Washington sentinel., 1901-04-20


edged tc be to the dishonor o
President Nc Kinley that he iaileC
to see his error and correct it wher
brought to his attention.
The Governments contention
that the initiative in neutrality pro
ceedings should not emanate from
individuals is shallow pretence
and it is Just as we'll that it was mol
decided bY the New Orleans Court
The present case shows how little
dependence can be placed in the
Executive to take action when
political considerations enter into
the question. Notwithstanding the
vigorous protests of Hon. Vim.
Sulzer in the House OF Represen-
tatives-the Executive Department
could not be moved for fear what
ever steps were taken would re
dound to the advantage OF his polit-
ical opponents. On our statute
books today are laws which, with
a President in sympathy with them,
would effectively stop the lorna
ton of trusts with all their baleiul
const quences. Their entor ;ement
is as much dependent upon the ini-
tiative Of the Executive as are
neutrality laws they were enacted
with this purpose in view. Why
are they not enforced7 The answer
is not far to seek-p olitical consid-
erations forbid. And they will re-
main unenforced until individuals,
banded together into a party to
secure their enforcement, compel
Presidential action. A dozen Sui
zers could no more arouse Nc
Klnley against trusts .han one
Sulzer, with all his honesty and
earnestness and eloquence, could
arouse him in opposition to Great
Britain and in behalf Of liberty and
independence tor the struggling
Beers.
The show OF interest in the New
Orleans case by the Admiuistra-
ton did not manifest itself until it
was apparent that Great Britain
was inclined TO view the pr 0ceed-
ings there in an unfriendly manner
and was disposed to retaliate by
forbidding the purchase Of Ameri.
can beef. Then it was that Nc
Kinley became interested, not in
behalf OF liberty and independence
but Of despotism and the dollar.
The President OF the American Re-
public who could see no opportun-
ity for interference to save the
Boer from bondage jumped at the
chance to secure a continuance OF
the sale OF beef to the Britons.
And we venture the assertion that
the suggestion for interference
came not from an Executive De-
partment but from an individual.
With all the Governments Of the
world against the Boer Republics
it is perhaps just as we'll that lacil-
tiles should be given England to
end the agony. Hope there was
once was oi a different termination,
but that hope was dispelled by
McKinley's election. The glamor
OF our victories over Spain dulled
our sense Of vision and made US
lose sight OF the duty we owed to
our South African sister republics.
With the mist cleared from their
eyes the sympathies of our people
are still with the struggling burgh-
ers, but opportunity to give ex-
preston TO that sympathy is now
so distant that it were inhuman al.
most-certainly useless-to coun-
sci further resistance except so far
as to obtain the most favorable
terms from their conquerors.
1t were well, however, ere the
incident is closed, that record be
made OF this Administration con-
ception OF neutrality: a law to be
enforced between the strong, i'm
partially; the strong and the weak,
always in favor OF the strong.
Concluding an article upholdipg
the New Orleans decision, the
Washington Administration organ
says: "It may be too much to ex-
pect the politicians to let go OF the
question just yet. But the country
generally is pretty we'll advised
now that Thomas Jefferson is on
one side and William Sulzer on the
other"
1t would be we'll also to remcm-
Der that the country has President
Grant on one side and President
Mckinley on the other. Mr.. Sulzer
is in no danger from the compari-
son.