The Oskaloosa herald., 1917-03-01
SAME MEASURE
TRIED BEFORE
ARMED NEUTRALITY WAS ADOPT
Ed AGAINST FRANCE IN 1898.
PREVIOUSLY BY EUROPEANS
II is Realized There is Ample Prece-
dent for Action and That other
Nations Gives II Additional
Probability.

neutrality is described by authorities
on international law as military meas
ures for the purpose of defending the
rights of neutrals against threatening
infringements on the part of a bellig-
erent. 1t has generally concerned more
than one power and the, most striking
historical Instances of armed neutrali-
ties were those of the northern Euro
pean powers in 1880 and 1900, made to
defend the principle of free ships and
free goods, adopted by treaty between
the Baltic powers and opposed by Eng
land.
'If the commercial interests of sew
eral nations" says one authority, "are
threatened by must or unlawful meas
ures ON the part of belligerent, which
they deem unjust or dangerous, there
can be no question of their right to
secure their menacSd interests by
such combinations 81 seem best cal
culated to accomplish that purpose.
An armed neutrality is in fact an alli-
ance of several powers, usually of a
defensive character, though this is by
no means essential"
During the present war Holland and
Switzerland have maintained what
amounts to an armed neutrality, al
though it has been confined to land.
Adopted in Revolutionary Times.
Armed Neutrality was adopted by
several European states soon after
1778, when, in connection with the
American revolutionary war, war
broke out between France and Spain,
and France and Great Britain. Neu-
trails became alarmed over the dan
gers with which their maritime rights
were threatened and the empress of
Russia undertook to unite them in de-
Tense of their neutral rights. This
formed the basis of treaties between
Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland,
Austria and Portugal. They formed
league which, under the name of arm
ed neutrality, undertook to preserve
lI1NlOldIC IDG Il5hlS VI hSu-
trails. These declarations were Tecog-
alzed by the treaty of peace between
Great Britain and France and were
the established law of nations when
the United States in 1888 was recog-
nized as independent by the power of
the world.
While there is no indication that
President Wilson is intending to ask
other neutrals to join the United Stat
es in armed neutrality, the fact that
he already has invited them to join
this country in breaking off diplomatic
relations with Germany has aroused
some. speculation as to whether he
might not ask neutrals to join the
United States in the latest move.
1t is realized that there is ample his
toric precedent for such action and
that the situation of other neutrals
gives it additional probability. Holland
Norway and Spain especially. with
their merchant marine being rapidly
destroyed, might, it is pointed out, con-
slider joining with the United States.
Policy of the United States in 1898.
The last time the United States was
in a state of armed neutrality was in
the war between France and England
that ended with the downfall of Napol-
con.
After many acts against American
commerce bound for England, France,
OH Jan. Is, 1898, decreed that every
vessel found at sea loaded with mer-
chandise produced in England on her
possessions could be made a prize.
Many American vessels were seized
and in June, 1898, President Adams be-
gan to obtain from congress broad au-
thority to protect American commerce
and to put the United States in bet
ter position to make war if it became
necessary
In rapid succession laws were made
to increase the naval armament, to au-
thoriZe provisional army, to arrest
and expel aliens, to authorize the, de-
Tense of merchant ships against
French war vessels and to enable the
president to borrow money. July Z,
1898, President approved an act recit-
ing that since treaties repeatedly had
been violated by France, just claim
for reparation refused and system of
predatory violence" pursued by the
French government the United States
was "of right freed and exonorated
from the stipulations of the treaties"
and that these compacts should not
henceforth be regarded as legally OBJ
ligatory on the government or citizens
OF the United States.
Later in the same year further pro-
vision was made for augmenting the
army and George Washington accent.