Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-08-16

established practice of the two empires
in the matter of trade in war sup
plies.
Markets Open to All.
In view of the foregoing statements.
this government is reluctant to be-
lieve that the imperial and royal gov
eminent will ascribe to the United
States a lack OF impartial neutrality
in continuing its legitimate trade II:
all kinds of supplies used to render
the armed forces of a belligerent EN-
cient, even though the circumstances
of the present war prevent Austria
Hungary from obtaining such sur
plies from the markets of the United
States, which have been and remain.
so far as the action and policy of this
government are concerned, open TO al
belligerents alike.
But. in addition to the question of
principle, there is a practical ana
substantial reason why the govern
ment of the United States has from
the foundation of the republic to the
present time advocated and practiced
unrestricted trade in arms and mill
tary supplies. 1t has never been the
policy of this country to maintain in
time OF peace a large military estaD-
lishment or stores of arms and ammu-
milton sufficient to repel invasion by
well equipped and powerful enemy.
1t has desired to remain at peace with
all nations and to avoid any appear
ance of menacing such peace by the
threat of its armies and navies.
United States Must Buy Abroad.
In consequence OF this standing pol
icy the United States would, in the
event of an attack by forei.n power.
be at the outset of the war seriously.
If not fatally, embarrassed by the lack
of arms and ammunition and by the
means to produce them in sufficient
quantities to supply the requirements
or national defense. The United
states has always depended upon the
right and power to purchase arms and
ammunition from neutral nations in
case Of foreign attack. This right,
which it claims for itself, it cannot
deny to others
y nation whose principle and policy
1t is to rely upon international obli-
cations and international justice to
preserve it's political and territorial in
tegrlty might become the prey of an
aggressive nation whose policy and
practice IT is to increase it's military
strength during times of peace with
the design of conquest, unless the ma
tion attacked can. after war had been
declared. go into the markets of the
world and purchase the means to de-
fend itself against the aggressor.
The general adoption by the nations
Il
powers ought to prohibit the sale of
arms and ammunition to belligerents
would compel every nation to have in
readiness at all times sufficient NUM-
tons of war to meet any emergency
which might arise and to erect and
maintain establishments for the manu-
facture of arms and ammunition suffi-
cient to supply the needs of it's military
and naval forces throughout the prog
rcSS of a war. Manifestly the applica-
theory in,
every nation becoming an armed camp,
ready to resist aggression and tempted
to employ force in asserting it's rights
rather than appeal to reason and jus
tice for the settlement of international
disputes.
Objects to Aggression.
Perceiving. as it does that the adoption
Of the principle that it is the duty Of a
neutral to prohibit the sale of arms and
ammunition to a belligerent during the
progress CT war would inevitably give
tie advantage to the belligerent which
had encouraged the manufacture of
munitions in time OF peace, and which
had Laid in vast stores OF arms and am
munition in anticipation of war, the gov
eminent of the United States is convinced
that the adoption of the theory would
force militarism Oh the world and work
against that universal peace which is the
desire and purpose of all nations which
exalt justice and righteousness in their
relations with one another.
The government of the United States
in the foregoing discussion of the prac-
teal reason why it has advocated and
practiced trade in munitions of war
wishes to be understood as speaking with
no thought of expressing or implying
any judgment with regard to the circum-
stances Of the present war, but merely
putting very frankly the argument in this
matter. which has been conclusive in de-
termining the policy of the United States
Questions Assertions.
While the practice of nations, SO well
illustrated by the practice of Austria
Hungary and Germany during the
South African war, and the manifest
evil which would result from change
of that practice render compliance with
the suggestions of the imperial and
ROYAL government out of the question,
certain assertions appearing in the
Austro- Hungarian statement as
grounds for it's contenetlons cannot be
pa ssed over without comment. These
assertions are substantially as follows:
"a That the expectation of arms and
Ape