The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1915. AMERICAN NEUTRALITY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 170, 4 January 1915, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1915. AMERICAN NEUTRALITY.

Tlie action of the United States over the question of contraband is to most people totally incomprehensible. A very heated controversy lias been carried on relative ! U, the searching of ships, so as to prevent American traders from supplying Germany or Austria with contraband goods. As a result an unusually pointed Note has been addressed to Britain, protesting against the liability to seizure of goods, a course which, it is stated, hindered trade and caused stagnation in American industries. This Note is generally regarded as a mere piece of Mull', but it shows how the almighty dollar dominates American policy. To admit for a moment that United States traders' have the right to provide our enemies with food or munitions of war in any shape is utterly impossible, and the mere suggestion that her neutrality shall bo stretched to that extent is beyond all the usages of international warfare. No one objects to (America making the most of the Monroe doctrine, and steering clear of outside conflicts, but even the close friendship and kinship* between the two great English-speaking nations cannot warrant America in taking up such an untenable stand as the terms of the Note indicate. There are fixed laws governing the neutrality of nations, and America should, under the circumstances, be tbe first and most zealous nation in conforming to those laws. When the war broke out the wealthy traders of the United States made no secret of their anticipations of large profits through increased trade. Evidently they have been disappointed, the rigorous blockade of Orman ports having shut out their goods. Moreover, cargoes of foodstuffs, also materials for the manufacture of munitions of war, nave been stopped from entrance to the neutral ports to which they were consigned, for the very cogent reason that such goods were evidently intended to assist Britain's enemy in carrying on the war. The desire to enrich themselves, even at the expense of Britain, has been too great a temptation for American traders to resist, and it is gratifying to know that their action is strongly condemned by such a prominent American writer as Mr. Poultney Bigelow, who has boldly stood up for Britain, bidding his countrymen not only to refrain from supplying goods to Germany, but to help forward the work of Britain in crushing the Teutonic military Colossus. Possibly some American ships carrying legitimate and harmless cargoes may have been held up for search, but that is inevitable. Britain has willingly agreed to an indemnity. The question of neutrality is one that in the very nature of things is bound to cause trouole oi a more or less serious nature at times, but that is no reason why, as one writer puts it, Uncle Sam should be "roaming about the world's powder magazine with a torch that may shed sparks with bad results for all." The Note" in question is not the first protest made by America, as the British Foreign Office received on November 7 a Note to the effect that Britain was exceeding her legal rights. It is particularly interesting to note the manner in which that Note was treated by the London TimcsT After pointing' out that it is the re-export trade which is the crux of the matter, the Times thus phrased the situation:—

Americans think that certain commodities can only be seized upon evidence provided by the actual search of ships. Our right is denied to take ships into port for investigation. All we can legally do is to search them on the high seas, and then let them go in default of evidence. The 'American skipper, in fact, cannot, according to the American contention, be held responsible for the ultimate disposal of his goods after they have reached the hands of the neutral consignee.

Then the Times adds, and every word should burn in, sentences as follows:

The attitude of the United States Government is no doubt partly due to the determined stand which the American copper trusts are making against British policy. Notwithstanding the conclusive establishment of the truth of the 'activity of German agents in the American copper market, an attempt has been made to attribute, to normal causes the increase in that export to neutral conn tries. No particular apprehension is fell here about the outcome of the business. Nothing would please Washington better than a solution of the controversy by a series of water-tight compartments with neutral European countries against reexportation. But in all the circumstances it is not felt possible to avoid a friendly, indeed a sympathetic, stand against the policy which, when considered academically, is. undoubtedly advanced.

It is well known that German diplomatists and agents hrny been striving with all their might and cunning to bring about a rupture between Britain and America, bu( it is absolutely unthinkable that, after a century of peace, this simple question of neutrality could he allowed to develop into a serious quarrel. America is not in a position to engage in hostilities, as not only is she quite unprepared, but she is well aware that Japan would only too willingly welcome the opportunity to wipe out the Califomian affront. Tf the Americans wish to take the risk they can do so, but. it is not always that blockade-run-ning pays. Meanwhile we can afford to make light of their diplomatic, but illconsidered, bluff, and leave the searching of ships to the responsible officers of the Navy with every confidence that, beyond a litle inconvenience, no harm will be done to legitimate trade, but that all attempts to supply the enemy with contraband will be as far as possible checkmated. The war between America and Britain in 1812 arose out of our enforcement a-, belligerents of the ritrhts claimed over neutral ships in the great war with Napoleon. It is absurd to suppose that the lesson then learnt will not lie remembered with advantage to both parties. ' ~,;.;