results.

The opposition to the trade seems to come from two classes:

(1) German sympathizers who seek to minimize the advantage which sea
power gives the Allies.

(2) Those who are governed by their emotions rather than by reason and
respect for law. I would call the attention of both these classes to
the usage, especially to the German usage, in other wars.

Professor Gregory, in an interesting article, gives statistics of the
large German exports of arms to the British forces in the Boer war
after the Boer trade had been cut off. In the Russo-Japanese war Krupp
notoriously supplied both sides. In the Balkan war there was said to
be competition between Krupp and Creusot in furnishing cannon. No
state in the nature of things can satisfy its needs in war completely
from its own resources. Every belligerent has bought, every neutral
has allowed its citizens to sell, munitions since modern war began.
England sympathized with the South in our civil war, yet sold to the
North. She did the same in 1870 to France.

If the trade in munitions is to be forbidden, then every state must
accumulate its own supply or greatly enlarge its arms manufacturing
capacity, both wasteful processes. To say that a moderate trade is
lawful which a big trade is not is like the excuse of the lady who
thought her baby born out of wedlock did not matter because it was
such a little one.

The critics of the munitions trade must note furthermore that in our
own country that trade cannot be forbidden without explicit
legislation.

At the outset of the Spanish war such legislation was passed, as a war
measure, forbidding the export of coal or other war material at the
discretion of the President. But by resolution of Congress of March
14, 1912, the 1898 resolution was so amended as to apply to American
countries only. The reason for this distinction was, of course, to
limit the danger of such exports of arms to our neighbor states,
particularly to Mexico, as might endanger our own peace and safety.
The general right to trade was left undisturbed.

But let us argue the question on ethical grounds alone. I can see no
difference between a peace trade and a war trade from the humanitarian
standpoint; between arming a neighbor by our exports in preparation
for war and rearming him during war. In both cases we help him to
kill. Now, if one regards all war as wrong, aid in waging war by trade
in munitions, whether in peace time or war time, should