The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1915-08-19

republics, the patrol of the coasts of
neighboring neutral colonies by Brit
ish naval vessels prevented arms and
ammunition from reaching the Trans
vaal or the Orange Free State. The
allied republics were in a situation
almost identical in that respect with
that in which Austria-Hungary and
Germany find themselves at the pres
ent time. Yet, in spite of the COM
merclal isolation Of one belligerent,
Germany sold to Great Britain and
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 small guam
titles.
while, as compared with the pres
ent war, the quantities sold were
small, the principle Of neutrality in
volved was the same. If at that time
Austria-Hungary and her present ally
had refused to sell arms and ammuni-
tion to Great Britain on the ground
that to do so would violate the spirit
of strict neutrality, the Imperial and
Royal Government might with great
er consistency and greater force urge
its present contentionsgs
"It might be further pointed out
that during the Crimean war large
quantities of arms and military stores
were furnished to Russia by Prussian
manufacturers; that during the re-
cent war between Turkey and Italy,
as this Government is advised, arms
and ammunition were furnished to the
Ottoman Government by Germany;
and that during the Balkan wars the
belligerents were supplied with mu-
nitions by both Austria-Hungary and
Germany.
"While these latter cases are not
analogous, as in the case of the South
African war, to the situation of Aus
tria-Hungary and Germany in the
present war, they nevertheless clear.
ly indicate the long-established prac-
tice of the two empires in the matter
VI LIdu6 III war supplies.
"In view of the foregoing state
ments, this Government is reluctant
to believe that the Imperial and Royal
Government will ascribe to the United
States lack of impartial neutrality
in continuing it's legitimate trade in
all kinds of supplies used to render
the armed forces of a belligerent eff
cient, even though the circumstances
of the present war prevent Austria
Hungary from obtaining such supplies
from the markets of the United States,
which have been and remain, so far
as the action and policy of this Gov
ernment are concerned, open to all
belligerents alike.
"But, in addition to the question of
principle, there is a practical and sub
stantial reason why the Government
of the United States has, from the
foundation of the republic to the pres
ent time, advocated and practiced un-
restricted trade in arms and military
supplies. 1t has never been the pol
icy of this country to maintain in
time in peace large military estab-
lishment or stores of arms and am
munition sufficient to repel invasion
by weil-equipped and powerful en-
emy. 1t has desired to remain at
peace with all nations and to avoid
any appearance of menacing such
peace by the threat of its armies and
navy. In consequence of this stand
ing policy the United States would,
in the event of attack by foreign
power, be at the outset of the war Sc
riously, if not fatally, embarrassed by
the lack of arms and ammunition and
by the lack of means to produce them
in sufficient quantities to supply the
requirements of national defense.
The United States has always depend
ed upon the right and power to pur-
chase arms and ammunition from neu-
tral nations in case of foreign attack.
This right, which it claims for ITSELF
it can not deny to others.
"A nation whose principle and pol
, icy is to rely upon international mar
kets and international Justice to pre-
serve it's political and territorial in
tegrity might become the prey of an
aggressive nation whose policy and
| practice it is to increase it's military
strength during times of peace with
the design of conquest, unless the ma
tion attacked can after war had been
declared, go into the markets of the
world and purchase the means to de-
fend itself against the aggressor
"The general adoption by the ma
tions of the world of the theory that
neutral powers ought to prohibit the
sale of arms and ammunition to bel.
ligerents would compel every nation
to have in readiness at all times suf-
f1cient munitions of war to meet any
emergency which might arise and to
erect and maintain establishments for
the manufacture of arms and ammu-
milton sufficient to supply the needs
of its military and naval forces
throughout the progress of war.
"Manifestly the application of this
theory would result in every nation
becoming an armed camp, ready to re-
sist aggression and tempted to employ
forces in asserting its rights rather
than appeal to reason and justice for
the settlement of International dis
putes.
Proving, as it does, that the adop-
tion of the principle that it is the duty
of neutral to prohibit the sale of
arms and ammunition to belligerent
during the progress of war would in
evitably give advantage to the bellig-
ernt which had encouraged the manu-
facture of munitions and which had
laid in vast stores of arms and ammu-
milton in anticipation of war, the Gov
ernment of the United States is con-
vinced that the adoption of the theory
would force militarism on the world
and work against that universal peace
which is the desire and purpose of all