OCR Text |
Show I AMERICA !S TO I SfflP AMHUNmON li United State Refuses to Com- I ply With Note From J ' Austria-Hungary. J Washington. Aug. 15. The state J dep.irtment tonight made public the J i v reply of the United States rejecting x views set forth by the Austro-Hun- a garian government in a recent note i contending that bxportation of war J munitions from America to Austria's j enemies was conducted on such a ! scale as to be "not in consonance with 1 the definition of neutrality." 1 Though friendly in tone, the note I i flatly denies the Austro-Hungarian I f contentions and recalls that that I i country and Germany furnished muni-M. muni-M. 1 tlons of war to Great Britain during i the Boer war, when England's ene- mics could not import such supplies. m It insisted that the American govern m ment is pursuing a strictly neutral M ' course and adhering to a principle J j upon which it would depend for muni- ' tlons in the markets of the world in II case It should be attacked by a for-5 for-5 eign power. J Attention is directed to the fact J- thnt Austria-Hungary and Germany 1 before the war produced a great sur- J plus of war munitions and sold them ,jj throughout the world, "especially to El belligerents," and that "never during r( that period did either of them sug- tj i gest or apply the principle now advocated advo-cated bv the imperial and royal gov- ' ernment, t Following is the full text of the j' American reply to the Austro-Hung.i- ' rlan note regarding exportation of I arms and ammunition from the '( United States to the allies. j The Secretary of State to Ambas- I sador Penfield. Department of state. J Washington, Aug. 12, 1915. ! Please present a note to the royal foreign office, in reply to its note of June 29, In the following sense-"The sense-"The government of the United States has given n careful considera-w considera-w tfcm to the statement of imperial and :! royal government In regard to the ex- 5 portation of arms and ammunition fi"m the United States to the coun-; coun-; tries at war with Austria-IIungarla '- and Germany. The government of T. the United States notes with satlsfac- tion the recognition by the imperial and roval government of the undoubt- ed fact that Its attitude with regard to the exportation of arms and ammu- nition from, the United States is ' prompted by Its intention to 'maintain Wr strictest neutrality and to con- ! form to the letter of the provisions of international treaties, but is surprised to find the imperial and royal gov-; gov-; ernment implying that the observ- anco of the strict principles of the law under conditions which have developed de-veloped in the present war is insufficient insuf-ficient and asserting that this gov-. gov-. ernment should go beyond the long-recognized long-recognized rules governing such traffic traf-fic by neutrals and adopt measures to 'maintain an attitude of strict parity par-ity with respect to both belligerent parties.' Under No Obligation. To this assertion of an obligation to change or modify the rules of international in-ternational usage on account of special spe-cial conditions, the government of the United States cannot accede. The recognition of an obligation of this sort, unknown to the International practice of the past, would imposo upon up-on every neutral nation a duty to sit in judgment on the progress of war and to restrict Its commercial Inter course with a belligerent whosenaval successes prevented the neutral from trade with the enemy. The contention conten-tion of the imperial and royal government govern-ment appears to be that the advantages advanta-ges gained to a belligerent by its su pcrlority on the sea should be equal ized by the neutral powers by the establishment es-tablishment of a system of non-intercourse with the victor. The Imperial and royal government confines its comments to arms and ammunition, but, if the principle for which it contends con-tends Is sound, It should apply with equal force to all articles of contraband contra-band A belligerent controlling the high seas might possess an, ample supply of arms and ammunition, but be in want of food and clothing On the novel principle that equalization is a neutral dutj'j neutral nations would bo obligated to place an embargo em-bargo on sufch articles because one of the belligerents could not obtain them through commercial Intercourse But, if this plea, so strongly urged by the imperial and royal government should be admitted to obtain by reason rea-son of the superiority of a belligerent belliger-ent at sea, ought it not to operate equally as to a belligerent superior on land? Applying to this theory of equalization, a belligerent who lacks the (necessary munitions to contend' successfully on land ought to be permitted per-mitted to purchase them from neutrals neu-trals while a belligerent with an abundance of war stores or with the power to produce them should be debarred de-barred from such traffic. Manifestly, the idea of strict neutrality neu-trality now advanced by the imperial and royal government would involve a neutral nation in a mass of perplexities perplexi-ties which would obscure the whole Held of international obligation, produce pro-duce economic confusion and deprive all commerce and Industry of legitimate legiti-mate fields of enterprise, already heavily burdened by the unavoidable restrictions' of war. Cites Precedents. In this connection it :s pertinent to direct the attention of the imperial and royal government to the fact that Austria-Hungary and Germany, particularly par-ticularly the latter, have during the years preceding the present European war, produced a great surplus of arms and ammunition which they sold throughout the world and especially to belligerents Never during that period did either of them suggest or apply the principle now advocated by the imperial government. During the Doer war, between Great Britain and the South African republics, repub-lics, the patrol of the coasts of neighboring neigh-boring neutral colonies by British