Springfield weekly Republican. [volume], August 19, 1915, Page 4, Image 4

About Springfield weekly Republican. [volume] (Springfield, Mass.) 1851-1946

Image provided by: Boston Public Library

                
4
AGENTS OF GERMANY
ACTIVITY IN AMERICA
MONEY TO CAUSE STRIKES
EFFORT TO SUBSIDIZE PRESS
Sensational Charges by New York
World Involving High German
Officials—No Action by
United States Gov-
ernment
Charges made by the New York World
against agents alleged to be acting in be
half of the German government to con
trol public opinion in the United States,
to cause strikes in factories manufactur
ing munitions of war for the allies, to pre
vent the exportation of chlorine gas to the
allies, to procure control of the Wright
aeroplane plant at Dayton, 0., and in
various other ways to interfere with war
orders in America, have attracted wide at
tention.
Secretary Lansing Monday at Wash
ington authorized the announcement that
the state department had made no investi
gation of charges published in the World
that German agents in the United States
had been fomenting labor troubles in
plants making supplies for the allies and
seeking to influence American opinion
■with the approval of high officials of the
German government. Attorney-General
Gregory refused to comment on the atti
tude of the department of justice.
Letters and reports of German agents
and officials in this country and Ger
many which have come into possession of
the World are being published to
show that the German propaganda here
rests on a gold basis, that cash to turn
public opinion in Germany's favor has
been supplied fieely, though secretly, by
the German government, and that its ex
penditure has been directly supervised
by Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, the
German chancellor; Count Johanu vou
Bernstorff, the German embassador at
Washington, and other German officials
m high places.
On the evidence of these documents,
several of which are reproduced in fac
simile, the World asserts; —
That the Fatherland, the pro-German
weekly published by George Sylvester
tiereck, receives large subsidies from the
German government, through Dr Heinrich
I'. Albert, chief financial agent of the
German government in this country.
That M. B. Claussen, a German agent,
formerly with the Hamburg-American
line, wrote to Dr Albert that he had ob
option for the purchase for
sdoO,oou of control of the American Press
Association (a concern which supplies
electrotyped printed matter to the small
er newspapers) and recommended that th“
association be purchased and used, under
the appearance of an impartial American
news agency, to circulate news approved
by the German government.
That another German agent sent in
July to Dr Albert, embassador Bernstorff,
and the German foreign office an elaborate
report on the feasibility of establishing
a news agency which would appear to be
under American control but would be used
to circulate pro-German news.
That this agent advised the establish
ment of a lecture and moving picture
bureau, by means of which such men as
Congressmen Gardner and Hobson S S.
McClure. Senator Beveridge Henry Reu
terdahl and Burr Mclntosh might be used,
without their seeing through the scheme,
in the interest of Germany by being in
duced to lecture on Americanism and on
dangers to the apprehended by this coun
trv from Japan and England.
That the German chancellor himself
caused to be sent to Embassador Bern
storff. on May 10. a letter recommending
that the German information service pay
the expenses of sending back to Germany,
Edward Lyell Fox. a correspondent, "who
was of great benefit to us by reason of his
good dispatches,”
That the German government, through
men who represented Embassador Bern
storff. negotiated to purchase the New
York Mail before it was bought by ita
present owners.
That an official in the office of the mil
itary attache to the German embassy sup
plied money to labor leaders to cause
strikes in factories making munitions for
the allies.
That, while protesting against the ship
ment of munitions to the allies, the Ger
man government is now engaged in build
ing a large munitions plant in this coun
try, which will begin turning out projec
tiles for Germany by September 1, and
has made arrangements to deliver them
through a neutral country bordering on
Germany.
That Capt von Papen. German military
attache, in letters to the German chan
cellor and the German embassador, re
ported a plan to tie up two American
plants producing chlorine, so that the
allies could not purchase here materials
for making poison gases, recently em
ployed bj - Germany in Flanders - and
Russia.
That Dr Hng»> Sweitzer, a German
chemist and head of a plan to establish
in this city a pro-German paper in En
glish. has obtained for the German gov
ernment a transfer to himself of a con
tract between the American oil and supply
company of Newark and Thomas A. Edison
for the manufacture and delivery by Mr
Edison of 1,212,000 pounds of phenol (car
bolic acid) at an aggregate cost of $1,400.-
000 to be delivered in daily shipments until
March 1. 1916. The correspondence is
said to reveal a plan for the delivery to
Germany of the phenol in spite of the En
glish blockade.
Viereck: SISOO a Month
A letter to show that George 8. Viereck
obtained financial aid for the Fatherland
front Dr Albert, representing the German
government, is reproduced in facsimile as
follows
Office of George Sylvester Viereck.
1123 Broadway. New York. June 20, 1015.
Dear Dr Albert:—
In thinking the matter over. I do not think
that Mrs R. would be the proper Intermedi
ary. Inasmuch as she does not attend to her
financial affairs herself. If it must be a
woman. Mrs G., the mother of our friend.
Mrs L . would be far better.
However, personally. I see no reason why
th.a payment could not be paid every month
through Mr Meyer, just like the other pav
ments If there Is any objection to that. 1
would suggest that the payments be made
to my personal friend and lawyer. Ely Simp
son. whose standing as my legal adviser
would exempt him from any possible In
quiry
As I have already received $250 thia
month. I Inclose a statement for SISOO for
June. Will you please O. K this and I shall
then send my secretary for the cash? I am
sending this letter by hoy. as for obvious
reasons I do not wish it to go through the
mails. With best regards, sincerely yours,
G. S. Viereck
Th* autograph signature of Viereck is
appended to the letter. The statement
inclosed wag:—
June 28. 1815.
