The German assertion of sole control of broad areas of the sea was combined with ag gressions on the right of neutral vessels to humane treatment if captured. The British 1 zone did not seriously interfere with American commerce, and no protest was ever lodged against it by the United States government Vigorous protests, however, were made against the German theory of the war zone by several European neutrals and (10 Feb. 1915) by the United States. The matter was somewhat com plicated by the attempt of Germany to prevent the use of false flags, particularly the Ameri can, by the British. It appeared that this ruse, which had for centuries been frequent and was generally considered by international law to be innocent, gave offense to the United States which (22 February) asked both parties to dis continue the practice. No further trouble arose upon that question. The real grievance [n f Germany was that cargoes of American ade munitions were freely passing into Eng ish and French ports. Since it was not pos ible to stop them by capturing the vessels, they demanded the cessation of the shipments. In the correspondence on the war zone the Ger man government warmly complained (1 March 1915) of the export of munitions of war to anybody; a long controversy followed as to the .
munition trade. The manufacture of powder, rifles, great guns, military equipment and ma chinery was an industry active in most of the great nations of the world. It had been a prac tice for many years that neutrals could supply belligerents with arms. In the wars of 1912 and 1913 in the Balkans the German Krupp firm sold cannon to the Turks and the French Creusot works sold to the Serbians.
dent as proof that it was entirely within the dis cretion of the United States to prohibit the trade, which ran up the total exports of the United States to Europe in one year from $1,486,000,000 to $1,971,000,000, and in the next year (1915) to $3,547,000,000. To many Ameri cans the traffic was unwelcome. The United States government refused to sell to the Allies 350,000 obsolete rifles, but the President re peatedly and officially stated that no such obli gation lay on private parties. The Germans I .(4 April 1915) complained that ((this industry is actually delivering goods only to the enemies of Germany) and suggested %.n embargo on the exportation of arms?' On 12 Aug. 1915 the State Department declined to accept as a gen eral principle a theory which would preclude war except by countries which could supply themselves with military material. This an swer was supported by a decision (Pearson vs. Allis-Chalmers Company et al.) in the Circuit Court of the United States for Wisconsin (May 1915), when the court declined to inter fere with the shipment of shrapnel shells to the Allies.
The only approach to restriction that was\ reached by Congress was the act of 18 Sept 1916 which authorized the President to retali ate against any country that prohibited the im portation of American products by preventing the ((importation of similar or other articles from the offending country.x' Otherwise, throughout the period of her neutrality the United States insisted on the freedom of the seas for shipments of munitions, subject to capture on grounds of genuine contraband or blocicacle or continuous voyage.
Personal One reason why the United States was so deeply concerned in the war was the presence withinizsitoundaries of thousands of citizenstria,_Bul garia and TurreTco- f whom a large proportion were unnaturalized and, therefore, remained alien stibjC•cg -of the belligerent countries. A smaller number of English, French, Belgian, Russian, Serbian and Greek nationals presented the same problem of their rights and responsibil ities in a neutral country. So far as the natural-, ized citizens and their minor children were cona cerned, the United States recognized no differ:i ence in their legal status from that of naf tive-born citizens, with the exception that it'll declined to interfere in cases in lialy-.v.therei the American-born son of a naturalized citizen who visited Italy was held for military service.
The serious question was that of the aliens, most of whom were men of military age, and large numbers of whom were borne on the rolls of their own countries as liable to military serv ice. In the Ballcan wars of 1912 and 1913 scores of thousands of subjects of the Ballcan nations went home to fight; and the United States paid no attention to that movement. It was considered the right of an alien to return to his native country, whenever he felt like it, even though he thereby furnished material for armies in the field.
As soon as the Great War began anrd actu-, ally some time in advance, the German and' Austrian authorities made preparations to send their men home. Formal notice was served upon those whom they could reach to report for that service. This was near& a breach of neutrality; for it was in effect the enlistment International law was absolutely clear that there was no responsibility resting upon any IN government to forbid the manufacture and sale, • 01 of munitions to any belligerent. Neverthelessr • uring the Mexican difficulties, under an act of Congress (14 March 1912) president Taft is sued a proclamation °prohibiting the export of both arms and munitions from any port in tlie United States to Mexico." This was held by the State Department, however, not to apply to shipments consigned to the Mexican govern ment. Subsequently (4 Feb. 1914) the order was rescinded by President Wilson.