The twice-a-week Twin Falls times. (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1916-1918, 1917-03-29


State Henry Clay said: During the
state of war between two nations the
commercial industry and pursuits of
a neutral are often materially injured.
If the neutral finds some compensa-
ton in a new species of industry,
which the necessities of the bellig-
erents stimulate or bring into activi-
ty. it cannot be deemed very unrea-
sonable that he should avail himself
of that compensation provided that he
confines himself within the line of
entire impartiality and violates no
rules of public law"
The fact that Germany made no
protest against the attitude of the
United States and only set up the in
consistent contention under consider
alton more than six months after war
began and at time when it was eX-
Incident to muddy the waters, is the
highest. tribute that could be paid to
the impartiality of the United States
And then it admitted that we were
within our formal rights.
So much for technicalities. Now mi
regard to the moral aspects of the
c. If his reply to the last Ger
man note cited, Secretary Bryan call
ed attention of the German govern
ment to the fact that the United
States was proceeding according to
the rules of international law and
that any step on its part toward the
abrogation of the law of nations was
in itself IAN unjustifiabe departure
from the principle of strict neutrali-
ty,' and it might be remarked that the
German government in its response
dropped the issue and made no denial
of the position of Secretary Bryan.
This point is perhaps misunderstood
more frequently than any other by
good people throughout the United
States Many say, IF l sell arms or
give permission to others to sell arms
to one brother to kill another I am
guilty of murder" Are you necessar-
lily? Suppose that you are a mer-
chant and that by common consent it
IS understood and avowed by all that
you are to sell arms and munitions
to both your neighbors who may later
quarrel. Suppose one of these antici-
pating possible trouble lays in a store
of ammunition and good gun, be-
cause he doubts whether he can get
/ W your SURE Ill case VI Il TOW. Cup
pose that the other neighbor. relying
on his ability to buy arms and ammu-
milton at your store fails to lay aside
a stock. Suppose those men get a.
to trouble and the fellow with the
gun and ammunition "goes after" the
other one and he comes to your store
to buy munitions wherewith to defend
himself and you refuse with the re-
suit that he is killed: what would re
the moral status of your attitude?
And that is this case.
Germany has labored under no de-
lusions in regard to what would hap
pen in case of war with England and
France under the rules of the law OF
nations as defined by the tribunal of
The Hague. She knew that these
countries would buy arms and amuni-
ton of the manufacturers in this
country. The speeches of Chancellor
Won Bulow so frequently quoted in
dictate this. The character of her pre-
parations show it. She laid aside guns
and munitions against the day when
she could not purchase them abroad
by reason of a blockade England TO
a very great extent and France to
oOAAC CAtChl hCpCiuSu vi lllC liSHl W
buy munitions here and did not pre-
pare as Germany had done. What do
German authorities say?"If the United
States had stopped the munition traf-
fic we would have had had the allies
whipped long ago. Certainly AS
we for one hundred and twenty-five
years had cOntended for the universal
application of the right to buy arms
and munitions abroad and had sue
ceeded in having the rule on which
we had always acted definitely incor-
porated into the rules of The Hague
tribunal, what would have been our
position morally had we repudiated
it to the destruction of those who de
pend on our good faith?
Congressman Tess, who is a noted
student of international law, suggests
that "the real meaning is not the
right of neutral to sell but rather
the right of a belligerent to buy.
Looking at it from this aspect it i,
, well to remember that in every wal
!, in which we have been engaged W.
. have insisted on the right to buy con
traband needed for our own preserva
: ton.
IL NAV be SAID that we always con
tended for a bad principle and shout,
t abandon it regardless of the consequen
{ ces to others. Are they who say tina
= that the principle IS bad so sure o
S their position? May they not hav
= failed to grasp the reason for the prin
r ciple for which we contended? Presi
s dent Washington and his cabinet
= termined to put into practice in thi
case international law as expounde
S by the great moral writer's on the sub
n ject; have these writer's and our state
e men proceeded on a wrong course
t The presumption is the other way.
l. There are two reasons why the RICH
: of belligerents to buy arms and NUM-
t tons abroad, which they all exercise
h when possible, has tended to make f.
e peace and not for war.
! ! AS an example of the first, duriu
Il our civil war France invaded Mexic