For June $1,750
Of which I received 250
Leaves a balance of ..$1,500
German Control Stipulated
The reply of Dr Albert, typewritten in
। German on paper with no printed or u n-
J graved letterhead and unsigned, is as fol
lows, translated:—.
New York, July 1, 1915.
Eear Mr Viereck: Your account regarding
the slsoO—bonus, after deducting the $250
received—for the month of June 15. has been
received.
I hope, in the course of the next week, to
be able to make payment. In the meantime
I request the proposal of a suitable person
who can ascertain accurately and prove the
financial condition of your paper. From the
moment when we guarantee a regular ad
vance. I must
1. Have a new statement of the condition
of your paper.
2. Practice a control over the financial
। management.
. In addition to this, we must have an under-
I standing regarding the course in politics
। which you will pursue, which we have not
! asked heretofore Perhaps you will be so
kind as to talk the matter over, on the basis
of this letter, with Mr Fuehr. Your devoted,
[Not Signed.]
Mr Sylvester Viereck, 1128 Broadway. New
York city
Free Film for Lecture*
Other memoranda are said to show that
the Austrian government placed in this
country several thousand feet of film to
! be displayed for the benefit of the Ger
man and Austrian governments in moving
picture houses in this country. Mexico and
Canada, together with lectures by Edward
i Lyell Fox. Albert K. Dawson and others.
। The agreement made through Dr Bran
deis of the Austrian consulate, represent
, ing Embassador Dumbs, provided that th?
Austrian government turn over to the
American correspondent film company, in
| enrporated. of which M. B. Claussen was
president, 8000 feet ot negative and 11,-
000 feet of positive film, made by the
Ajistrian government, which, was to receive
25 per cent of the net proceeds of the
films.
The only limitation set by the Aus
trian go'eminent upon the use of the
films was that “Mr Archibald is to receive
a number of feet sufficient for use in his
lectures. We have made an agreement
with Mr Archibald to furnish him with
tliis as soon as the film is released. Film
furnished to him is for his exclusive use,
and is to be returned to us at the end of
his lectures.”
Mr Archibald is said to be J. F. J.
Archibald, the magazine writer, who nos
lectures on his war experiences in Ger
many and Austria.
Correspondent's Expenses Paid
। The communication from Berlin con
taining the recommendation of the chan
cellor that the German information serv
ice pay the expenses of Mr Fox’s second
trip to Berlin was received by Embas
sador Bernstorff. according to the World,
and by him turned over to Capt F. von
Papen, the military attache. It is as fol
lows •—
_ . Berlin, May 10. 1915.
Foreign office:—
From a third party I understand that the
American Journalist. Edward Lyell Fox. ren
resentative of the It heeler newspaper svndl
date, the American Mazazine. and the illus
trated Sunday Magazines, would like to again
come to Germany as press representative
From the information I have received, these
papers of his are In agreement as to this
desire, but are not willing to pav the ex
penses of Mr Fox. Inasmuch as this gentle
man, at the time nf his'last sojourn In Ger
many. was of great benefit to us by reason
of his good dispatches, ft'might be possible
that the "German Information service”
would this time, as last time, be willing to
pay the expenses of s five or six months’
stay, which would amount to between 5000
and 6000 marks,
I would respectfully request vour excel
lency to sound Mr Fox on his intentions and
to make Inquiries as to whether the costs of
bis stay can be raised there in anv way.
I shall be glad to have a rerilr as soon
as possible. If possible, br telegram.
By order of the chancellor.
(Signed) Stumm.
To the imperial embassador. Count von
Bernstorff, Washington.
“News” in German Interest
In a letter said to have been written
by M. B. Claussen to Dr Albert. Claus
sen wrote that he had obtaineda 30-day
option without cost for a controling inter
the American Press association, a
$1,600,000 corporation with a main office
in this city and 17 branch offices and
plants throughout the country. Th» price,
according to Claussen, would be $900,000.
which was SIOO,OOO less than the cost of
establishing a new service by means of
tickers, patents of which are controled by
the American Press association. Mr
Claussen's memorandum is said to have
contained this. Courtland Smith, presi
dent of the association, emphaticallv de
nies that Claussen ever obtained such an
option or had been approached in regard
to one.
A long and detailed report made in July
for Berlin, the German embassador and
Dr Albert gives a careful study of the
plan for establishing a news bureau and a
lecture bureau in this country, with es
timates as to its cost and a favorable rec
emmendation for the plan. It says:—
Although many great mistakes have been
made and much valuable time wasted I am
convinced that the desired results can'vet be
obtained for the principal reason that the
"pro-German agitation" has during the last
few months accomplished much which has
been in the German interest. For Instance.
It. has succeeded to convince the Driggs Sea
bury ordnance corporation in Pennsylvania
that it is unjust to deliver ammunition to a
belligerent power if one Is an opponent of
war as such. Thia factory has repeatedly de
clined to deliver arms to France and England
In spite of the tremendous loss of money
caused thereby.
In order to obtain our alm it 1? necessary
to begin and carry through a press agitation
which is adapted tn the character, the wishes
and the way of thinking of the American
public. Everything must be communicated
to them in the form nf “news,” as they have
been accustomed to this and nnlv understand
this kind of propaganda. The value of such
a press campaign in America, if carried out
by Americans for Americans, can he seen
from the following concrete examples:—
Fnr the distribution of the news which we
have tn view it will be absolutely necessary to
found a new American news syndicate with
German money. This has to be accomplished
by a United States corporation without let
ting it become known that German money Is
behind It. It has to be the aim of the syn
dicate to give to the American newspapers
and magazines news and pictures with such
a value as “news” that the American news
papers will feel compelled to buy them.
