Washington sentinel., 1901-04-20
NEUTRALITY LA US
Their Enforcement n Matter OF
CircumsTances.

A New Orleans Court has de-
cided against the Beers in the case
brought to prevent the sale and
shipment OF mules from our ports
bV Great Britain for use in South
Africa. Administration papers
are pleased, and say this was the
only thing possible in the circum-
stances. When the "clrcum-
stance" is recognized as desire
to help England in her war upon
the Beers, the conclusion reached
was undeniably "the only thing
possible" Circumstances also in
dicate that politics and business
rather than Law and justice were
prime movers in the decision rem
dered at New Orleans.
One contention Of the United
States in support Of its right to
aid England was that the Boer
Government as we'll as the English
was welcome to purchase in our
markets. This privilege, ii was
said, the South African Republics
had made use of to buy -four,
which. however, was seized bY
English waTships before it could
be landed. But it will be recalled
that our Government insisted upon
and obtained the release Of this
-four, or payment for it, for the
reason that it was not contraband
Of war and also was private prop
erty. Therefore our sale of these
goods was not in contravention OF
any neutrality law, and the Beers
cannot be said to have been iaV
ored equally with the British. One
was a sale Of contraband and the
other Of non-contraband goods
one to combAtant, the other to a
nom combatant.
Now as to the present case. Are
mules and horses Contraband, and
should their sale be ioTbidden2 II
the sale of cannon to belligerent
is an unfriendly act, is not the sale
of a mule to drag the cannon
equally so1 The mode of warfare
carried on in South Africa calls
for the use oil cavalry to put the
English on an equality with their
foes. Without cavalry the former
are at a disadvantage, and without
horses cavalry are as useless al
most as cannon without ammuni-
ton. Horses and mules, there
tore, are indispensable to the con-
duct Of war in that country, are
contraband of war, and their sale
to one belligerent constitutes an
unfriendlY act towards the other
and should be forbidden.
Our defense is that our markets
are open to Boer and Briton alike.
That is not the question. They
should have been closed to both.
Neutrality in war does not consist
IN helping both belligerents to pro
long a struggle. The spirit--the
purpose -oi such law is, by with
holding aid and comfort from both
sides, to shorten such contests
and to encourage and compel
settlement of difficulties by peace.
full means and with as little loss Of
life and destruction Of property as
is possible.
In this spirit was grounded the
action ol President Grant when he
forbade the sale OF arms to France,
during the Franco Prussian war,
upon the representations of the
Editor OF the WASHINGTON SEN
TINEL and other German American
citizens and residents oil Washing
ton at that time. II made, and
Il should make, no difference that
the sale in one case was by indi-
viduals and in the other by the
Government. The effect was the
same--it caused prolonging OF
the war, the loss of life and tn e
destruction OF property. Il was
inimical to the spirit and contrary
to the purposes of Deutrality laws.
It made our Government party
to the hostilIties and it was no pal
liation for our course to say thai
Germany could buy as well a.
France. II was to the credit c
President Grant that he saw the
injustice oi our course and stopped