case of any trouble. What I wanted to impress upon the minds of the committee was that if any ruler were confronted by a world conflagration he would not leave on his annual vacation and go away up to northern waters from which it would take him many days to return. I wanted to convey the impression that he at least did not expect this war, and that was the idea of my first answer.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to go ahead with the witnesses. Father Lubeley, from St. Louis, is our first speaker.

STATEMENT OF REV. JOSEPH F. LUBELEY, P. R., OF ST. LOUIS, MO., REPRESENTATING THE AMERICAN NEUTRALITY LEAGUE.

Mr. LUBELEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am not going to keep you very long. I am here in the interest of the American Neutrality League, which is an organization recently gotten together in Missouri, especially in the city of St. Louis, and embraces practicaly every fraternal organization, every charitable organization, every religious organization-in fact, it is an organization whose membership is not limited to any denomination or nationality-and they have asked me to come here and say a good word in favor of this bill which is under consideration.

Now, there is undoubtedly one thing that is foremost and uppermost in the minds of all of us, and that is the speedy restoration of the world's peace among the warring nations, and when that time. comes the President of the United States will undoubtedly be the logical man to mediate between the nations and secure for them that peace for which they are asking.

I think that is one reason why this bill should be passed. This is one reason why this country should not sell ammunition and weapons of war to the warring nations, because how can we conscientiously and consistently mediate for peace and at the same time know that we have been selling to the various nations instruments with which they have carried on war, the instruments with which they have killed each other? And do you think that the different parties to this war will be satisfied with American mediation when they know that we have been constantly selling munitions of war to one side while, on account of conditions over which we have not control, we were prevented from selling munitions of war to the other side? They at least will consider it unfair. They will feel that we are not in a condition to mediate for peace, and I think that that ought to be one reason, one consideration which ought to prompt us to stop the exportation of munitions of war.

Moreover, we want to have prosperity restored to our country. We know that this country is suffering severely by the continuance of the war. In coming here from St. Louis I passed through some of the most beautiful country in the world, some of the greatest manufacturing centers in the world, and I saw great factories, covering many acres of ground, but no smoke was coming from the smokestacks and the immense wheels were stopped. Men were out of work by the thousands and the tens of thousands. That is an awful condition for this country to be in, and undoubtedly the war is responsible to a very large measure and to a very great extent for this sad condition of affairs in this country.

It may be said that if we stop the sale of ammunition we will be putting the men who manufacture bullets and rifles out of business, but I want to leave it to you gentlemen, if it is better to do that or to put all the other people out of business from start to finish? Is it better to paralyze industry in this country by permitting the war to go on as we are doing by selling munitions of war to the belligerents? I feel just as Mr. Bartholdt does, that if we will cease exporting war materials we will stop the war; that the war can not go on and that the belligerents will sue for peace, and therefore we owe it to our fellow citizens, we owe it to the prosperity which this country ought to enjoy and would enjoy if this war were not raging, we owe it to our fellow men in this country to prohibit the exportation of munitions of war.

And then again it is undoubtedly, to my mind, a violation of neutrality to sell munitions of war under the present conditions. It is a violation theoretically as well as practically. You may say that according to law the United States for 500 years has been permited to sell weapons of war to belligerents. As Mr. Bartholdt pointed out before, the spirit of the agreement is that we can sell provided we have an equal opportunity of selling to both, and that both parties have an equal opportunity of procuring these munitions of war. But here is a situation where to-day war is entirely different from war a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago there was something romantic, something chivalrous about war. There was a certain amount of romance about war; there was even a certain amount of morality in war; but to-day, gentlemen, there is no morality in war unless it is the morality of the slaughterhouse. It is the morality which consists in killing men not by valor and ingenuity but in killing men by machinery. That is war to-day, and, I think, war of any kind, war under any circumstances for any reason, no matter how provoking, to-day is immoral, is wrong. There ought to be no wars any more, certainly not war of the kind we wage with modern machinery, with modern guns and modern weapons. It is immoral, and if we furnish ammunition and means with which to kill people-I do not care whether we furnish them to Germany or England or France or to whatever nation—we are a party to the killing. We are a party to the murder of our fellow men. We are placing upon this Nation the stigma of murderers, and we ought not to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you advocate the principle laid down here as a principle of international law?