Those news and pictures hare to hp sold be
cause, first, the American editor despises
news which is delivered for nothing, as he
Imagines that anybody who delivers nows
for nothing has a selfish purpose, and. sec
ond. because the bureau (respectively syndi
cate). should In course of time not only
covor Its expenses, but also pay a dividend.
This dividend would be used for the purpose
of extending th? activities of the bureau and
thereby Increase Its value to German diplo
macy.
The news sent out must not make the Jm
pres Mon of being put out for propaganda
purpose*. Although Its principal value is
based on Its being pro-German. Its success
depends largely upon th? subtlety of pres
entation. The burean should be opened under
the supposition that It 1s to be a permanent
one.
How to Pass the Censor
The writer of the memorandum goes on
to recommend the reaching of rural com
munities by furnishing news and pictures
to agencies which send electrotyped plates
of “boilerplate” to small papers. He ad
vises stationing popular American cor
irspondents on the eastern and western
fronts and establishing bureaus at various
cities in Germany and her ally countries.
He continues:—
Besides, the foreign office would have to
permit the bureau to telegraph dally by wire
less 3000 or 4000 words. I desire to state In
this connection that a single wireless tele
gram sent by Mr Cory In the German cause
has been more useful than all the official re
ports sent by the government by wireless
since the beginning of the war.
Furthermore, a telegraphic code would have
tn be worked out. which, got up In a com
merclal manner, would make It possible to
trnnamlt such telegrams through a Dutch nr
Swiss bonk friendly to Germany. If this is
carried out In the right manner au enor
n.ouo quantity of material could be cabled
over without the enemy knowing how it got
there.
Favored a Chlneae Service
The writer urges that a Chinese service
should he established nt once as a '.'coun
terweight againgt Japanese propaganda in
the American press. He offera a s'^te-
THE SPRINGFIELD WEEKLY REPUBLICAN: THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1915
ment of the cost of the news and lecture
bureau to show that it could be run for
two years at an expense of about 1,080,-
UOO marks, or $250,000.
After citing the men named heretofore
as possible lecturers on the tours of the
German lecture bureau, the writer ad
vises that, whether his proposal be ac
cepted or not. agitation on the part of
Germans should cease on the subject of
' the violation of Belgian neutrality and
। Belgian atrocities; on the theme that En-
I gland is to blame for the war: on the
superiority of German culture over the
■ culture of American and other nations.
। He advises that no more dry, scientific
I pamphlets should be put out in the Ger
■ man cause, and that Germans and espe
cially Germans in authority should cease
to discuss publicly the delivers- of Ameri
can arms and ammunition to the allies.
Plan to Buy the Mall
The plan to purchase the Mail for the
German government, before it was bought
by its present owners, is revealed in a
letter by Paul T. Davis, to Dr Albert,
which states that the father of the writer
had put in much time and labor trying
to arrange for the purchase of the Mail
ny the German government or German in
terests. and that he should be paid there,
for- The letter says that Mr Davis, Sr
through George von Skal, a prominent pro-
German agitator, got in touch with the
German embassador on the proposal, but
that the embassador finally notified him
the matter was to be dropped. Mr Davis,
Sr., according to the letter, had worked on
the proposal with Dr Ludwig Nissen and
Percival Kuhne, the letter reads
Father then found among his friends a
prospectus submitted by Mr McClure and Dr
Homely, and he then became certain that he
was to be pushed aside. When the paper
changed hands he asked George von Skal to
try to arrange between the people interested
in the paper and himself some mode of rec
ompensing him for the time and labor and
expenses he had while attempting to pro
mote the acquisition of the paper by Inter
ests friendly to Germany, but a few days
ago Mr George von Ska! reported that be
tried to speak to Dr Dernburg before his sail
ing .and failed therein, and then spoke to
:others: but being in the employ of the Ger
man government he says he could not push
the matter properly.
Mr McClure’s Statement
The World prints the following: “S.
S- McClure, editor and part owner of
the Evening Mail, denied Monday that
German money had been invested in the
paper when it was purchased by the pres
ent company. While I was negotiating
for the Evening Mail, he said. H. L.
Stoddard occasionally spoke of other of
fers for the same paper. I knew nothing
of any others who may have tried to get
the Mail. I heard no names and knew of
no people.
"When asked who were the present
owners of the paper, he said a company
of which Mr Stoddard was president and
large stockholder and of which he Was a
member had complete control. He added
that there were no German interests con
nected with the Mail.
‘‘According to the article. German
agents were after the paper at the same
time we were,” he continued. "They were
forced to give up the idea because Count
von Bernstorff ordered that negotiations
be discontinued.
"Since then, to my knowledge, negotia
tions have never been resumed. I heard
several times that others besides ourselves
■were looking toward the ownership of the
paper, hut they have never made offers,
to my knowledge, since, and they were in
no way connected with the present com
pany.
“As far as remaining quiet about the Bel
tian atrocities is concerned. I think mv
position ought to he very clear. I have
written several editorials both on that sub.
ject and on the sinking of the Lusitania,
and it is out of the question that I
should be asked to defend the German
cause in that respect. The suggestion that
I was to lecture, as stated in the World,
is entirely new to me.
“I. believe the facts of the exposure
are true Or the World never would have
printed them, but I have never had any
communication with any of the people
mentioned and have never been requested
to take the lecture platform or enter the
Chautauqua circuit for Germany.”
Another disclosure said to be made by
the correspondence obtained by The World
is the report of an agent to Dr Albert, that
control Of the Wright airship company at
Dayton. 0.. could be accomplished through
an “intimate, confidential man." of Mr
Wright's, to prevent to some degree the
exportation of flying machines to the allies.
The agent adds that under German con
trol the Wright plant could be made a
“lucrative venture.”
