The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-07-19
NO EMBARGOl
II Is q Measure Of War and Would Be
an Unneutral Proceeding.

or the nature and objects or an EN-
barge as we'll as OF the relevant powers
Of our Government.
An embargo psrtakes of the nature
Of a war measure. 1t is directed against
nations with which We have disagree
ments that may not have matured into
active hostilities. Embargoes OF all
varieties. whether against the exit OF
our own shipping or the movement or
foreign shipping In and out OF our ports
or AGAINST the expectation OF arms or
against all intercourse with nations TO
which we are inimical, are employed as
mere preliminary methods for bringing
about the adjustment Of international
controversies without resort to arms or
after such resort has transpired. Per
haps the most striking Illustration or
this categor Of public acts are pacific
blockades, a middle course between d.
pfomacy and war. whereby troubled
relations between nations may be forced
to pacincation. The mere statement OF
those familiar illustrations shows that
an embargo cannot have any relevancy
TO our present pacific position In face
Of the European war. II our contro-
versies with any OF the combatants
should develop TO a frictional point we
could invoke these sub-belllgeren rene
dies to force redress for our complaints.
For the information of those MIS-
guided persons VINO are DelHS leu " abi-
tate for this moral and legal anomaly
a few references to our historical posi-
ton concerning embargoes should sut-
fee. The wars growing out Of the
French Revolution were the first occa-
sion Of the exercise OF this governmental
power. In 1874 we Instituted an en-
barge against with England
by way of reprisal for the injury In
ficted on us by the British orders In
s.A,,.-i rsl.N AalHt resolution nf IFnn-
gress authorizing the President to lay
this embargo stated that the power
should become operative when the
Executive deemed that the public
safety should require" In the same
year non-intercourse with France was
prescribed. the enactment likewise
roviding for "a substantial increase OF
he army. In the case of the sally, our
embargo was defined to Ice "a purely
municipal measure instituted for our
own benefit, to repel the lncursions on
our national freedom. In the case of
La Vengeance our prohibition or eN-
ports OF munitions was stated To be
solely for the protection of the United
States, to keep the munitions at ZONE
as We expected to need them II the
~trespasses Of the European belligerents
continued. John Adams said that I'VE
laid embargoes only when war Is
~ 'AAFiF - 49, 49,
that Its propriety was manifest as a
prelude to war In 1872 senator
, Grundy said: Embargo is a war
measure and was meant to lead to
war" III embargo of that year was
related to our war with England. Its
unequal operation on the couutry's in
dustry produced a strong sentiment tn
New England favorable to disruptiug
he Union. From that time emhnrrocs
nave not been popular. The injury to
our border territories occasiored by the
civil war IN Mexico - the sole Opdefn
Instance Of resort to this retaliatory or
protective measure.
Without multiplying citations II Is
| plain that the foundation for embargoes
consists In foreign governmental action
adverse to this nation. BY strange per-
version the present agitation invJkes the
personal and lawful acts of our own
citizens as the predicate for an impress
sive policy from Washington. II must
therefore he apparent To the most
myopic vision that We are invited to
arrest our m for the benefit Of
some belligerent. The inability of Ger
many To receive shipments by reason Of
the blockade Of her ports presents the
physical disadvantage of a bcilIgcrent
which neither international nor munich
pal law nor any kind OF mutual morals
can relieve. Even Bynkershoek says
that reprisals cannot he made In favor
Of foreigners" and emhargocs are essen
TALLY reprsals. as shown by the Amcri-
can record. ON the other hand, II re-
prisals are TO he brought into operation,
Il non-intercourse embargo against Ger
many might be appropriate IL the re-
Spouse In the Lusitania case should he
unsatisfactory. Per oOntra, what hostile
acts have the Allies committed IN re-
spect To these shipments which would
Justify our counter hostilities? They
have merely bought what We were will
Ing to sell.
Moreover the embargo agitation is
confronted by an insuperahle legal difi-
Guilty. The Federal Constitution does
not confer specific powers on Congress to
lay emhargoes. II IS only as an incident
OF tho war power that Congress acts in
the premises. as shown by the utterances
of our courts and statesmen. The reln-
ton OF this semi-war power TO the ship
mcnt of munitions by our nationals
has a special significance. The right
OF our people to conduct with
helligerents is an individual right. II
= as much a right of m as any
commercial right IN time Of profound
peace. That certain incidents attarh to
II. that belligerents have the right to
capture II they can, does not affect the
essential status of our manufacturers
ana merchants engaged In this trade.
Normally speaking, the Government has
nothing To do with it. In the single in
cident of protecting our rights as "A ma
ton AGAINST the advcrsion Of foreign
Governments, this international business
may be suspended or embargoed, as A
quasi-military measure. incidental 20
substantive difficulties with other coun-
tries. But in the absence of preludlng
hostilities and as a purely independent
measure In arrest Of foreign trade inn
pairing private rights and taking pr
vaie property, the Constitution does not
furnish Congress with any warrant for
the creation Of e~n,bargoes, The es,ah-
lishment of such Il Fictitious embargo
would in effect he restrained by tho
courts; every official seeking to impound
the articles Of such would he
liable as a trespasser.
The qualified embargo suggested by
the note just received from Germany
would constitute an unneutral act to-
ward the Allies and an unwarrant ii in
jury to our commerce. as should anrear
from the FOREGOING statement.
EDWARD |. ANDREWS.
New YORK, July II.