Prev | Current Page 136 | Next

Various

"New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 3, June, 1915 April-September, 1915"


The seizure of an American ship under these circumstances was in
contradiction with the recognized principles of international law.
Nevertheless the United States Government has not yet obtained the
release of the ship, nor has it after eight months of war succeeded in
safeguarding the legitimate American trade with Germany. Such a delay,
especially when the supply of foodstuffs is concerned, seems equivalent
to complete failure. It is therefore to be assumed that the United
States Government has accepted England's violations of international
law.
Furthermore has to be considered the attitude of the Government of the
United States concerning the question of the exportation of war
material. The Imperial Embassy hopes to agree with the Government of the
United States in assuming that, with regard to the question of
neutrality, there is not only the formal side to be considered, but also
the spirit in which neutrality is enforced.
Conditions in the present war are different from those in any former
wars. For this reason it is not justified to point at the fact that
perhaps in former wars Germany furnished belligerents with war material,
because in those former cases the question was not whether any war
material was to be furnished to the belligerents but merely which one of
the competing countries would furnish it.


Pages:
124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148