The Tucson citizen., 1902-01-22
ROOSEVELT AIDING THE ENGLISH

The Chicago branch of the Amerj-
can Transvaal league is making an
earnest protest against the furnishing
of aid by the United States to Great
Britain against the Boer republics AMI
calls attention to the fact that this is
violation of neutrality as defined by
Great Britain herself.
The war between Spain and the
United States was declared April %.
1898. On April %. Queen Victoria is
sued u proclamation of neutrality in
which was said:
Whereas, We are resolved to ensure
by every lawful means in our power
the due observance by our subjects to-
ward both of the aforesaid powers, of
the rules embodied in Article vi of
the treaty of the Sth of May. 1871. be-
tween us and the United States of
America. which said rules are as fol-
lows: "A neutral government is
bound = =
Secondly. not to permit or suffer
either belligerent to make use of its
operations against the other. or for
the purpose of the renewal or aug
mentation of military supplies or arms,
or the recruitment of men.
Thirdly, to exercise due diligence
In its own ports and waters. and as to
all persons within its jurisdiction to
prevent any violation of the foregoing
obligations and duties.
The same construction is put on the
law of neutrality by all civilized ma
tions. and in the Spanish war Brazil,
Denmark, Holland and other countries
issued proclamations warning their
subjects against shipping to either
country anything that lis adaptable
for immediate use in war.
But the United States is not observ-
ing this rule Over one hundred thou
sand horses and mules have been
bought and shipped rom New Orleans
by agents of the British government
to Cape Colony to be used by Great
Britain in her military operations in
South Africa. Both horses and mules
are included in the term military sup
plies" when it Is known they are to be
used in carrying on war Is our gov
prnment observing the duty of neutra-
lity imposed by the treaty of Washing
ton when it permits the port at New
Orleans to be used for the purpose or
'augmenting" these supplies? Is
tab ina,
tain the duty TO remain neutral when
the United States is at war not equally
binding upon the United States when
Great Britain is at war?
And why is this permitted? An in |
junction was sought in the Federal
Courts at New Orleans early in 1901 !
to restrain the shipment of horses and |
mules to Cape Colony by agents OF
the British government The injunc-
ton was denied. and general but
erroneous impression that there is no
remedy for this injustice has been
the result.
In order to correct this impression
that the injunction writ was not issued
because it was held that the enforce
ment Of the treaty Of Washington was
not within the province of a Court Of
Equity. and that the enforcement Of
treaties and the observance of the
neutrality imposed by such treaties are
duties devolving upon the executive
branch of the Government In the case
mentioned it is held that:
Court of Equity cannot take cog
nizance of a suit by private persons
to enjoin the shipment from port Of
the United States Of alleged military
supplies for the use of one OF two
foreign nations which are engaged in
war The questions involved in such
case are entirely political, and in the
very nature Of things the case is one
which can be dealt with only hy the
executive branch OF the Government
The cause Of this outrageous wrong
is that the President of tn" United
States does not stop IT, He has as com
pIetc power to do so as he had tu name
Marshal McCords successor