The Detroit times., 1915-08-16

| hss dssirea to remain at peace with
| ali nations and TO avoid any appear
ance of mepacins such peace by me
conscauence OF this standing policy
| the Omitted states would. In the
event OF attack by a foreign power,
be at the outset OF the war serious
is s OF 9U arms and Ammunition and by
the means to produce them ia SUI
ncient quantities 20 supply the re-
| QuireYsnte OF the national defense
The United States has always depend
ed upon the right and power To pur-
chase arms and ammunition from
neutral nations In case OF foreign ats
L tack. The risht which u claims Tor
"A nation whose principle and
Obligations and International Justice
to- preeerye Its political and tsrr'tor-
jsct OF an aggressive nation whose
policy and practice IL 10 TO increase
its military strength during times OF
peace with the design Of conquest.
err war has been declared. go into
the markets Of the WORLD and pur.
chase the means 10 defend itself
against the agEressor.
The general adoption by the ma.
lions OF the world OF the theory that
neutral powers ought TO prohibit the
sale Of arms and ammunition 20 bell
liGereuts would compel nation TO
have In readiness at all times sur
emergency which might arise and TO
erect and maintsin an establlshment
for the manufacture OF arms and am
munition saffcien, to supply the
forces throughout the progress OF
war Nanifestiy the application of
this theory would result In every ma
tion becoming AN armed camp ready
lAe AT nj m nj ~ n
employ force In asserting its rights
rather than appeal to reason and Jus
tics for the settlement of interna-
tional disputes.
adoption OF tho principle that II 10
the duty OF neutral 10 prohibit the
sale Of arms and ammunition to .
belligerent during the progress OF a
vantage to the beliigerent which en-
couraNed the manufacture of munt-
tions In time OF peace and which hsd
laid In vast stores OF arms and am
munition in anticipation OF war the
government of. the United states Is
convinced that the adoption Of The
theory would force milttarism In the
world and work against that univer-
sal peace which is the desire and
purpose OF all nations which eNait
justice and right progress IN their
relations with one another.
The government OF the United
States in the foregoing does not Of
fer q reason why II has advocated
and practiced trade in munitions OF
war. wishes 10 be understood as
speaking with no thought OF ex.
pressing or implying any Judgment
with regard 10 the circumstances OF
the present war but as merely put
ting frankly the argument In this
matter which has been conclusive in
determining the policy Of the United |
while the practice OF nations. so
well illustrated BY the practice. OF
in. the South African war and
the manifest evil which would result |
from q change Of the practice render /
compliance with the suggestion OF
the imperial and royal government
out of the question, certain assertions I
appearing In the Austro- Hungarian
statement rs for its contentious can
not be passed without comment |
These assertions are substantially as
"a That the expectation of arms
and ammunition from the United |
States to beliigerents eontravenes
ton humber Is of 1901.
CD That IL IL consistent with the |
refusal OF this government TO allow /
delivery Of supplies to vessels of war |
on the high seas.
90 That according TO all authori- |
ties on international law who con-
Germ themselves more properly with
the question. expectation should be
prevented when this traffic assumes
the neutrality Of nation becomes
involved thereby.
"As to the assertion that the ex-
portation OF arms and ammunition
assrs eossen the o Of 1891 ths
government presumes that reference
In made to the last paragraph Of the
preamble. which II as follows;
II
ideas. these rules should not In prin-
cfple be altered. In the course Of the
war by . neutral power. except In
case where experience has shown the
protection of rights of that power"
Manifestly the only ground 10
change the rules laid down by the
convention. one OF which. IL should
neutral Is not bound to prohibit the
expectation OF contraband OF war. is
the necessity Of a neutral power TO
do 30 In order TO protect it's own
termine when this necessity exists
rests with the neutral. not with
belligerent II Is discretionary, not
mandatory. II a neutral power does
iiserent is not privileged TO com
plain. for in doing so ~ would be IN
the position Of declaring TO the neu-
trail power what Is necessary TO FRO
imperial and royal government can
not but perceive that complaint of
this nature would invite just rebuke.
with reference TO the asserted in
consistency Of the course adopted by
this government in relation 10 the
expectation OF arms and ammunition.
and that followed In not allowing
supplies TO be taken from its ports
TO ships OF war on the high seas, IL
is only necessary 10 point out that
the prohibition of supplies TO ships of
war rests upon the principle that a
shores to become naval base for
either belligerent A warship may
under certain restrictions obtain fuel
and supplies In neutral port once
vessels acting as tenders 10 carry
| supplies more often than three
months and in unlimited amount
| would defeat the purpose Of the rule
and might constitute the neutral ter
ritory naval base. Furthermore.
Austro- Hungarian ship OF war has
sought 20 obtain supplies from a port
| In the United States either directly
or indirectly. This subject has. how
imperial German government. to
which the position 90 this govern
ment was fully set forth Dec. "a, 1914
I'm view OF the positive assertion
In the statement Of the imperial md
royal government as 10 the unanim-
portation OF contraband being un-
neutral, this government has caused
q careful examination OF the prirci-
pal authorities on international laws
animation Il has come TO the cor.
clusion that the imperial and royal
government has been misled and has
Inadvertently made an erroneous as