$50,000 to Promote Strikes
The documents are said to reveal that
$50,000 was estimated by German of
ficials to be needed to provoke wide
spread strikes in munitions factories. Men
said to be named in the correspondence are
Marlow. C. W. Mcljine. and a labor
leader, who is referred to as “K.”
One letter is said to show that Arthur
von Brieseu, the well-known German, who
recently was described by Theodore Roose
velt as one of the most useful two private
citizens he had ever known, had asked
William Travers Jerome to engage in some
legal undertaking connected with German
propaganda, and that. Mr Jerome had re
quested a retaining fee of SIO,OOO.
The World asserts there is evidence that
the total activities of the German govern
ment, in this country are carried on at a
cost of about $2,000,000 a week.
In. a second instalment of these docu
ments, published Monday, evidence is of
fered that German agents fomented the
strikes in the munitions factories of New
England: that German agents attempted
to corner all the liquid chlorine manufac
tured in this country, to prevent the allies
obtaining a supply of the poison gas. al
ready used by the German armies: that a
plan was made to obtain control of toe
Wright aeroplane factories and that Ger
man agents were behind all the efforts to
bring pressure to bear on Congress to en
act an arms embargo, including a cam
paign in Texas to demand such an em
bargo Unless the British government per
mitted the shipment of cotton to Ger
many.
DEFENDS THE FATHERLAND
Viereck Claims that Germany la Only
Looking for Fair Play, With Means
of Publicity Cut Off by Allies
George Sylvester Viereck. editor of the
Fatherland, telegraphed to The Republican
Monday night the • following reply to the
charges made by the New York World:—
"The story in the New York World
about the Fatherland refutes itself. The
context of the letters of July 1 con
clusively proves that no German official
had any control over the policy of my
paper.
"These publications are only another
effort on the part of the friends and
propagandists of Great Britain to thwart
the presentation of the truth concerning
Germany and her cause in the United
States, and to intimidate those who are
sincerely trying to combat British mis
representations. There is nothing in the
copyrighted’ documents (the copyright
ing of stolon documents is a new industry,
by the way) to warrant the deductions
sought, to be drawn from them.
"With every means of cable communica
tion the world over under the control of
the allies, with the American press liter
ally fed day by day upon false and
garbled reports of the progress of the
war. and manufactured tales of atrocities
and faked peace offerings by Germany, all
intended to impair her credit and prestige
and alienate sympathy, it was not only
proper but it was her highest duty that
she should seek the means of neutralis
ing these influences so that the American
people—-always jnst. when they know the
facts—might be able to judge between the
contending interests.
"There is nothing startling and cer
tainly nothing improper in such an effort
It is quite as unfortunate for America as
for Germany that the latter has not had
the means of getting ita ease before the
people to the end that a better under
standing could be reached. I find nothing
in all these sensationally paraded diselos-'
ures through the medium of stolen docu
ments to justify their publication, or the
unwarranted inferences that are craftily
sought to be drawn from them.
"Each side in this terrible world conflict
is seeking the moral support of this great
nation. The most powerful machinery the
world has ever known for reaching and
influencing public opinion is in the hands
of one of the contestants, and every effort
of the other to get a hearing is decried
and held up to our reprehension. AU that
these documents show is that Germany
and the German-Americans who want fair
play are trying to get a hearing against
the subterranean influences behind the con
trol of most sources of news.
"I have carefully looked over the ‘reve
lations' in the World, and I have ran
sacked mv own memory; I can find in nei
ther anything incompatible with my integ
rity as a publicist or my loyalty as an
American citizen. The business and the
editorial policy of the Fatherland rest en
tirely in my hands; there is no arrange
ment with anyone else yielding even au
iota of its independence.
"The Fatherland was not founded by
the German .government, or directly or in
directly with its aid to the extent of a
single dollar, or a single subscription. It
was founded by me with the aid of two or
three other American friends, without as
sistance or suggestion from any foreign
or official source. The Fatherland had
been in existence and was flourishing when
Mr Albert and Dr Dernberg arrived in
this country and before I had met either
of them.
"The verv growth of the Fatherland
has caused the enmity of powerful inter
ests. The British government, both in the
House of Commons and through the Brit
ish embassy in Washington, has officially
announced its attention to bring about its
suppression, as has already been done in
Canada and Great Britain.
“In the purloined letter of July 1. 1915,
Mr Albert makes clear that neither he
nor anyone-even remotely connected with
the German government—had any interest
in or exercised any influence whatsoever
ever the policies of the Fatherland. As a
condition of financial aid he says: 'We
must have an understanding regarding the
policy which you will pursue, which we
have not asked heretofore.’ I absolutely
rejected the conditions suggested by Mr
Albert.
"Mr Albert's desire to influence our
policy was Hot prompted by and must not
be ascribed to any improper motive. He
was of the opinion that our attitude was
too vigorous. He insisted as a condition
of any support that I refrain from attack
ing the administration, and repeatedly ob
jected to my attitude in that respect.
"I fold Mr Albert that, much as I val
ued his advice and suggestions. I must be
guided by my conscience and Judgment in
this matter, nnd declined to accede to his
requests in that particular. The result
was that the arrangement outlined in the
letter of July 1 fell through. That was
the only demand made as a condition of
further support, and that I declined. The
only support my paper has ever received
has been in the form of subscriptions to a
very limited extent. The $250. the re
ceipt of which is acknowledged in my let
ter. falls under this head and is so entered
on the books of the Fatherland. In view
of a total circulation of 75,000. this can
hardly be regarded as very startling.
"We have no intention to curry favor
with the administration in Washington or
with Mr Albert's government in Berlin.
Our sole desire is to properly represent
and protect the interests of the United
States as a neutral nation and to be the
mouthpiece in the English language of
American citizens of German descent. Our
first number contained a declaration of
principles. From these principles we have
not deviated one hair's breadth at any
time from the first number to the last
and have no intention of doing so.