naval na-val vessels prevented arms and ammunition am-munition reaching the Transvaal or the Orange Free State. The allied republics were in a situation almost Identical in that respect with that in which Austria-Hungary and Germany find themselves at the present time. Yet, In spite of the commercial Isolation Isola-tion of one belligerent. Germany sold to Great Britain and other belliger-, belliger-, ents, hundreds of thousands of kilos ' of explosives, gunpowder, cartridges, 'shot and weapons; and it is known that Austria-Hungary also sold sim: , liar munitions to the same purchaser, though in small quantities. While, as ' compared with the present war, the quantities sold were small (a table of the sales is appended), and the prin-1 prin-1 ciple of neutrality Involved was the same. If at that time Austria-Hungary and her present ally had refused' to sell arms and ammunition to Great Britain on the ground that to ' do fo would violate the spirit of srict - I neutrality, the imperial and royal government might with greater consistency con-sistency nml gi eater force urge its present contention. It might be fur'her pointed out that during the Crimean war largo quantities of arms and military stores were furnished to Russia by Prussian manufacturers; that during the recent war between Turkey and Italy as this government is addressed, arms and ammunition were furnished to the Ottoman government by Germany and that during the Balkan war the belligerents bel-ligerents were supplied with munitions muni-tions by both Austria-'kungary and Germcny. While these latter cases are not analogous, as In the case of the South African war, to the situation situa-tion of Austria-Hungary and Germany in the present war, they nevertheless clearly Indicate the long-established practice of the two empires in the matter of trade in war supplies. Impartial to All. In view pf the foregoing statements, this government is reluctant to beicve that the imnorlal and roval govern ment will ascribe to the United States a lack of impartiality In legitimate trading in arms and munitions or armed forces to all belligerents efficient, effi-cient, even though the circumstances of the present war prevent Austria-Hungary Austria-Hungary from securing such supplies! from the markets of the United States, which have been and remain, so far as the action and policy of this government gov-ernment are concerned, open to all belligerents alike. But, In addition to the question of principle, there is a practical and substantial sub-stantial reason why the government of the United States has from the foundation of the republic to the present pres-ent time advocated and practiced unrestricted un-restricted trade in arms and military supplies It has never been the policy of this country to maintain In time of peace a large military establishment or stores of arms and ammunition sufficient suf-ficient to repel invasion by a well-equipped well-equipped and poworful enemy. It has desired to remain at peace with all nations and avoid anv appearance of menacing such peace by the threat of its armies and navies, in consequence of this standing policy, the United States would, in the event of attack by a foreign power, be at the outset of the war seriously, if not fatally, embarrassed em-barrassed by the lack of arms and ammunition and by the means to pro duce them in sufficient quantities to supply the requirements of national defense. The United States has al-i al-i ways depended upon the right and power to purchase arms and ammunition ammuni-tion from neutral nations in case of foreign attack. This right, which it claims for itself, It cannot deny to otheis. A nation whose principle and policy it Is to rely upon international obligations obli-gations and international Justice to preserve its political and territorial integrity might become the prey of an aggressive nation wIiobg policy and practice it is to increase its military strength during times of peace with the design of conqnpst, unless the nation na-tion attacked can, after war had been declared, go into the markets of the world and purchase the means to defend de-fend ifself against the aggressor The general adoption by the nations of the world of the theory that neutral neu-tral powers ought to prohibit the sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents belliger-ents would compel every nation to have in readiness at all times sufficient suffi-cient munitions of war to meet any emergency which might arise and to erect and maintain establishments for the manufacture of arms and ammunition ammuni-tion sufficient to supply the needs of its military and naval forces through out tne progress or a war. Manifestly the application of this theory would result In every nation becoming an armed camp, ready to resist aggression aggres-sion and tempted to employ force in asserting Its rights rather 'than appeal ap-peal to reason and justice for the settlement of international disputes. Theory Would Enforce Militarism. Perceiving, as it does, that the adoption adop-tion of the principle that it is the duty of a neutral to prohibit the sale of arms and ammunition to a belligerent belliger-ent during the progress of war would Inevitably give the same aid to the belligerent as to other nations in time of peace and which had laid In vast stores of aims and ammunition in anticipation an-ticipation of war, the government of the United States is convinced that the adoption of the theory would force militarism on the world and work against that universal peace which Is desired and purpose of all nations which exalt justice and righteousness In their relations with one another. The government of the United States, in the foregoing discussion of the practical reason why It has advocated advo-cated and practiced trade in munitions muni-tions of war, wishes to be understood as speaking with no thought of expressing ex-pressing or implying any judgment with regard to the circumstances of the present war, but as merely putting very frankly