude Of
strict parity with respect to both bel
! lgerent parties
View Is Not Accepted.
''To this assertion Of an obligation
to change or modify the rules Of inter.
national usage on accent Of special
conditions, the government Of the Unit.
ed States cannot acccde. The recogni.
I tiOn of an obligation Of this sort un.
known TO the international practice m
the past, would impose on every neutral
nation u duty to sit in Judgment on
the progress Of war and 10 restrict
its commercial intercourse with bel.
| ligeront whose naval successes pre-
vented the neutral from trade with the
enemy The contention Of the imper.
ial and royal government appears 10
be that the advantages gained TO a bel
ligerent by its superiority on the sea,
should be equalized by the neutral pow.
ers by the establishment OF system Of
nOn.intercOursc with the victor. The
imperial and royal government con.
fines its comments to arms aud ammu'
milton, but, If the principle for which
il contends ig sound, il should apply
with equal force 10 all articles Of con
trabnnd. A belligcrcnt controlling the
high seas might possess an ample sup
ply Of arms and ammunition, but be
In want Of food and clNhing. On the
novel principle that equalization is O
neutral duty, neutral nations would be
obligated 20 place an embargo on such
articles because one Of the boligerentl
could not obtain them through cum
mercial intercourse.
Maze Of Perplexlties Involved.
But If this principle, so strongly
urged by the imperial and royal gov
ernment, should be admitted 10 obll
CATION by reason ot the superiority Of
beligercnt at sea, ought II not 10 opcr
ate equally as 20 a belligerent super0
on land Applying TO tails the theor'
. Of equalization, a behgerent who lack
the necessary munitions 10 cmtcn'
/, successfully on land ought 20 be per
mitted TO procure them from neutral.
= while a belligerent with an abundanc
Of war stores or with the power to pro
duce them should be debaued froT