George Sylvester Viereck.
THE DACIA CONDEMNED
By French Prlre Court—Transfer of
Registry Made to Avoid Risk of
Capture
The decision of the prize court in the
case of the former Hamburg-American
line freight steamer Dacia, which was
granted American registry in January,
but was seized by a French cruiser in Feb
ruary while bound with a cotton cargo for
Bremen, was made public at Paris Mon
day. The decision covers 20 pages. It
says that the prize court finds no proof that
the transfer of registry was not made to
save the ship from risk of capture in ac
cordance with the laws nf war, but that,
on the contrary, the ship, under her new
flag, was making a voyage for which she
had been loaded while still under an ene
my flag. Therefore the court finds the
transfer “tainted with frauds and against
the rights of belligerents,” and orders the
steamer seized as a prize. The American
owned cotton cargo of the Dacia has been
partly paid for by the French government
through the French embassador at Wash
ington.
GERMANY’S PEACE TERMS
Must Have Free Expansion, Says
Group of Professors
The Tagwacht of Berne. Switz., prints
the text of a manifesto issued by a group
of German professors and intellectuals set
ting forth their ideas of the only accepta
ble peace terms. These, according to the
•manifesto, must insure the free expansion
of German culture, industry and com
merce. Belgium, for military and commer
cial purposes, must he subject to Ger
many. France must cede to Germany all
territorj- north of a line from Belfort to
the mouth of the river Somme and pay a
large indemnity. Russia must cede Poland
and the greater pnrt of the Baltic province
and other territory in lieu of indemnity
which she could not pay.
The manifesto is signed by Profs
Meincke. Seeberg and Schaefen of Berlin
university. Oncken of Heidelberg. Schu
macher of Reichenau. Director Kirdolin
of the Gelsenkirchen mines and Imperial
Minister von Schwerin, mayor of Frank
fort-on-the-Oder.
PULITZER’S DARING TRIP
New York Newspaper Man Sees Bat
tie From Aeroplane
Ralph Pulitzer of,New York on Thurs
day flew from a suburb of Paris to the
fighting front in a new type of double
motor biplane which was operated by a
military aviator, says a dispatch from the
French capital. Mr Pulitzer and the pilot
covered more than 150 kilometers (about
03 miles), gettmg within sight of the Ger
man lines and *0 close to earth that they
conld see the German trenches and dis
tinguish the bursting of shells.
After a trip along the firing line the bi
plane was flown back to the capital, where
it landed safely. Mr Pulitzer was the first
newspaper man to make such a trip.
THF. BALANCE OF EUROPE
[From the New York Evening Post]
Peace cannot be imposed by complete
military triumphs on either side. The war
can go on to the point of general exhaus
tion, but even then there would have to be
mediation, or an approach to each other
of the warring nations, in order to end it.
As opposed to this view, what is proposed?
Simply that the countries involved should
go on bleeding themselves white. Ger
many, it i» said, must lose 4,000,000 men
more; the allies as many. Then we may
hope that the fighting will stop and the
mop of Europe made over. This con
<<mtion recall* Swift’s mordant couplet on
' The Balance of Europe' :
Europe I, now balanced, neither side prevails,
For nothing's left la either of the scales.
UNITED STATES REPLY “NO”
ON AN ARMS EMBARGO
SUGGESTED BY AUSTRIA
Trade is Not Unneutral—Case of Boer
War is Cited
The state department Sunday night made
public at Washington the reply of the
United States rejecting views set forth
by the Austro-Hungarian government in
a recent note contending that exporta
tion of war- munitions from America to
Austria's enemies was conducted on such
a scale as to be “not in consonance with
the definition of neutrality.” Though
friendly in language and tone, the note
flatly denies the Austro-Hungarian con
tentions and recalls that that . country
and Germany furnished munitions of war
to' Great Britain during the Boer war
when England's enemies could not import
such supplies. It insists that the Ameri
can government is pursuing a strictly neu
tral course and adhering to a principle
upon which it would depend for munitions
in the markets of the world in case it
should be attacked by a foreign power.
The note points out particularly that
dating the Boer war between. Great Brit
ain and South African republics, the lat
ter, w ere in a situation almost identical
with that occupied by Germany and Aus
tria at the present time, and that “in
spite of the commercial isolation of one
belligerent, Germany sold to Great Brit
ain, the .other _ belligerent, hundreds of
thousands of kilos of explosives, gun
powder. cartridges, shot and weapons; and
Austria-Hungary also sold similar muni
tions.to the same buyer, though in smaller
quantities. In this connection a table
ot sales by Germany and Austria to Great.
Britain during the Boer war is appended
to the uute, and it is suggested that had
Austria and Germany refused to sell
arms to Great Britain at that time "on
the -ground that to do so would violate
the spirit or strict neutrality.” the im
perial and royal government’might, with
greater consistency and greater force urge
its present contention.
The note was cabled to Embassador
Penfield at Vienna Thursday.
TEXT OF THE NOTE
Following is the full text of the Ameri
can reply to the Austro-Hungarian note
regarding exportation of arms and ammuni
tion from the United States, to the allies -
The secretary of state to Embassador Pen
field.
Department of State, Washington, Au
gust 12, 191,5
Please present a note to the royal for
eign office in reply to its note of June 29
in the following sense.
The government of the United States has
given carefyl. consideration to the state
ment of the imperial and royal government
in regard to the exportation of arms and
ammunition from the United States to the
countries at war with Austria-Hungary and
Germany. Th^ government of the United
States notes with satisfaction the recog
nition by the imperial and royal government
of the undoubted fact that its attitude with
regard to the exportation of arms and am
munition from the United States is prompt
.ed.by its intention to '.‘maintain the strict,
est neutrality and - conform to the letter the
provisions of international treaties.” but is
surprised to find the imperial and royal gov
ernment implying that the observance of the
strict principles of the law under the con
ditions which have developed in the present
war is insufficient and asserting that this
government should go beyond the long
recognized rules governing such traffic by
neutrals and adopt measures to "maintain
an attitude of strict parity with respect
to both belligerent parties.”
