The times., 1901-04-13
QUESTION OF NEUTRALITY
A New Point in the New Orleans
Mule Shipment Case.

| 4 Clause in the Geneva Convention
| Considered at Yesterdays Cab
| met Meeting-Tbe Beef Embargo.
| The Government is taking an active in
| terest in the proceedings instituted in
| New Orleans to prevent the shipment of
| mules and other supplies from that port
| on British transports for the use of the
| army in South Africa. Until yesterday
! the matter was not regarded as inVolv-
| ing the Executive to any great extent.
| But a new point has been brought up that
| has a decided bearing on the Government
| of the United States to permit such sup
| plies to be shipped from its port to that
| of a 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 it's 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
ernment in permitting mules and other
supplies to be shipped to South Africa
constitutes q violation of the Geneva Con
vention.
While the Government has not deter
in the matter should the Executive be
brought into the proceedings, brief has
been prepared at the Department of Jus
tice, in which it is maintained that the
case is covered by the Federal decision
rendered in 1895, in Gonzales VS.. the Port
of New York, that only naval expedi-
tions intending 10 operate against an
enemy and armed flibustering 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 belligerent 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 ii is contended
that the court in New Orleans has no
jurisdiction, as a 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 ;@dividuals 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,1 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 toNthe 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
ters discussed being the questions affect
ing the right of this Government to ship
mules purchased here tosthe 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.
Attorney General Knox was directed to
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 reported 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- |
of legal proceedings at the |
port OF shipment might have been resent |
ed by the purchasers of the beef, ana |
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 |
Department, Cabled to Am |
bassador Choate, enquiring as to the |
character of the British order.