of some of our
friends to kill others of our friends. Accordingly people began to
give this trade bad names. They called it unneutral, wrong, inhuman.

For the sake of our pockets we were adding to the sum of human
suffering and slaughter, and they urged that, even if legally
justified, ethically this trade was a blot upon our character as a
humane and civilized people and must be stopped. Where does the truth
lie? What can the munitions trade say for itself?

Naturally, it turns for justification first to the usage of other
wars, to the recognized rules of international law. As expressed in
Article 7, Convention XIII, of the 1907 Conference at The Hague, the
law is as follows:

"A neutral power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for
the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunitions or, in general, of
anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."

The next previous article had prohibited a Government from engaging in
this trade, so that the distinction between what the State and the
individual may do is made perfectly clear, provided both belligerents
are treated alike. To permit trade in arms with one belligerent and
forbid it with another would be unneutral and illegal.

We permit the munitions trade with both belligerents, it is true, and
yet, owing to the chances of war, the right to buy inures to the
advantage of one only. Does this stamp our conduct as unneutral? Quite
the contrary. To embargo munitions bought by one because the other
side does not choose to buy would be the unneutral act. Germany
doesn't buy because she cannot transport.

She cannot transport, because she does not care to contest the
control of the sea with her enemies. Have we aught to do with that? To
supplement her naval inferiority by denying to the Allies the fruits
of their superiority would be equivalent to sharing in the war on the
German side. Moreover, to assume and base action upon German naval
inferiority in advance of any general trial of strength would be not
only illegal, but even an insult to Germany. Notice that no complaints
of our export of munitions have come from the German Government. To
make such complaint would be to plead the baby act. Rather than risk
her fleet by contesting the control of the sea, thus gaining her share
of munitions imports, Germany has chosen to withdraw it behind
fortifications, thus losing the munitions trade. Probably the decision
is a sound one, but she must accept the