TaÌˆgliche Omaha tribuÌˆne. [volume] (Omaha, Nebr.) 1912-1926, 1916-02-15

dias. a Neutral State is one that alb
stains from all assistance or inter
/ ference betWeen the belligerents Ii
a war. Among the international laws
on Neutrality, all authorities, alse
the highly esteemed Kent's Com
m~entaries, give the following AZ tbs
most important ones: Neutral nations
must not loan money to any Of tbs
b~eliserents, na4 guarantee q loan
nOr allow the transit OF belligerenl
troops through their country. MOI
must they allow the equipping Of
a warlike expedition to any Of the
warning parties, nor permit the ex
p~ortation of ammunition and arms
II is clear that the successful carrying
out OF these laws requires the
necessary power, as was stated al
ready by Alexander Hamilton, in the
F~ederalist: The rights OF neutrality
are respected only where they are
defended by an appropriate power.
If W. apply these simple principles
ofS Neutrality to the actions Of the
Americans Ia the present war, we
cannot arrive at a different result
than that our pretended neutrality
is nothing else but a hypocriticaI
CLOAK for English favoritism.
Neutrals must not loan money,
but millions are sent to England.
Neutrals must not guarantee a loan,
- but the silent assistance Of our
National banks resembles a guarantee
In a dangerous way. Eeutrals must
equip no expeditions, but English
agents are allowed, without inter-
ference, to enlist citizens Of the
United States in their ranks, without
the loss OF citizenship. It is said
that In the city Of New York alone
twenty thousand we're enlisted
Neutrals must not furnish arms or
ammunition to the belligerents,-but
whole fleets loaded down with am
munition sail for England.
Our government tries to extricate
itself from the responsibility for all
these unneutral acts by saying: Yes,
all these things are done. but not
by the government; by private people,
and we have nothing to do with the
acts OF private men, they do not
stand under International law.
It lis we'll worth while, at this point.
to examine the bearing Of the 30
called international laws. Are they
really laws? The very life of a
law depends on the duty, the abb
solute necessity Of Its being obeyed. A
strong threatening power. the x
utive Of the state, stands behind
every law In order 10 enforce it
when and where 1t appears necessary.
Wherever this power performs its
duties, the laws Of the country are
respected and carried out. In Ger
many. the children are taught from
the first years of their lives. that
laws are made to be obeyed.' There
fore the courts and the officers are
respected In Germany; therefore
everyone moves and conducts himself
In his allotted circle without trans
gression into the rights of his neigh
Dor; therefore the superiors are held
In esteem; therefore the pupils obey
their teachers, and the young respect
the elder. Here In the United States.
where a strong executive is often
missing. or where it is corruptible
or negligent, or indifferent, the
sublimity of the laws sinks low, and
instead of being followed and
respected, they are often evaded and
despised. But still, there Is an
executive that now and then exerts
itself.
Not 80, with the so-called inter-
national laws. Here, every executive
power Ia lacking; there Is nobody
whose duty 1t Is to enforce the laws.
Strictly spoken, therefore, they are
not laws. but only agreements, mutual
and promises, which, to
follow and carry out Is left to the
sense Of justice Of every state. It
might be said that IL all nations
agree to these pacts and one should
dare violate them, the others might
this ~violator and bring 1t in
line by force Of arm. But this Is
mere theory. For before a nation
would risk such a daring step, she
would quietly look for allies, so that
the greater power would be on her
side. As, therefore, these so-called
international laws lack all enforcing
power, the submission to- them
depends entirely on the good will
and moral conscience of the leaders
Of neutral nations. The higher the
conception of the leading
statesmen is, the more sincere they
are in the recognition and observance
Of the so-called principles of human
ity, the more willing they will be to
obey these laws. II, therefore, a
government tries to hide behind q
technical excuse by unloading
the responsibility for unneutrAl actg
on private persons or enterprises,
such government lacks ethical con
and its arguments become
claptrap. Suppose there was
an authority to enforce these inter
national laws, it would certainly
reach these manufacturers OF ammuni-
ton, and these money lenders, and
stop their shameful traffic. In such
4 case, would our government inter
fere TO protect its own citizens, and
become an accomplish? 1t
Is, therefore, the moral duty Of every
neutral government to prevent all
that violates international
agreements, or it becomes an &C
complete by, its quiet consent. Private
persons may violate and disregard
these agreements between nations,
because there Is no authority 10
them except their own govern
ment. But for this reason a govern
ment Is equally guilty by emitting
this punishment Nobody to whom
humanity and charity are more than
mere words can arrivp af different