To this assertion of an obligation to
change or modify the rules of international
usage on account of special conditions the
government of the United States cannot ac
cede. The recognition of an obligation of
this sort, unknown to the international
practice of the past, would impose upon
every neutral nation a duty to sit in
judgment on the progress of a war and to
restrict its commercial intercourse with a
belligerent whose naval successes prevented
the neutral from trade with the enemy.
The contention of the imperial and roya.
government appears to be that the advan
tages gained to a belligerent by its superi
ority on the sea should be equalized by the
neutral powers by the establishment of a
system of nonintercourse with the victor.
The imperial and royal government confines
its comments to arms and ammunition,
but if the principle for which it contends
is sound it should apply with equal force
to all articles of contraband. A belliger
ent controling the high seas might pos
sess an ample supply of arms and ammu
nition. but be in want of food and cloth
ing. On the novel principle that equaliza
tion is a neutral duty, neutral nations
would be obligated to place an embargo
on such articles because one of the bel
ligerents could not obtain them througn
commercial intercourse.
But, if this principle, so strongly urged
by the imperial and royal government,
should be admitted to obtain by reason of
tbe superiority of a belligerent at sea,
ought it not to operate equally as to a
belligerent superior on land? Applying
this theory of equalization, a belligerent
wl o lacks the necessary munitions to
contend successfully on land ought to be
permitted to purchase them from neu
trals. while a belligerent with an abund
ance of war stores or with the power to
produce them should be debarred from
such traffic.
Manifestly the idea of strict neutrality
now advanced by the imperial and royal
government would involve a neutral na
tion in a mass of perplexities which would
obscure the whole field of international
obligation, produce economic confusion
and deprive all commerce and industry of
legitimate fields of enterprise, already
heavily burdened by the unavoidable re
strictions of war. In this connection it is
pertinent, to direct the attention of the
imperial and royal government to the fact
that Austria-Hungary and Germany,
particularly the latter, have during the
years preceding the present European war.
produced a great surplus of arms and
ammunition, which they sold throughout
tbe world and especially to belligerents.
Never during that period did either of
them suggest or apply the principle now
advocated by the imperial and royal gov
ernment.
During the Boer war between . Great
Britain and the South African republics
the patrol of the coast of neighboring
neutral colonies by British naval vessels
prevented arms and ammunition reaching
tbe Transvaal or the Orange Free State.
Tbe allied republics were in a situation
almost identical in that respect with that
in which Austria-Hungary and Germany
find themselves at the present time. Yet in
। spite of the commercial isolation of one
belligerent Germany sold to Great Britain
and the other belligerent hundreds of
thousands of kilos of explosives, gun
powdsr, cartridges, shot and weapons and
it is known that Austria-Hungary also
sold similar munitions to the same pur
chaser. ‘hongh in small quantities. While,
as Compared with the present war. the
quantities sold were small <o foblo of t hi*
sales is appended) the principle o
ity involved was the same. If u. —ul time
Austna-Hungary and her present ally had
refused to sell arms and ammunition to
Great Britain on the ground that to do so
would violate the spirit of strict neutrality, ;
the imperial and royal government might
with greater- consistency and greater force
urge its present contention.
It might be further pointed out that J
during the Crimean' war . large'quantities i
arms and military stores were furnished j
to Russia by Prussian manufacturers; that
during the recent war between Ttirkev and
Italy, as this poverntnent is advised arms
and ammunition were furnished to the
Ottoman government, by , Germanyand
that during the Balkan wars the belliger
ents were supplied with munitions by both
Austria-Hungary and Germany. While
these latter cases are not analogous, as in
the case of the South African war to the
situation of Austria-Hungary and Ger
many in the present war, thev nevertheless
clearly indicate the long-established prac
tice of the two empires in the matter of
trade in war supplies.
In view of the foregoing statements,
this government is reluctant to believe
that the imperial and royal government
will ascribe to the United States a lack
of impartial neutrality in continuing its
legitimate trade in all kinds of supplies
used to render the armed forces of a
belligerent efficient, eyeq though the cir
cumstances of the present war prevent
Austria-Hungary from obtaining such sup
plies from the markets of the United
States, which have been and remain, so
far as the action and policy of this gov
ernment are concerned, open to all bellig
erents alike.
But in addition to the question of prin
ciple, there is a practical and substantial
reason why the government of the United
States, has from the foundation of the re
public to the present time advocated and
practiced unrestricted trade in arms'and
military supplies. It has never been the
policy of this country to maintain in time
of peace a large military establishment or
stores of arms and ammunition sufficient
to repel invasion by a well-equipped and
powerful enemy. It has desired to re
main at peace with all nations and to
avoid any appearance of menacing such
peace by the threat of its armies and
navies. In consequence of this standing
policy the United States would, in the
event of attack by a foreign pqwer. be at.
the outset of the war seriously, 'if not
fatally, embarrassed hy the lack of arms
and ammunition and by the meats to pro
duce them in sufficient quantities to- sup
ply the requirements of national defense.
The United States' has always depended
upon the right and power to purchase
arms and ammunition from neutral na
tions in case of foreign attack. This right,
which it claims for itself, it cannot deny
to others. A nation whose principle and
policy it is to rely upon international obli
gations and international justice to pre
serve its political and territorial integrity
might become the prey of an aggressive
nation'whose policy nnd practice it is to
increase its military strength during times
of peace with the design of conquest un
less the nation attacked can after war
has been declared go into the markets
of the world and purchase the means
to defend itself against the aggressor.
