The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1917-08-16

In the meantime. although our neu-
trail rights we're brought into question
by Germany as early as by. England
the German controversy was infinitely
more serious.
For any dIssensIon that might arise
no arbitration treaty existed between
the United States and the German
Government. This was from no fault
OF ours. We had tried TO establish
with Germany the same treaty .rela-
tlons we had with Great Britain and
10 other nations But these over
turcs had been rejected. And this
action on the 2nrt OF tho Impartial
German Government was only one ex-
ample OF It's whole systom OF diplo-
macy. In both conferences at The
Hague Il had been the German dele
yates who were the most active In
hlocklng all projects for the pacific
settlement OF Disputes bo.ween ne-
tions. They had preferred to limit
international relations TO the old mod
els OF diplomacy and war. !, was
therefore obvious from the first that
any controversy with the German
ooyernment would be exceedingly
lserlous; for II II could not be solved
by direct diplomatic conversations.
there was no rocourre except 10 war
From such conversations there IL
small hopes OF satisfactory results
unless the good filth OF both sides
4, profound. II eitSer eide lacks good
fclth. or reyeala In ell its actions an
insldious hostility. diplomacy ia OF no
evail. And so Il hGs proved In the
present oase.
In the first year OF the wer the
Government OF Germany sti'-ed up
among It's people feeling OF resent
m ,nt agxinst tho United ssptes on
account OF our lnslstence upon our
right as a neutral nation TO trade In
munitions with the bslligerent powers
Iour legal right In this great
the matter WIS not seriously ques-
toned by Germrny. She could not
have done 80 consistently. TOR rs re-
Gently as the Balkan War Of 1919 and
Ilsis both Germany aud Austria sold
munitions to the belligerents. Their
appeals TO us In the present war were
not 10 observe international law, but
TO revise IL in their interest. And
these appeals they tried to make of
moral and humanitarian grounds. Bat
upon "the moral issue involved, the
: stand taken by the United States wal
. consistent with It's taraditionai pole,
and with obvious common sense. Fol
Ilif. with all other neutrals. we refused
10 sell mutions to belligerents. w
eould never In time OF war OF oul
own obtain munitions from neutrais
and the nation which had accnmuiat
ed the largest reserve OF war supplies
| in time OF peace would be assured o
Ilyictory. The militarist state tina
Ilinvestod it's money In arsenals woul'
| be at fatal advantage over the fre
Ipoople | who invested their wealth y
IischooIs. To write into internationa
J law that neutrals should no. trade /
: munitions would be TO hand over IN
!. world 10 the rule OF the nation wit
| the largest armament factories. Sue
policy the United st~tes at Amerle
could not accept.
But our prircipsl controversy VII
lthe German Government, and The on
! which rendered tho situation AZ one
acute, rose out OF their annoanc
n.ent Of sea zo- where their au
marines would operate in violation
al accepted principals Of internatio
Al law. Our indignation a. such
threat &as/soon re. aercd passlona
- ~ the shaking OF the I,nsiianla. w
- attaek qpon orr rights was no, on
/. rfossly Illegal; IL dons1 tAe fund
). mental conceptions Of umsnlty. 4
rraga.ing restraints on our ira
we're cFiesaaces watch could be SET