The sun., 1916-01-12
WAR MUNITIONS EMBARGO.
Why II Would Now Re an Act oi
Hostility Aesiust the ALLIES.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN--Sir: An
embargo placed upon arms and ammun,-
ton at the outbreak OF the war might
have been a good thing for this coun-
try. 1t would have been possible then
as strict neutrality measure. Now
any modification OF our laws covering
the export Of arms and other war muni-
tions would be Of such disastrous mill.
tary effect as to constitute an actual
entrance into the war.
Relying upon established international
usage. In which all the nations then
acquiesced, the Allies during the early
months Of the conflict gave to American
manufacturers contracts Tor immense
quantities Of war goods AZ the war
progressed and the magnitude OF the
war cane to be better understood moro
and more war goods were ordered from
American manufacturers With the
placing OF these huge orders the Allies
knowingly gave over their military fate
largely into our hands. In accepting
these orders We pledged our national
faith to carry out to the end contracts
that in the greater number OF Instances
extended over many months, or even
two or moro years.
II our Government had. before any
or these war contracts were placed. de-
cided upon a policy of embargo no one
would have been hurt from military
standpoint by such an act. War orders
would have been placed by the Allies
at home We would have merely
shipped the equipment necessary for
making the war munitions into their
territory and our laborers would have
migrated with our machines to work on
foreign soil.
But as II Il. the factories for making
war goods have been built here. the
machinery has been Installed here. the
laborers have been organized here. These
forces for the production of war goods
cannot be transferred now Nor can the
Allies. deprived OF these forces for pro-
ducing munitions. create them again
short OF year or 40 on their own soil.
The nature OF modern manufacturing
processes Is such that any deviation
from our present policy toward war
goods export would effectually and com
pletely deprive the Allies Of necessary
means for carrying on warfare TO such
a degree that an emoargo by us would
be an open act OF war against them.
The time is past In which we could
employ an embargo even az means
OF reprlsal IN the cass ~ offences against
American rights. no matter how fragrant
they might he. For deprivation Of the
necessities OF warfare in a manner that
necessities from other sources could not
b" construed either IN law or In COM
mon sense as anything but most
treacherous act Of hostility.
No matter how wise or juS an en-
hargo might be n II had existed from
the very outset of the struggle. the facts
Of modern manufacturing make a pres
ent or future embargo impossible unless
this nation determines to become the ally
Of Germany in the conflict.
II may be a real calamity FOR this
country that such Il the case. hut that
does not alter the fact IN the least The
realities OF our Industrial system over
weigh diplomacy and lawmakers. En-
barge az reprisal measure has long
ceased TO be possible, embargo as a
means for attaining superlative neu-
'rality Is senseless and somewhat
dangerous dream. Such situation GER
tainly never existed before. 20 be sure
But then our Industrial system never
fought with itself as II IA now fighting.
The submarine and the aeroplane are
not the only elements OF warfare I'M
provided for in our international regu-
latlons They are indeed of much less
Importance than the new relationship Of
modern industry to warfare IN the iron
grip of which the United states as a
neutral Power is held.
ARTHUR MoorE
GREENWICH, Conn. January 10.