The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-09-06
THE MAYOR AND THE PRO-
FESSOR.
Major Bigelow's Last Word-we
Can't Let the Discussion Continue.

Can't Let the Discussion Continue.
To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN-Sir: In
his last letter Professor Garfield says
"He asks whether l insinuate that our
Government would go back on a con-
tract" / have made no such inquiry
with reference to our Government.
l instanced as an injury suffered from
the war "the decrease of our
(exports n imports)." Professor Can
field picks me up on this, saying that
there has been a very substantial in
crease In the of 5000, 000. O0O.'
In explanation OF my error. so far as
l am In error. / quote from the New
York Times OF July IL:
The total foreign trade tof the United
statesl in the eleven months of the year
isl4-ioi5 was only s32,i2s, 900 greater
tless than 1 per cent. g~reaterl than that
for the corresponding eleven months OF
lel2-l9l3. The Dormal tendency of our
foreign trade Il to expand. Without the
war, with such a crop as this country
raised last year, and especially as Bu-
ropes production of wheat was subnor-
NAL. the Increase Of foreign trade TEX
ports and imports tosetherl over that OF
lsl2-l9l3 might have been and ought to
have been 6 or 8 per cent. Therefore In
spite OF the high excess of exports, the
total OF our foreign trade on account OF
the war actually has been reduced.
The United States has suffered a greater
loss on account Of the war than any other
neutral nation.
In his letter OF August 10 Pro-
lessor Garfield said another rule OF
international law, approved at the Hague
conference OF 1907, forbids our now
reversing this policy and rule of action
adopted by us at the beginning of the
7 sa.r n. 49,. 800 -. .lt. ..i. .,
the letter OF our Secretary OF State "ln
reply to Austria's impudent demand for
an embargo In this letter Of Secre-
tary Lansing's / find the following para
graph quoted from the preamble OF the
Hague convention, No. 10. OF 1907:
Seeing that in this category OF ideas
these rules should not, in principle, be
altered In the course of the war. except
In a case where experience has shown tho
necessity for such changes for the pro-
tectbon OF the rights OF that power.
This then is the rule Of international
law to which Professor Garfield refers.
| leave Il TO the reader whether i
s~ustains Professor Canfeld's contention
or mine, which may be stated as fol-
lows that a neutral power has a right
TO reverse its policy and rule of action
adopted at the beginning of a war. II
~ ~ ahh' tf' N"' hNs'thAN A'A
such change for the protection Of its
rights as a trader with belligerent and
with neutral countries, and for is re-
lief from evils more grievous than were
ever brought upon a nation by a war
In which It was not engaged.
Professor Garfield goes out OF his way
to make the erroneous remark that the
Secretary OF States letter covers the
whole question OF right with which
Major Bigelow is troubled" That able
State paper was devoted to refuting a
claim that the conditions developed in
the present war require that the United
States go beyond the recognized rules
governing traffic In arms and ammuni
ton. ITO maintain an attitude OF strict
parity with respect to both belligerent
parties" The letter discussed a ques-
ton OF obligation. What Professor Can
field refers TO as troubling me is a
question OF right. In the Secretary's
letter the question OF right was not
discussed. but was incidentally answered
Referring to the paragraph OF the Ha que
convention, the Secretary says:
Manifestly the only grounds to change
the rules laid down by the convention
. is the necessity OF a neutral power
to do so in order to protect It's own rights.
The right and duty TO determine when
this necessity exists rests witt the neu-
I Nj NV II a "a "
%nuetral power does not avail Itself of the
right. a bci.!gerent Is not privileged To
complain. for In doing so Il would be In
the position of declaring to the neutral
power what is necessary to protect that
powers own rights.
To my mind there could hardly be 4
palmer recogu ,tion OF the right for which
| contend and which Professor Garfield
denies.
1t is true that in the last paragraph OF
his letter the Secretary says: The
principle OF international law. the prac-
tice OF nations and finally
neutrality Itself are opposed to the pro-
hibition by a neutral nation OF the ex-
5 pOrtat!on OF arms, ammunition or other
munitions OF war 10 belligerent powers
3 during the progress of the war But
this general conclusion must be read in
the light OF what precedes IL. and annot
l be reasonably construed as contradict
ing the assertions ! AVE quoted.
4 II these considt rations are not con-
vincing, ] say, as | have already Inn
= piled, that the prohibition for which
: Professor Garfield stand was not a
e rule of international law prior to the
Hague conference OF 1907, and therefore
could not have been approved" by Il
as Professor Garfield says It was. In
the letter from which ! have quoted our
secretary OF STATE reIcrS 10 the alOre-
mentioned provision not as a rule OF
= international law but as a paragraph
!; In the preamble OF the Hague conven-
, ton. Whistler this convention made II
International law or not Is immatcrial.
as 1t Is not valid for the present war,
! In It's twenty-eighth article IL says
> THE provisions of the present conven-
ton do not apply excep; TO the CON
. tracing powers. and then only II all tho
!, belligerents are parties TO the conven-
ton" Two OF the belligerents In this
war. Serbia and Montenegro, are moi
. parties to the convention.
: L my instance Professor Garfield
refers me to the official assurances OF
our Government. which he represents as
underlying vast contracts entered into
for the manufacture and sale of wal
: supplies. l fud these assurances to be
such as are understood. If not expressed
in every statute, ordinance or similar
= enactment, namely, that the conditions
which Il creates shall obtain as IONS
q, as the particular enactment remains IL
- force, There Is not a sentence, not 4
word or syllable in one of them thai
y should hinder our Government In revok.
D ing the document in which II appears
v and reversing every provision that is an,
nounced in II.
| note with satisfaction that profcs,
, sor Garfield has come around, in his
perorating, to american ideals" II he
had started with this topic he would
have had no occasion to resent nv ref.