The general adoption by the nations
of the world of the theory that neutral
powers ought to prohibit the sale of arms
and ammunition to belligerents would com
pel every nation to have in readiness at
all times sufficient munitions of war to
meet any emergency which might arise
and to erect and maintain establishments
for the manufacture of arms and ammuni
tion sufficient to supply thousands o£ its
military and naval forces throughout the
progress of a war. Manifestly the ap
plication of this theory would result in
every nation becoming an armed camp,
ready to resist aggression and tempted to
employ force in asserting its rights rather
than appeal to reason and justice for the
settlement of international disputes Per
ceiving. as it does, that the adoption of
the principle that it is the duty of a
neutral to prohibit the sale of arms and
ammunition to a belligerent during the
progress of a war would inevitably give :
the advantage to the belligerent Which
had encouraged the manufacture of muni--
tions in tfme of peace and which’hitd'laid
in the vast stores of arms and ammuni
tion in anticipation of war, the govern
■ment of the United States is convinced'
that, the adoption of that theory would
force militarism on and work against that
I universal peace which is the desire and
| purpose of all nations which exalt jus
i tice and righteousness in their relations
with one another.
The government of the United States
in the foregoing discussion of the. practi
cal reason why it has advocated and prac
ticed trade in munitions of war.- wishes to
be understood as speaking with no thought
of expressing or implying . any judgment
with regard to the circumstances of the
present war. but as merely putting very
frankly the argument in this matter which
has been conclusive in determining the
Pmmr of the United States.
” hile the practice of nations so svell
illustrated by the practice of Anstria-
Hungary and Germany during the South
African war. and the manifest ettl which,
would result from a change of that prac
tice render compliance with the sug
gestions of the imperial and royal gov
ernment out of the question, certain as
sertions appearing in the Austro-Hungar
ian statement as grounds for its conten
tions cannot - be passed over with
out comment. The assertions are
substantially as .follows: ID That
the exportation of arms and am
munition from the United States to bel
ligerents contravenes the preamble of the
Hague convention No 13 of 1907:,(2) that
it is inconsistent with the refusal of this
government to allow delivery of supplies
to vessels of war on the high seas: (3)
that “according to nil authorities on inter
national law who concern themselves more
properly with the question” exportation
should he prevented “when . this traffic
assumes such dimensions that the neu
trality of a nation becomes involved there
by. As to the assertion that the ex
portation. of arms and ammunition con
travenes the preamble of the Hague con
vention No 13 of 1907, this government
presumes that reference is. made to the
last paragraph of the preamble, .which is.
as follows:—-
Seeing that In this category of Ideas these
rules should not. In principle, be altered, in
the course of the war. by a neutral power
except In a case where experience has shown
the necessity for such change for the protec
tion of the rights of that power.
Manifestly the only ground to change
the rules laid down by the convention,,
one of which, it should be noted, explicit
ly declares that a neutral is not bound to
prohibit the exportation of contraband
of war, is the necessity of a neutral power
to do so in order to protect its own rights.
The right and duty to determine when this.
necessity exists rests with the neutral,
not. with a belligerent. It is discretionary,
not mandatory. If a neutral power does
not avail itself of the right a belligerent
is not privileged to complain for in doing,
so it would be in the position of declaring
to the neutral power what is necessary to
protect that powers own rights. The im
perial and royal government cannot but
perceive that a complaint of this nature
would invite just rebuke.
With reference to the asserted incon
sistency of the course adopted by this gov
ernment in relation to the exportation of
arms and ammunition and that followed
in not allowing supplies to be taken from,
its ports to ships of war on the high
seas, it is only necessary to point out that
the prohibition of supplies to ships of war
rests upon the principle that, a noutral
power must not permit its territory to
become a naval base for either belligerent.
A warship may. under certain restrictions
obtain fuel and supplies in a neutral
port once in three months. To permit
merchant vessels acting os fenders to carry
supplies more often (han three months and
iti unlimited amount would defeat the pur
pose of the rule and might constitute
the neutral territory a naval base. Further,
more, this government is unaware that
any Austro-Hungarian shin of war has
sought, to obtain supplies from a port in
the T’nited States, either directly, or in
directly. " This subject, however, already
has been discussed with the imperial Ger
man government, to which the position of
tirts gotiTriment was fully set’fortlrDecem
ber 24, -1914. a~ < -
In view of the positive assertion in the
statement of-the . imperial, and xoyal gov
ernment as to the unanimity, of the opin
ions of text writers, as to;the exportation
of contraband, being unnentxal this govern,
ment has caused a careful examination of
the principal authorities, .on international
laws to .be made. As-.-a fe^ilf of this ex
amination, it has .come Jo'the conclusion
that the imperial and royal government has
been misled and' has inadvertently made
an erroneous assertion, J^ss than one
fifth of the authorities consulted advocate
unreservedly the prohibition of the export
of contraband? ■ Several pf those Who con
stitute this minority iadmit that the prac
tice of nations lias been otherwise. It may
not be inopportune to direct particular at
tention to the declaration of the German
authority, Paul Eimrke, who states that,
at the beginning of a war. belligerents hare
never remonstrated against the enactment
of prohibitions <m trade" in contraband, but
adds: "That such prohibitions may be con
sidered as violations of neutrality or at
least as unfriendly acts,.if they are enacted
Aiming a- war. with ..the purpose to elose
unexpectedly the sources of. supply to a
party which heretofore had relied on
them.” - -
■ The government-of the -United States
deems it unnecessary to extend further at
the present time a consideration of the
statement of the Austro-Hungarian gov
ernment. The principles of international
law. the practice of nations, the national
safety of. the Jlnifecf States and (fther
nations without great military and naval
establishments, the prevention’of increas-d
armies and navies, the adoption of peace
ful methods for the adjustment of inter
national differences and finisih- neutrality
itself are opposed to the prohibition by a
neutral nation of the evportation of arms
ammunition or other munitions of war to
belligerent, powers during the nrogress of
the war.' Lansing,
German exports of arms and. ammunltlan
to Great Britain.