the argument in this matter which has been conclusive in determining the policy of the United States. While the nractice of nations, ro well illustrated by the practice of Austria-Hungary and Germany during the South African war and the manifest mani-fest evil which would result from a change of that practice, render compliance com-pliance with the suggestions of the imperial and royal government out of the question, certain assertions ap-Ioaring ap-Ioaring in the Austro-Hungarian btate-raent btate-raent as grounds for its contentions cannot be passed over without comment. com-ment. These assertions are substantially substan-tially as follows: (1) That the exportation of arms and ammunition from the United States to belligerents contravenes the preamble of The Hague convention No. 13 of 1907, (2) that it is inconsistent incon-sistent with the refus; 1 of this government gov-ernment to allow delivery of supplies to vessels of war on the high seas, and (3) that "according to all authorities author-ities of international law who concern themselves more properly with the question," exportation should be prevented pre-vented ''when this traffic assumes such a form or such dimensions that the neutrality of a nation becomes in volved tnereuy. As to the assertion that the exportation expor-tation of arms and ammunition contravenes con-travenes the preamble of he Hague convention No. 13 of 1907, this government gov-ernment presumes that reference Is made to the last paragraph of the preamble, which Is as follows' "Seeing "See-ing that, in this category of ideas, these rules should not, In principle, be allowed, In the course of the war, by n neutral power, oxcept In a case whom experience has been shown the necessity for such change for the protection pro-tection of the rights of that power." Power Discretionary. Manifestly the only ground to change the rules laid down by the convention, one of which, it should be noted, explicitly declares that a neutral is not bound to prohibit the exportation of contraband of war, Is the necessity of a neutral power to do so in order to protect its own rights. The right and duty to determine when this necessity exists, exists with the neutral, not with a belligerent. It is discretionary, not mandatory. If a neutral pdwer does not avail itself right, a belligerent is not privileged to complain, for in Qolng so It would be in the position of declaring to the neutral power what Is necessary to protect that power's own rights. The imperial and royal government cannot can-not but perceive that a complaint of this nature would invito just rebuke. With reference to the asserted inconsistency in-consistency of the course adopted by this government in relation to the exportation ex-portation of arms and ammunition and that followed In not allowing supplies sup-plies to be taken from Its ports to ships of war on tho high seas, It Is only necessary to point out that the prohibition of supplies to ships of war rests upon the principle that a neutral power must not permit Its territory to become a naval base for either bel-lieerent, bel-lieerent, A warshin mar. under cer tain restrictions, obtain fuel and supplies sup-plies In a neutral port once in three months. To permit merchant vessels acting as tenders to carry supplies more often than three months and in unlimited amount, would defeat the purpose of the rule and might constitute consti-tute the neutral territory as a naval base Furthermore, this government is unaware that any Austro-Hungarian ship of war has sought to obtain supplies from a port in the United States, either directly or indirectly. This subject has, however, already been discussed with the Imperial German Ger-man government, to which the position posi-tion of this government was fully set forth December 21, 1914, Government Misled? In view of the positive assertion in the statement of the imperial and royal government as to the unanimity of the opinions of text writers as to the exportation of contraband being unneutral, this government has caused caus-ed a careful examination of the principal prin-cipal authorities of international law to be made. As a result of this examination ex-amination it has come to the conclusion conclu-sion that the imperial and royal government gov-ernment has been misled and has ln-achertently ln-achertently made an erroneous assertion asser-tion Less than one-fifth of the authorities au-thorities consulted advocates unreservedly unre-servedly the prohibition of the export of contraband Several of those who constitute this minority admit that the practice of nations has been otherwise other-wise It may not be innopportune to direct particular attention to the declaration dec-laration of the German authority, Paul EInlcke, who states that, at the be- rrlnln f t- 1 I 1 , 1 fojiiimik ui a win, ueuiui truia uuvu never remonstrated against the enactment enact-ment of prohibitions of trade In c6n-traband. c6n-traband. but adds ''that such prohibitions prohibi-tions may be considered as violations of neutrality, or at least as unfriendly acts, if they are enacted during a war with the purpose to close unexpectedly unexpected-ly the sources of supply to a party which heretofore had relied on them." The government of the United States deems it unnecessary to ext,end further at the present time a consideration consider-ation of the statement of the Austro-Hungarian Austro-Hungarian government The principles prin-ciples of International law, the practice prac-tice of nations, the national safety of the United States and other nations without great military and naval establishments, es-tablishments, the pretention of increased in-creased armies and navies, the adoption adop-tion of peaceful methods for the adjustment ad-justment of international differences and finally, neutrality Itself are opposed op-posed to the prohibition by a neutral nation of the exportation of arms, ammunition, or other munitions of war to belligerent powers during the progiess of the war. (Signed) LANSING oo |