The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-08-16
ssLegitinnate Trade in Supplies" !"

I
 government will ascribe to the United
 States a lack of impartial neutrality l in continuing it's legitimate trade in
 all kinds of supplies used to render
 the armed forces of belligerent ef- hcient, even though the circumstan-
 ces of the present war prevent Aus
 tria Hungary from obtaining such
 supplies from the markets of the
 United States. which have been and
 remain, so far as the action and pol icy of this government are concerned,
 open to all belligerents alike.
 i But in addition to the question of i principle there is practical and
 ment of the United States has from
 the foundation of the republic to the present time advocated and practised
 unrestricted trade in arms and mi1i- l tarJ supplies. It has never been the
 policy of this country to maintain in l time of peace large military estab- I 1ishn1ent or stores of arms and am intuition sufficient to repel invasion 1 by a well equipped and powerful en- jenny. It has desired to remain at
 peace with all nations and to avoid
 any appearance | of nenacings such 1 peace byy the threat of it's armies and 1 trayies In conseauence of this stand ling policy the United States would in lthe event of attack by 9 foreign Pow Ter be at the outset of the war serious l 1y, if not fatally, embarrassed by the lack of arms and ammunition and by 1.-the means to produce these insufficient quantities to supply the requirements of national defence. The United States has always depended upon the right and power to purchase arms and tammunition from neutral nations. in Tease Of foreign attack. This right which it claims for itself, it cannot deny to others.
 A nation whose principle and policy it is to rely upon international obliga- tions and international justice to pre- serve it's political and territorial ir1- tegrity might become the prey Of an aggressive nation whose policy and practice 1t is to increase it's military strengths during times of peace with the design of conquest, unless the na- ton attacked can after war had been declared go into the markets of the world andspurchases the means to de- fepd itself againstthe aggressor
 Fhe general adoption by the nations Of the world Of the theory that neutral Powers ought to prohibit the sale of arms and arnnu nj ton to elligerents woiIid compel every nation to have in readiness at all times sufficient muni- tions of war to meet any emergency which might arise and to erect and maintain establishments for the man llfacture of apF1s and ammunition suf- f1cient to supply the needs of its ni1i- tary and naval forces throughout the progress of a war. Manifestly the application of this theory would re- suit ing every nation becorning an arm i ed camp. ready to resist aggression and tempted to employ force in assert ing its rights rather than appeal to reason and justice for the settlement of tiona1t disputes.
 ..Work Against Universal Peace.''
 Perceiving.5 as it does, that the adoption of the principle that it is the l duty ofea neutral toaprohtbit the sale lof arms and anmuniti onto a sneiliger- ent9 during the progress Of a war would
 inevitably give the advantage ito the bel1igerent which had encouraged the 4nannfacture of munitions in time of lpeace and which had laid in the vast stores of arms and ammunition in an hcipation of war; the government Of l the United States is convinced that the adoption of sthe theory would force 1 nailitarisn on the world and work
 against that universal peace which is the desire and purpose Of all nations 1 which exalt justice and righteousness in their relations with ane another.
 l The goyernm ent the United States 1 in the foregoing discussion of the practical reason why it has advocated and practised trade in munitions of
 war wishes to be understood as speak ing with no thought of expressing or implying any Judgment with regard to the circumstances of the present war, but as merely putting very frank 1 ly the argument in this matter which
 has been conclusive in determining the policy of the United States.
 While the practice of nations so well illustrated by the practice of Aus
 trit-Hungary and Germany during the
 South African war. and the manifest evil which would result from 8 change l of that practice, render compliance
 with the suggestion Of the imperial
 and royal government out of the ques-
 ton, certain assertions appearing in 1 the Austro-IIungarian statement as l grounds for it's contentious cannot Joe passed over wit hout comment These
 asserti ons are substantially as follows: Fl. That the exportation of arms and
 ammunition from the United States to l belligerents eontravenes the preamble l of the Hague Convention No. 13 Of
 1907. s42a That it is inconsistent with l the refusal of this government to al 1 low delivery of supplies to vessels of
 war on the high seas. 3. That .sac- cord1ng to all authorities on interna-
 tional law who concern themselves
 more properly with the question: ex- l portation should be prevented when i this traffic assumes such a form or 1 such dimensions that the neutrality of
 nation becomes involved thereby + As to the assertion that the expor-ta- 1 ton of arms and ammunition contra I venes the preamble of the Hague Con-
 vention, No. Is Of 1907, this govern
 rr1ent presumes that reference Is made
 to the last paragraph of the preamble,
 which Is as follows: Seeing that, in 1 this category of ideas, these rules
 should not, in principle. be altered, in the course of the war, by a neutral I Power, except in case where expert
 ence has shown the necessity for such
 change for the protection of the rights 1 of that Power.''
 Not Bound to Prohibit Isxportat1on,i
 Manifestly the only ground to 1 change the rules laid down by the
 convention, one of which. it should be
 noted, explicitly declares that a neu- 1 traI is not hound tn rnrnInihit +Inn ~