New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-08-19
To the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: 1t may be more discreet not to fulmi-
nate too much about the so-called blacklist
ing by the notices of the Entente govern
ments to their respective citizens. If the
real factors of the business are noted we
would find that the whole subject rests upon
salutary rules in which our government has
heretofore been a participant.
We are all familiar with that sane provi-
sion of public law which prohibits trading
with alien enemies. In more primitive days
of international commerce this prohibition
was fulfilled by the simple prevention of
direct trading between belligerent countries.
With the developments of modern commerce
segments of the inhabitants of neutral conn
tries are sometimes absolutely united in bus
mess relations with beligerent nations. This
identity of interest converts transactions
effected with such inhabitants of a neutral
country into business beneficial to belliger-
ent nationals. In this way the profits of
business nominally transacted with New York
are sometimes largely garnered at Berlin
II IS obvious that the prevention of COM
mercial intercourse between belligerents
would be nullifed by these crcuitous ar
rangements conducted through neutral coun-
tries. Moreover, such triangular arrange
ments are peculiarly Objectionable in time of
war, as they afford facilities for communica-
tion to the enemy. 1t follows that the regu-
lation of trade must not be confined to the
territorial locations of the traders. II must
be based on the nature and results of the
trading, wherever the traders are domiciled.
Upon these conditions the Entente acts
against trading with the enemy are intended
TO operate.
Probably no previous war has called more
emphatically for this test of enemy trading.
The number of Germans resident in the
United States exceeds the foreign population
of any other country. The commercial ele-
ment is in a large proportion among these
aliens, and considerable percentage of their
trading is conducted with Germany. The his
tory of this war exhibits the complete sol-
darby between the Germans in this country
and the Germans in Europe.
In dealing with this matter the Entente
could have simply asserted their complete
control over their own subjects. They would
be quite within their rights by prohibiting
them broadly from trading through the
medium of any firms in this country with
Germanic associates. AS a matter of fact
they have dealt with this situation in a mod-
fed and practical manner They have not
promulgated a generic prohibition to their
subjects against dealings with firms having
one foot in Germany and the other in Amer
Va. They have voluntarily restricted their
play to firms in neutral countries that have
engaged in hostile activities toward the
Allies. By adopting this specific method
Great Britain has merely invoked the prin-
cipal Of unneutral service. Under this rule
OF the law Of nations, inhabitants of neu
trail country committing acts in aid OF a
belligerent violate the neutrality of their
re sidential country. identify their political
position with the assisted belligerent, and
forfeit the protection of the neutral govern
ment. There is no more solid ground upon
which the Entente nations could plant them
selves in settling the relations of their sub
jec,s with firms Of dual commercial allie
glance all over the world.
This situation will be clarified by consider
ing the bearings of unneutral conduct When
& government proclaims neutrality between
bellgerents, as the United States has done
in reference to this war, it is the duty OF
every one on it's soil to conform TO this status.
Such compliance is the condition Of Tranquil!
residence in the neutral country, at least in /
the sense of immunity from penalties. By
committing any species of hostile conduct
the trespasser contravenes the public policy
of our neutral government Such conduc-
may extend from the fitting Of a militsr3