nited States are accordingly the
only neutral State in a position to supply war-material. The idea
of neutrality has, therefore, assumed a new significance, which
is quite independent of the strict letter of the laws that have
hitherto prevailed. On the other hand the United States are founding
a gigantic war industry in the broadest sense, and they are not
only working the existing plant but are straining every nerve to
develop it and to erect new factories. The international agreement
for the protection of the rights of neutrals certainly arose from
the necessity of protecting the existing branches of industry in
neutral countries as far as possible against an encroachment upon
their prerogatives. But it can in no way accord with the spirit of
honorable neutrality, if advantage is taken of such international
agreements to found a new industry in a neutral State, such as
appears in the development in the United States of an arms-industry,
the output of which can, in view of the existing situation, be
solely to the advantage of the combatant powers.

"This industry is at present only delivering its wares to the enemies
of Germany. The readiness, in theory, to do the same for Germany,
even if the transport were possible, does not alter the case. If
it is the desire of the American people to maintain an honorable
neutrality, the United States will find the means to stop this
one-sided traffic in arms, or at least to use it for the purpose
of protecting legitimate commerce with Germany, particularly in
respect of foodstuffs. This conception of neutrality should appeal
all the more to the United States in view of the fact that they
have allowed themselves to be influenced by the same standpoint
in their policy in regard to Mexico. On the 4th February, 1914,
President Wilson, according to a statement of a member of Congress
on 30th December, 1914, before the commission for foreign affairs
with regard to the withdrawal of the prohibition of the export of
arms to Mexico, said: 'We shall be observing true neutrality by
taking into consideration the accompanying circumstances of the
case.... He then took up the following point of view: 'Carranza, in
contrast to Huerta, has no ports at his disposal for the importation
of war-material, so in his case we are bound, as a State, to treat
Carranza and Huerta alike, if we are to be true to the real spirit
of neutrality and not mere paper neutrality.'

"This point of view, applied to