Mr. LUBELEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. As a permanent principle?

Mr. LUBELEY. Absolutely I would.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I would like to ask you whether you think that would tend to increase or decrease wars, to have this as a priciple of international law?

Mr. LUBELEY. I think it would tend to decrease it.

The CHAIRMAN. The idea has occurred to me that if it was on principle international law, and that if the citizens of no neutral nation could sell munitions of war to belligerents, that every nation would have to establish plants and factories and other institutions for the manufacture and protection of war material, and there would

be a great deal more war material manufactured than there is to-day, and just as great navies tend to bring about war, so these very manufactories of war materials might tend to do it. Have you given thought to that idea?

Mr. LUBELEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that on the contrary, if this bill is made a principle, or if this custom is made a principle of international law, it would go a long way toward impressing upon the mind of legislators the fact that the common sentiment is against war at all, and that principle ought to be the foundation of legislation and international agreement, tending to eliminate war between the nations of the world entirely.

Mr. LEVY. I would like to ask a question there. You are a patriotic citizen; would you be in favor of this resolution if it is to break away from the precedent of 100 years, and at this particular time don't you think that would be tantamount to a declaration of war against the allies? Would you not consider it an unneutral act at this particular time?

Mr. LUBELEY. I think I would; yes.

Mr. COOPER. He does not understand the question.

Mr. LUBELEY. I don't believe I quite catch the trend of your question.

Mr. LEVY. This is a precedent that has gone on for 100 years. Would you, at this particular time, bring this question up now if it would put us-if this resolution were tantamount to our being brought into this trouble, would you be in favor of it?

Mr. LUBELEY. Oh, no. I did not quite understand you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Levy's question is: Do you think that our changing our precedent and practice in reference to furnishing arms to any belligerent that could get them in this contest would be tantamount to an unneutral act upon our part toward that country? Mr. LUBELEY. If we were selling?

The CHAIRMAN. If we stop selling.

Mr. LUBELEY. I think that would be a neutral act. I think it would be for the preservation of neutrality. That is what I am going to come to presently. I did not understand the gentleman, and I certainly think that we must pass a resolution of this kind to preserve neutrality theoretically as well as practically.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Don't you think every country now at war has its hands full and would not want to invite the opposition of the United States just now?

Mr. LUBELEY. Well, they have their hands full; but now, as for practical neutrality, I think we are practically violating neutrality by selling war munitions at the present time. That has been brought out sufficiently.

The CHAIRMAN. No: these gentlemen have conceded that there is no violation of neutrality. They have conceded that the shipment of munitions of war at the present time is not a violation of neutrality.

Mr. LUBELEY. They are not clear on that point. They have said— at least, I have heard it said--that the shipment of ammunition is tantamount to a violation of neutrality, for the simple reason that the belligerents can not avail themselves of this opportunity, as Dr. Bartholdt has said.

Mr. CLINE. It is not up to us to provide equal opportunity for all the belligerents to purchase arms under the present international law governing neutrality.

Mr. LUBELEY. I know that, but it is against the spirit. The spirit of the precedent of 100 years, by which we are permitted to sell munitions of war is that we shall only exercise this right. If we can exercise it equally toward both belligerents.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us an instance in history where it was exercised with equality to both sides? Can you put your finger on a single instance of that kind?

Mr. LUBELEY. You ask me whether I know of any single instance where belligerents were equally capable of securing munitions of war?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LUBELEY. Well, really I have not given this question sufficient study to give an answer to that question. I could not say whether there are any instances or not, but whether there is or not, the question is if we have a condition which had existed for a hundred years, that condition has changed so radically within the last 100 years that there is ample reason for breaking any kind of precedent.

