763.72111 Em 1/31½
The Secretary of State to President Wilson
My Dear Mr. President: I am in receipt of your letter returning in revised form the proposed answer to the Austrian statement regarding arms and ammunition, and I think the changes improve the language very much.
The questions which you raise as to the possibility of the reply being taken as an argument in sympathy with the Allies and against German militarism applies, I presume, to that part of the draft which advances the practical and substantial reason—being on page 6.33
I think the question is justified. The argument might, and I have no doubt would by pro-German sympathizers, be construed as you suggest by your question. But, if we do not mean it, do we not run the risk of resting our whole case on the principle that to change our laws in time of war would be unneutral and also on the past usage of nations, and especially the practice of Germany and Austria?
While probably that argument is sufficient to meet the contention of Austria, it may be held to be technical and will not, I am afraid, [Page 126] satisfy the humanitarians. For that reason, it seemed to me politic to insert the practical reason against prohibition and to show that it would compel general armament and so make for war rather than peace. Mr. Bryan and I talked this subject over on several occasions and I am sure that he considers that the prohibition of the sale of arms upon the advancement of peace would have this effect.
Would it be advisable, if this portion of the argument remains, to insert a paragraph disavowing any purpose of insinuating that Austria and Germany were aggressors?
Would that cure the objection or would it aggravate it? I am not at all sure in my own mind what the effect would be.
I enclose such a paragraph for consideration. It could be inserted between lines 2 and 3 on page 9.35
I do not think that the argument would seriously affect the program in regard to the American Republics or to a similar program for Europe. The principle is for governmental regulation and control of arms and ammunition, but with it goes the guaranty of political and territorial integrity. In case an American nation was attacked by a transoceanic nation, or another American nation, would it not be the duty of the guarantors to furnish the nation attacked not only with arms, but with men and ships?
Furthermore, I understand that the regulation of the manufacture and sale of arms is limited to trade between the contracting parties and would not apply to other nations unless they entered into a similar guaranty and agreement to regulate. Without the guaranty of integrity of territory and political independence I believe that an agreement restricting in general the sale of arms and ammunition would be inadvisable. With the guaranty the agreement is practical and will make for peace.
Unless, therefore, Europe sees fit to adopt the guaranty and to enter into the agreement about munitions, the argument advanced in the draft would remain and this country would be as free as it is today to trade in arms and ammunition with belligerents, and would be justified, as a neutral, in doing so.
One other thought in this connection suggests itself. If the guaranty should be adopted by the American Republics, an invasion by one of the territory of another would make every guarantor a belligerent, so that the question of the neutral right to sell arms and ammunition could never arise.
Faithfully yours,
- See Foreign Relations, 1915, supp., p. 796, first paragraph.↩
- See footnote 36, p. 127.↩