Arizona republican., 1915-08-14
Munitions of War and Neutrality

Among questions which will be brought up the session will probably be that O sale of munitions of to belgerents Many members of within the last six months in interviews and public addresses have de- olared their belief that the sale by citizens of the United and ammuni- tion the fighting nations of Europe is morally if not legally wrong. pretty well established that the permission of it by neutral gov ernment is not a violation of neutrality. That has been admitted by Baron von Jagow the German foreign minister. Professor Kuno Francke, Geg man of the Germans. in a letter in the current -Fatherand" whose policy he endorses in all spects save one, T cannot but believe that our government dhe United States) has not been in a position where could interfere with the manu 1acture shipment of arms
 Bryan while secretary of state took the view that should prevent tEe sale of muni- tions of the allies for the reason that Ger many could buy none of us, would be engaging in a violation neutrality. That view relter- ated other day by the state department in its reply to Austrian of protest. In this cpn- ion a privilege is confounded with international obligation. may allow private citizens to sell arms ammunition belligerents, but we are not bound by international rules to do
 It would have been better, think. for our government attempt to make our case too strong. put ourselves unnecessarily in the wrong by insisting that without voton in this matter. Moreover. the world has forgotten the lifting of the embargo the shipment of arms across the Mexican border and the reason given by President Wilson for lifting it. It was unnecessary for him give any and he put forward most unhappy one: he said the Huertistas were receiving arms and ammunition from European countries by the revolutionists, not then hav ing access to sea, unable to procure means of warfare. Thus were to violate neutrality by denying arms ammunition to the allies be- cause we could sell to the Germans. we must have been guilty of a violation of neutrality when we supplied the with to put them on even terms with the Huertstas.
 Our mistakes were made in both cases not by the stand we in either in the matter of the sale and shipment and ammunition, but in giving other for stand, than the priv iege we enjoyed under international rules Our unnecessary defense of stand has involved us in web of inconsistency.
 Undoubtedly we would be better off If we had elected not to avail of the privilege of selling arms belligerents in either case The country at large has derived, and can derive no benefit On the contrary the activity Tn the manufacture and ammunition has taken piace at the expense of useful industry and large sums of money which needed for development have been withdrawn increase the facilities for turning out death dealing material We have con- tributed in a great to the prolonSing Of both conflicts. While the business of this country has not been seriously, disturbed by the Mexican revolution, we are aware that long as the European war conditions in this country must remain unsettled; that there can be neither com rnercial nor industrial development
 In all probability congress- will attempt to pre- vent by law the further exercise by citizens Of this country of the privilege manufacturing and sell ing arms and ammunition to nations at war