Mr. PORTER. I do not ask this question in an unfriendly spirit. I will say very candidly to you that I am friendly to the resolution, but do you know of any instance since the defeat of the Spanish Armada by England in which England has not controlled the shipment of munitions of war by the sea?

Mr. LUBELEY. Directly or indirectly, you are right.

Mr. PORTER. I do not recall any. Now, your position, as I understand it, is this, that we should give credit to any nation where the circumstances at the time the precedent was adopted are similar to those with which we are confronted, and you take the position that this war is of such a nature-nothing like it ever happened before in the history of the world-that we should not be bound by the precedents of the past?

Mr. LUBELEY. That is the position I take.

Mr. TEMPLE. You spoke of the right as recognized-not interfered with, I meant to say-by international law to sell munitions of war as in spirit conditioned on the possibility of selling to both parties. Isn't the foundaton of that right rather in this sense, that we have people in this country who are ordinarily engaged in the business of manufacturing arms and ammunition? In times of peace they of course sell to all the world, and a war between two foreign nations ought not to be allowed to interfere with neutrals. Isn't that the spirit upon which this rests?

Mr. LUBELEY. As I understand it.

Mr. TEMPLE. It is not our war. The ordinary business of these men, upon which their livelihood depends-I am not talking as a moralist now. I see the moral arguments for this resolution very plainly the humanitarian argument-but these men are engaged in this business, and they were engaged in it five years ago engaged in exporting arms and ammunition. Now, somebody else has gone to war, and why should that affect their right to sell the product of their work?

Mr. LUBELEY. Well, I will say that conditions and exigencies sometimes arise where the private company or the individual must suffer for the good of the community, for the good of all.

Mr. TEMPLE. I would ask if that is not the principle upon which the recognized practice of international law rests?

Mr. LUBELEY. I am not prepared to say whether that is the principle or not.

Mr. TEMPLE. The rights of neutral commerce?

Mr. LUBELEY. I am not prepared to say whether that is the foundation of that right or not. It may be.

Mr. TEMPLE. I think it is.

Mr. LUBELEY. Granting that that were true, I say that conditions will arise, and in this case have arisen, where the welfare of those individuals who manufacture munitions of war must take a back seat for the good of all.

Mr. TEMPLE. Let me ask one further question. From the moral point of view, does it make any difference whether there is a war going on now or whether there is the prospect of a war a few years from now? Is it any worse to make a gun and sell it to be used next month to kill a man than to make a gun and sell it to be used five years from now to kill a man? Wouldn't the argument you are making apply in peace just the same as in war? These big cannon and big shells are not to be used for hunting game. They are used to kill men, and if it is wrong to make them in time of war and sell them for that purpose, isn't it wrong to make them when war is a future prospect?

Mr. LUBELEY. That is what I was saying. I think war has come today to a state where it is absolutely immoral; and this resolution would not only affect present conditions, but it would be the foundation principles of everlasting peace and do away with war forever. I think men have come to such a state at the present time, and that modern war machinery is so cleverly constructed now that it is really immoral at any time to prepare these machines.

Mr. COOPER. Let me propound a question and see if I get at the other side of it. The sentiment has been expressed here and I do not wish to intimate that I take either side of the controversy nowbut it has been intimated that there is a precedent of one hundred years or more, created before the age of big guns, steamboats, telegraph, and ocean cables or anything of that kind-a precedent of 100 years that is absolutely binding upon the United States Government to-day-by which it is bound to permit our citizens to sell to any power that controls the seas anything that we make, including cannon, shells, rifies, and machine guns. Now England has control of the seas, and in a contest with any nation in the world can blockade the ports of that nation. So the proposition is that England, fighting with any single nation, would not need to have a gun factory at home at all. She could get everything in the way of munitions of war she might need from the United States and blockade the ports of her enemy. In other words, that we are bound by precedent to become in actual practice the ally of England or any other power that can control the seas.

Mr. LUBELEY. I do not think so.

75114-15- -5