Quantity 100 Kilos.
1899. 1900. 1901 ioo n
Explosives 4.432 6.014 5.147 3 (Ms
Gunpowder 28 658. 243 'so
Gun barrels 12 '366 "i ,0,
Shot. of malleable
iron ■ not polished,.
etc, 30 43 38
Shot (further manu
factured) polished,
etc., not leadcoated. .. 4
Shot, nickeled'or lead
coated, with- copper
rings, etc, ....... .. 3.018 176
Weapons, for war pur
poses 13 2
Cartridges with cop-
per shells and'caps. 904 1.595 566 ago
Austrian-Hungarian Exports of Arms and
Ammunition to Great Britain
Quantity. 100 Kilos.
1899. 1900. 1901 1902
Arms exclusive of small
nrms 190 374 12
Separate parts'of arms 11
Small nrms 2 3 SO S
Ammunition and explo-
sives under tariff No
346 1 7 15 51
Other ammunition and
explosives .. 4
BERLIN PAPERS RAP WILSON
Criticize the Lnmltnnia Note—Hint* at
Bad Faith in President** Com.
mnnication—British Merchantmen
Francs-Tireurs
All of the Berlin newspapers Tuesday
last week printed, an . identical article
which, while affording no clew to its real
origin, gains significance from the argument
mnde that British, merchantmen are really
francs-tireurs at sea. and particularly from
the insinuation, in the Inst paragraph that
President Wilson did not act in good faith
in framing the latest Amercan note to, Ger
many on the.sinking of the Lusitania; The
article, ns cabled to the New York Times,
reads
1 “The main argument in the United States
notes is the maintenance of the alleged
.fundamental and unchangeable rights of
neutrals.. The government of the. United
States ‘Cannot admit that the fundamental
rights of its citizens can be surrendered
merely because of a change in conditions.'
the government, thereby declaring that it is
its intention to stand on the ground of
reality; but the government of the United
States—either from' obstinate contrariness
or obvious partisanship—is going on the
theory that it. has not as yet been able to
take into consideration the new form which
naval warfare has taken and .which, there
fore,, is to be considered as not applying.
■ "Germany acknowledges in greatest meas
ure tn its naval war the same fundamental
principles of justice and humanity as the
United States, but the latter wrongly ap
plies these fundamental principles to. total
ly new conditions and seeks to make the
German government commit itself to abid ■
by- the same conclusions resulting f - .1
those principles for the new forms o' .rade
wAr as the United States has drawn. In
particular the remarks about trade war
and the use of the words .‘merchant ship’ in
the note must cause strong resentment.
“The United States itself, at the begvc
ning of the war, had a feeling that te
line between the merchant ship and ths
warship was not to be sharply drawn in
view of England’s favorite mode of war
fare,. This realization found clear expres
sion in the state department's order of Sep
tember 20, laying down the rule that mer
chantmen of belligerent, countries could
leave American ports if armed with guns
and supplied with ammunition exclusively
for self-defense. (Th? conditions for proof
that the armament was not to serve for of
fense, hut purely for defense, were, to be
sure, very vaguely set forth in the order. I
“In the same sense wgs the declaration
of Lord- Cecil in the House of -Commons,
that the same principle-, the armament of
merchantmen-for self-defense, was univer
sally accepted. While, therefore, the no
tion of armed merchantmen was thoroughly
familiar to the United States, which itself
in a certain way helped to bring it about
through provoking the disappearance of the
difference between merchantmen and war
ships, the new. note speaks only of mer
chantmen. as if in the submarine warfare,
after the English, modes of procedure, there
Were any longer any difference, to be drawn
between merchantmen and warships.
“In hostile England itself—if not by the
. neutral government of the United States- -
recognition -of the resultant confusion of
merchantmen and warships seems already
to have penetrated, as is shown by the fol
lowing statement by the naval critic of
the. Daily - Chronicle of July 6:-*-
“ ‘lt is the unpalatable truth that the
difference between merchantmen and war
ships is passing. When Mr Churchill set
up cannon on the sterns of 1 certain ships
he took one step in that direction, but the
German submarines that torpedoed ships
like the Lusitania and the Armenian bring
it to a conclusion. Possibly the fact will
have to be -recognized that freight or pas
sengen ships arc to be regarded as war
ships and are to be sunk accordingly, for
submarihcH cannot capture them,’
"These lints hit the nail on the head in
criticizing the thought-provoking English
measures, atid in this connection special in
terest attaches, to the admission, that En
gland began with, a confusion of. warship
and merchantman by discovering ‘armed’
merchantmen and the recognition of this as
a hitter-truth. There only remained to
■ add that the instructions given to English
steamers to use their bows as rams and
weapons of attack against submarines took
from them the last vestige of right to be
treated as merchantmen in the sense,of in
ternational law, even if they are not
armed.
“England herself metamorphosed her mer
chant. marine, not into warships, as ths
Dailv Chronicle teaches, but into francs
tireuts at sea. One will not be far wrong
in assuming that these well-known facts
.were absolutely ignored in the last Ameri
can note, not from ignorance, but with de
liberate intent, and that the note only
speaks of merchantmen, because otherwise
it would hd^e been Compelled to admit, that
for the idea of armed'merchantmen there
are as-yet no recognized principles in in
tel national law.”