The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-13
QUESTION OF NEUTRALITY
A New Point in the New Orleans
Mule Shipment Case.
4 Clause in the Geneva Convention
Snid to BE Involved-The Subject
Considered at Yesterday's Cab
met Meeting-The Beef Embargo.

Said to BE Involved-The Subject
| Considered at Yesterdays Cab
| met Meefing-The Reef Embargo
The Government is taking an active in
| terest in the proceedings instituted IL
| New Orleans to prevent the shipment OF
mules and other supplies from that por
on British transports for the use of tn,
army in South Africa. Until yesterday
! the matter was not regarded as involv.
| ing the Executive to any great extent
| But new point has been brought up that
has decided bearing on the Government
of the United States to permit such sup
plies to be shipped from its port to that
| of bell;cerent. where the Government
is maintaining a neutral position. This
| point is found in Article VI of the Geneva
| Convention for the settlement of the Ala
| bama claims, being stated as follows:
! "A neutral Government is bound not to
permit or suffer either belligerent to make
use of its ports or waters as the base of
| naval operations against the other or
| for the purpose of the renewal or aug
mentation of military supplies or arms.
| or the recruitment of men,"
The restriction placed on the renewal
| or augmentation of military supplies is
the main issue involved in the New Or
, leans case, according to the view ex-
pressed by some people here. the claim
| being made that the action of the Gov
eminent in permitting mules and other
| supplies to be shipped to South Africa
constitutes violation of the Geneva Con-
vention.
While the Government has not deter
| mined definitely what it's course will be
tn, he ha ha
| brought into the proceedings, brief has
been prepared at the Department of Jus
tice, in which 1t is maintained that the
| case is covered by the Federal decision
rendered in 1895. in Gonzales rs. the Port
of New York, that only naval expedi-
tons intending TO operate against an
| enemy and armed iilibustering expeditions
may be prevented from leaving American
ports at which they have been fitted out.
The shipment from American ports of
munitions of war and other supplies in
tended for a belIigerent is not prohibited.
1t is held in the brief that the shipment
of mules and other supplies from New
Orleans under the Gonzales decision is
not Illegal. 1t is not known that this
brief has received the sanction of Attor-
ney General Knox.
In some official quarters 1t is contended
that the court in New Orleans has no
jurisdiction, as violation OF neutrality is
a matter of diplomatic determination be-
tween Governments, and not one for de-
termination by the domestic judiciary. 1t
is contended also that individuals cannot
be parties to questions Involving Govern
ments alone as ;|dividlials are not per-
sonally injured by the Shipment of sup
plies for the use of an army
One of the parties to the suit, however,
Mr.. Van Ness, is represented to be an
American CITIZEN having interests in
South Africa which are being injured by
the prosecution of the war, and it is prob
able that the point will be raised that
personal injury has been done by the
shipment of supplies tor the British army
from New Orleans in that such shipments
enable the British to continue hostilities
A very brief Cabinet session was held
at the White House yesterday, the mat
tiers discussed being the questions affect
ing the right of this Government to ship
mules purchased here to- the British forces
in South Africa, and The story sent out
by Chicago meat packers that the British
Government had decided to purchase no
more meat for army supplies in the Uni
ted States.
NlOA was ulfttltu 10
make an investigation of the legal status
of the mule question and report to the
Cabinet. Mr.. Knox promised to make an
exhaustive investigation into rights under
the neutrality laws and to report within
a few days.
1t was held by several Cabinet members
that the meat case probably resulted from
the mule case in New Orleans as Great
Britain hardly wanted her food supplies
for the army tied up as were the ship
ments of mules. No official confirmation
of the meat story has, as yet, been re-
ceived
There is a very strong feeling that beef
is not necessarily to be considered contra
band of war when bought by a citizen of
Great Britain. as in the recent cases, and
the reason for the report I'd embargo is
not apparent TO the officials here.
There is some speculation as to wheth-
er the measure said to have been taken
was in retaliation against the holding up
of a cargo of beef at New Orleans. The
two events occurred at nearly the same
time and it is suspected that the en-
barrassment of legal proceedings at the
port of shipment might have been resent
ed by the purchasers of the beef, and
resulted in a determination to abandon
a market where such proceedings are pos
sible.
The officials of the Agriculture Depart
ment are not willing to admit that the
embargo may be the result of dissatis-
faction with the quality of American beef.
Secretary Hay has at the request of the
Agricultural Department, cabled to Am
bassador Choate, enquiring as to the
character of the British order.