Bryan daily eagle and pilot. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1909-1918, 1915-09-30
SELLING DEATH.

A great deal has been said and
written on the question Of the United
states shipping arms and ammunition
70 the allies. and a wide diversity
of opinion has arisen on the subject.
Beyond question. there are two sides
TO the problem and strong arguments
have been introduced by the friends
on the opposing sides. In order that
he readers Of The Eagle may have
the very crux OF the matter. the clear.
est and most pointed arguments on
both sides Of the question. we quote
below the conclusion Of the whole
matter In an editorial from the indie
pendent:
two remarkable arguments have
Just been issued. They deal with per.
haps the greatest moral question now
before the American upeople-the ex.
portation OF arms to the allies.
The one Is a protest against such
expectation. II appears in late Is
sue Of the Baptist Standard and is
signed by the Rev. Charles +. Aked
and Prof. Walter Rauschenbusch. two
Of the most eminent Of living Ameri-
can clergymen. one formerly q British
subject. the other Of German descent.
The other Is our governments of.
ncial rejolnder to the recent Austrc-
Hungary note. II Ia signed by Secre-
tary Of State Lansing and Is under.
stood to have been written by him
and not by the President.
Both the official note and the pri-
vate protest are examples OF the high.
est type OF dialectics. They state the
case with admirable clearness. yet
they come TO Numerically opposite
conclusions.
The argument that the expectation
OF munitions TO the allies should be
stopped may be reduced to the fol
lowing propositions:
Il. Il makes our country a work
shop Of death.
"2. II Is for profits. not patriotism
%. II compromises us in the eyes
Of humanity.
-. II makes us an ally Of the
allies.
"5. II fosters an industry who's,
interest will be TO extend militarisn
in the United States.
g. II theoretically enables small
State to buy arms when attacked. bur
practically this right Is OF little value
~ the small State is likely to be com
pletey invested by Its greater an,
more warlike antagonist.
The official justification Of tn,
Secretary Of State OF the expectation
Of arms can be epitomized as follows
Il. II IL an accepted rule Of inter
national law. which no Nation shoul,
break.
%. II IL and has been the univei
cal practice Of Nations-G Germany an
Austria included.
%. II Is unneutral IN that II woul
deprive England Of her superiority o.
sec and not Germany Of her superior
~ OH land.
-. II enables the United States I
keep a small military establishment
In time OF peace.
"5. II enables all Nations 10 z
without storing up vast reservoirs G
military supplies.
g. II thus tends TO the peacef,
method Of settling international dii
putes.
This Is the issue. Which are RICH
the preachers or the statesman. Fo
our part We believe each one OF IN
six points made by either side Is we
taken. Then 1t comes to a questio
OF which Is the most right.
Or. Aked and Prof. Rauschenbusc
are unassailabIe when they argue tn.
the selling Of the implements OF deaf
makes Us . party to homicide. Seer
fary Lansing Is equally unassailabl
when he argues that the policy q
expectation Of arms is as good int,
national morality as II Is good inter
national law, for it's prohibition woul,
inevitably result in every Nation be
coming an armed camp. ready to re
sisf aggression and tempted to EN-
p'oy force In asserting ifs rights
rather than appeal to reason and fms.
lice IN the settlement Of information.
81 dIsputes."
II nay b. n the distant future
Nm that most finished snd nosf
AFeaeeial Production q political n