Evening star., 1935-11-02
ITALIAN TREATY. !.
AWKWARD T0U.S.
Embargo Places America
in Embarrassing Position
Because of 1871 Pact.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


America is in an awkward position
IN having placed an embargo on war
supplies to Italy. because such action
may be held to be a direct violation
of an existing trade treaty between
the United States and Italy, it be-
came known today.
The members of the League of Ma
tions have no such embarrassment,
because while many of them have
treaties with Italy there is provision
in the League covenant which is in the
nature of warning to all other
countries that any treaty inconsistent
with the terms of the covenant is
void.
Treaty Dated 1871.
Here is the provision in the treaty
however between the United States
and Italy. dated 1871. which is still
In effect:
Nor shall any prohibition be i'm
posed on the importation or eXporta-
ton of any articles, produce or manu-
factures of the United States or Italy,
to or from the territories of the
United States. or to or from the terri
tories of Italy, which shall not eX-
tend TO all other nations"
The foregoing treaty can be alb
togated on - months notice by either
of the parties, but the United States
has not given any such notice.
Can the recent imposition, there
fore, Of an embargo on war supplies
to Italy be construed as violation
Of the treaty?
State Department officials, while
refusing to be quoted about it. are
inclined to the belief that articles
affected with particular political in
terest such as war implements, can
hardly be classed as ordinary articles
OF commerce such as the two parties
had in mind principally when the
treaty was ratified.
Commodities Raise Question.
But supposing the League of Ma
tons extends its list of prohibited
articles to commodities of commerce?
Will the United States contend that
she is forbidden by treaty with Italy
to go along with the League? And
what would be the position OF League
members toward enlarging the list OF
forbidden articles if America insists
on maintaining her trade with Italy?
The answers to these questions are
bothering officials here a good deal
because. while nothing has been said
about the Leagues position except
that which is contained in Official
communications. it is apparent that
the United States does not wish to
earn the antagonism of League men,
bers or do anything which may pre-
vent the termination of the Italian
Ethiopian dispute by pacific means.
1t is possible. of course. that dis
putes may arise under the 1871 treaty
and that Italy may some day ask for
arbitration under another treaty
signed between the two countries in
1928 and proclaimed in 1881 Both
countries under this latter pact agree
10 arbitrate legal protests made by
one against the other under treaty or
otherwise which has not been possible
to adjust by diplomacy or by refer
ence to the permanent international
commission set up between Italy and
the United States in accordance with
the Bryan treaty of May S, 1914.
hat1ncatl0n Necessary.
But this same special agreement sets
forth that the terms of arbitration
submitting the case must be ratified
by the Senate and by the Kingdom of
Italy. Then it becomes a question of
whether America would wish to allow
herself to be sued in a tribunal of
international character.
incidentally, there is also a treaty
between the United States and Ethio-
pia, signed in 1914, which says:
The two contracting governments
shall reciprocaily grant to all citizens
of the United States of America and
to the citizens of Ethiopia all the ad-
Vantages which they shall accord to
the most-favored power in regard to
customs duties, imposts and jurisdic-
ton
Now the practical effect of the
treaty controversy at this time is, of
course. negligible so far as stopping
the embargoes is concerned. But the
precedent created is of far-reaching
significance in international law. For
whether or not America thinks the
action was warranted by the circum-
stances, the fact remains two treaties
have been violated by an act of Con-
yress that imposes an embargo on Ger
tain articles of trade when the United
States and the countries in question
are not at war For war between
countries automatically abrogates
treaties, but it does not relieve third
parties Of their treaty obligations un-
less they themselves become bell;ger-
ents,
Provision OF League Covenant.
Many of the League members have
commercial treaties with Italy. but
they take refuge in the words of the
Covenant, article 20, which reads as
follows:
The members of the League sew
orally agree that this covenant is ac-
cepted as abrogating all obligations
or understandings inter Sc which are
inconsistent with the terms thereof, |
and solemnly undertake that they will |
not hereafter enter into any engage
ments inconsistent with the terms
thereof
In case any member Of the League
shall. before becoming member of
the League, have undertaken any
obligation inconsistent with the terms
of this covenant, it shall be the duty
of such member to take immediate
steps to procure its release from such
obligations.
The inference in the above Is that
any treaty signed subsequently to the
ratification of the covenant in 1919
Is really null and void If it conflicts
with the articles that require eco
nomic sanctions or embargoes. Here,
therefore, is illustrated one of the
disadvantages suffered by the United
States in refraining from becoming
q full-fledged member Of the League
~ Noti