New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-02-24
FALSE NEUTRALITY
We Cannot Now Alter Armament
Rules for Merchantmen.


Sir: The march Of events has led us on
10 the parting Of the ways and 1t pehooFe'
us 10 be careful which we choose, because
the same onward march will bring VA TO the
day when the ambitions, the passions the
influences, the hopes and fears OF THIS pres
ent time will have become things OF tne
past. Then history calmly, coldly and I'M
partially will record what has been done anu
will award praise or blame.
At the outbreak Of this war. which has
made nearly the whole Of a continent a bat
flo field. we stood neutral With the right
and obligations Of the individual citizens OF
a neutral country this letter has no con-
Germ How many of US accept the summar
announced by high authority in August, 1914
and recently reiterated do not know; GER
tainly many Of us dissent II is with the
states action touching its rights and obiiga-
tions that history will be concerned-for a
neutral has obligations as well as rights.
At the outbreak of the war international
law universally accorded TO n neutral state
the right to allow its citizens to sell contra
band Of war to any beligerent who wished
to buy. 1t was under no obligation so TO DO
If, persuaded by the arguments of those VINO
think it wrong TO place weapons in the hands
Of men who will use them TO kill other men,
we had forbidden our citizens to sell arms
and munitions TO any belligerent, we would
have done what we had a right to do an
have still been neutral, because our action
would affect all equally. Such action would
as it seems to many OF us, have been UNI
wise because the time might come when We
would find ourselves in need Of buying from
others and in some bitter hour would realize
the application of the text: with what
measure ye metc, il shall be measured to you
again" However. We took no such action
then and for eighteen months have allowed
our citizens to do what international law says
they may do, without cons,rainng them b.
any statute.
At the outbreak Of the war it had been
for generations a rule Of international law
that the CARRYING OF armament for defence
did not change the status of merchant shir
We might then have declared that we would
no longer accept that rule. Whatever crit
cism might have resulted, we could not fairly
be called unneutral. because no one could
then know what would be the fortune OF
war upon the ocean and our action. at that
time. would have affected all other nations
equally But We took no such action; on the
contrary We prescribed in detail how much
defensive armament a vessel might carry AM
still be considered by us merchantmen
Now il is proposed that We change our
policy. that VIC abrogate our prescribed regu-
lations and, in so doing, undertake, as far as
we can. 10 modify the rules of international
law. The time is badly chosen; eighteen
months Of war has produced a situation
where il is obvious that the changes VIC CON
template making will help one group Of bel
ligeronts and harm the other. In the de
liverances Of our Department OF state We find
clear statement Of the proposition that
changes Of this sort made by neutral while
a war is in progress arc unncutral acts; quite
naturally. because action which helps one
side To tho detriment Of the other is incon-
sistcnt with the obligation TO avoid taking
The side OF either party to the controversy.
II behooves those who contemplate placing
this country in the position where the pro-
posed changes will place il. carefully TO con-
slider the consequences. Not merely the inn
mediate results protests, determinations, biz
terness. arrangements but the ultimate
judgment which history will pronounce. l.
is an accepted principle. not only of law but
Of the every day conduct OF life, that an in
dividual is presumed to intend the conse-
quences which naturally result from any act
of his; especially if he acts, not in the heat
Of passion, but after deliberate consideration.
What then will be the conclusion when the
pages Of impartial history come to be writ
ten? Will there be any doubt which side
was helped by the change? Will there be
any doubt that it obvious when the
change was made what result would follow
Will there be any doubt that those who made
the change intended the result? Surely there
can be but one answer to these questions.
There may be different theories as TO what
inspired the intent. We hear much in these
days about the claims of humanity; but those
claims were just as strong when the war
broke out and the disputants stood ready to
test the measure of their strength as they
are to-day, when varying fortunes have gone
far to determine that measure. IL seems
hardly reasonable to suppose that history will
accept consuming zeal for the cause o.
humanity as the sole handspring Of our ac-
tions. II will seek for other motives. II may
find them in some strong sympathy by our
rulers with the cause Of the side they de-
cided to help; it may suggest. perhaps &C
cept some more sordid motive as the ex-
PLANTATION OF their conduct But tha. il will
hold that the conduct was deliberately chosen
10 accomplish the result which necessarily
followed seems inevitable; and upon that
finding the conduct OF the great neutral
nation" will be judged f. II. l..
New York Feb l3 1916