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

of international treaties" but is sur
prised to find the imperial and royal
government implying that the obserV-
ance of the strict principles OF the law
under the conditions which have De
veloped in the present war is insufii-
cient, and asserting that this govern
ment should go beyond the long recos-
nized rules governing such tranc py
tain an attitude of strict parity with
respect to both belligerent parties.
Declines to Accede.
To this assertion of an obligation to
change or modify the rules of the in
ternational usage on account of spe-
cial conditions the government of the
United States cannot accede. The rec
ognition of an obligation of this sort,
unknown to the international practice
of the past, would impose upon every
neutral nation a duty to So IN )uog-
ment on the progress of war ana 10
restrict it's commercial intercourse with
a belligerent whose naval successes
prevented the neutral from trade with
the enemy. The contention of the i'm
perial and royal government appears
to be that the advantages gained to a
belligerent by it's superiority on the
sea should be equalized by the neutral
powers by the establishment Of IA sys-
tenn of non-intercourse with the victor.
The imperial and royal government
confines its comments to arms and am
munition, but if the principle for
which it contends is sound it should
apply with equal force to all articles
of contraband. belligerent controll-
ing the high seas might possess an
ample supply of arms aid ammunition,
but be in want of food and clothing.
On the novel principle that equal'za-
ton is a neutral duty. neutral nations
would be obligated to place an embar-
go on such articles because one Of the
belligerents could not obtain them
through commercial intercourse.
Theory of Equalization.
But if this principle, so strongly
urged by the imperial and royal gov
eminent, should be admitted to obtain
by reason of the superiority of bel
ligerent at sea. ought it not to operate
equally as to belligerent superior on
land? Applying this theory of equali-
cation. belligerent who lacks the
necessary munitions to contend sue
cessfully on land ought to be permit
ted to purchase them from neutrals,
while Il belligerent with an abundance
of war stores, or with the power to
produce them, should be debarred from
such traffic
Manifestly. the idea of strict neu-
trality now advanced by the imperial
anu royal government WOulu Involve d
neutral nation in a mass of perpleXities
which would obscure the whole field of
international obligation, produce eco
nomic confusion and deprive all
commerce and industry of legitimate
fields of enterprise, already heavily
burdened by the unavoda Bile restric-
tions of war.
Cites Germanic Sales.
In this connection it is pertinent to
direct the attention of the imperial
and royal government to the fact that
Austria Hungary and Germany, par
ticularly the latter, have during the
years preceding the present European
war produced a great surplus of arms
and ammunition, which they sold
throughout the world, and especially
20 belligerents. Never during that
period did either of them suggest or
apply the principle now advocated by
the imperial and royal government.
During the Boer war between Great
Britain and the South African republics
the patrol of the coasts OF nefg n boring
neutral colonies by British naval YES
sells prevented arms and ammunitions
reaching the Transvaal or the Orange
Free State. The allied republics Were
in situation almost Identical in that
respect with that in which Austria
Hungary and Germany find themselves
the commercial isolation of one bel
ligerent, Germany sold to Great Brit
ain, the other belligerent, hundreds of
thousands of kiloS OF explosives, gun
powder, cartridges, shot and weapons;
and it is known that Austria Hungary
also sold similar munitions to the same
purchaser, though in smaller guam