Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-02-22
RIGHTS OF NEUTRAL COMMERCE.
Instructive Explanation Given to the
House hY Chairman Hit.

In the course of the debate in the House
yesterday on the deficiency bill Chairman
Hit of the foreign affairs COMMITTEES made
an interesting explanation concerning the
rights of neutral commerce in time Of war.
1--WE know pretty well how to read the
language of a treaty that Is as familiar
as the treaty of 1871 said Mr.. HIT I'M
mediately after the treaty of 1871 the
American government made the calm as
a belligerent upon the British government,
which was a neutral, before the board
of arbitration at Geneva, that the British
had violated the rule by allowing, not
horses nor -four, but arms, to be sent into
the United States, and that they were re-
sponsible. The answer of the British was
that the language, "A neutral government
is bound not to permit or suffer either bel
ligerent to make use of its ports or waters
as a base of naval operations against the
other for the purpose of the renewal or
augmentation of military supplies or arms
or the recruitment of men, must be taken
in connection with the other three rules
and was reinforced by showing that the
doctrine of international law as accepted
by the whole world had been first promuf-
gated by Thomas Jefferson. Secretary of
State hundred years ago, in language
accepted the world round. They quoted
that to the board of arbitration, and 1t
stands today as the law of the world
Now, the whole question turns upon
whose OK is gored. and each party in the
contest of nations takes first one side and
then the other to obtain damages. Only a
little time ago. when Americans were
sending help for the Beers, the English
| nterfered and stopped the supply. They
were not arms, they were provisions
when the British then interfered with
us our Secretary Of State came back with
the JeffersOnian doctrines ana they We're
confused and they took refuge N the idea
that their ships must obey their municipal
Low, hat British n11ptcipa1 law forbade
British ships to have intercourse with the
enemy, and as to neutral bottoms that it
was open. but they could not answer the
position of the Secretary or stare on the
question of transportation IN neutral bot
TOMS and to get out of the question the
British went and bought cut all The Amer
leans, paid for the things and so the ques-
ton could not be pursued further
"Now 1t turns out that Americans are
selling horses not arms. Flour was one
of the articles Of contention before But
it will be seen that by the ancient doctrine
of the American people as TO me rights OF
neutrals to trade our people are free 10 sell
horses to sell flour. to sell even arms at
| their risk They may be Intercepted, but
| that is the doctrine of nations me treaty
| Of 1871 was a treaty which was mace Win
| a view to special state OF circumstances,
and at the end of it the two parties agreed
! to ask the adhesion of other nations.
"They could not agree as to the meaning
| of the words that they had adopted; SO
meanings and three questions have peen
raised about those two lines. IheV couiu
| not agree upon note by which they "oui9
ask the adherence of other parties, ana
while they were dlsputlng annut i. ianI
| and Germany gave them notice they WouId
never agree to any such rule as mat. 80
| 1t has dropped entirely out OF lnternaioil-
| al law for neither party can agree win
the other as to what the language means
and we all agree as to what Is the lntefna-
tional law"