The sun., 1902-03-10
THE DUTIES OF NEUTRALITY.
A Diplomats Review OF Some OF the Con-
sequences OF the Treaty OF washington.


sequences OF the Treaty OF washington.
To THE EpIroR or The SUN-!Siri The
statement OF your Washington correspond
ence OF to-day that the Boer Commissioners.
who visited the President yesterday, made
a question with Secretary Hay regarding
the duty OF the United States TO prevent
British agents from shipping from our ports
horses, mules. -four. munitions OF war and
other supplies TO the British forces in South
Africn is very interesting in two aspects.
Ii discloses how vague. and conflicting
when not vague. are vet the views OF intelli-
gent men regarding neutral duties. and II
also emphasizes the inquiry made by Charles
Francis Adams. last November. in his address
to the New York Historical Society into the
plight England might have been in had IL
not been for the Treaty OF Washin gton. II
the United States had behaved TO her as
she behaved to MS during the Civil War
II seems to be quite impossible for a neutral
nation to satisfy both belliRerents, and for
o bell gerent to be content with the practice
OF neutrality which the belligerent enforced
when neutral Every one ought to see
that the United States cannot stop the send
ing Of horses mules. nour and even munitions
OF war. because war breaks out in South
Africa All the United States is bound to pre-
vent s the furnishing munitions OF war
amino beuicsrandi. In behalf OF either party.
as portion OF military enterprise. All
selling and transporting amino rendendi.
and amino commsreordnd' are permissible to
neutral citizens.
Yet the German Government did during
the Franco-German War. in the famous
notes that passed between Bernstorff and
Granville. complain of England that she did
not prevent the sale in England TO France
OF Goals and munitions OF war. and thus vio-
lated benevolent neutrality The notes
rchanged on the topic were learned, interest
ing and many Among them was that in
which Granville reminded Bernstorfl that.
during the Crimean War. Prussian subjects
sold TO Russia in precisely the same way
As bearing on the inquiry started by Mr.
Adams, N might have. been that the Beers
would have been content and England the
complainant. had II not been for the Treaty
OF Washington Not that the United States
would have repudiated its honora BILE neutral
record, or set at defiance its Foreign Enlist
ment law Of ISIS. in mere spiteful retaliation
for what England dit TO Us from 1891 to
due diligence might have been not the
highest The Beers had their gold mines
to draT upon ,,Io1 II the beginning Is they could
with which to buy or build corsars Ike the
Ala bama, which could have made havoc
the British-bullt and armed Confederrta
cruisers made on American commerce Per-
hars the Treaty of Washington saved Eng
Mr %da.s also brought out from tho
materials Of history il his hands facts quite
T sFsT diaries nn FGsy nTs .d I'd o be- eTS
more rich IN historical material than those %
his Rrardfather or Rrent-grsndf1the' lie
tion They are said TO cover minutaiy the
acts In In Hand which created the .Alabaml
Claims. and those AZ Geneva where his l9ther
period which is the negotiation Of the treaty
settling all pending claim. between the two
YSTEk' York iddrrsl M to have have thoTonchiy Explored
at the sources Of knowl"dge, both individual
and documentary VII recent address eX-
enlarRnc il for publication within few weeks
IN book foru presenting other ne" historical
facts AID dat,
one fact that he emphasized in the address
was taat both President Grant and Chdiru,dn
sumner OF the senate Foreign Relations Com
She made from 1854 to iss5. md not enable
or aid her 20 get out of II iii she reiu0inshed
Soysreg1'y oyer AL hEr pprI%'Ii2hS On ms
tpred and formulated diT'r, M plan of set
tirpent which ENGLAND iniorr ally accented
ofiicialy presented II 10 Mr. Surlner - the
onlcial organ OF the senate in such Affairs
who two days later, sent onctally 10 Mr
the plan. and as-ociating MIR Fi-h with
sumner plan which the author san can
Fugland besin the, negotiation 10y prroTis,nG
10 depart ont OF this hem~pher" The plau
Of Mr. Fish proposed to submlf To Arbi-
trRiion the san Juan boundary and IN" Fish
cries tut tho SuUr"r plan. not 10 ho "ahan-
doned dCnarded that tnCl1ud first Of all
give mp ABSOLUTELY everything relating TO
Canada
Nr Adams brings, out the new historical
fact that when the President read the ulti-
mat,lIn Of his enemy. Nr Sumner. the for
NOR quickly abandoned his Canadisn views
and for the first time. authorized Mr Fish
20 conduct the ncGotistion- with England
on his own lines. regardless Of Mr sumner
Thus. ~ effect a. Mr Adams has put the
aNalr MIR Fish reversed both his chief, the
President and Mr. sumner
Nir Adams also brings out, more or less
distinctly. that the President was inclined
so TO exploit the then pending revolt IN
Cuba a. 10 compel Spain also 20 withdraw
from this continent, which inclination MIR.
sumner resisted He and the President
agreed a. 20 Canada. but differed as to cuba
The speCulatiOns Of Mr.. Adams in MS ad-
dress over what might have been IN the
world had MIR Fish in the crisis not held
control as between Grant and sumner. and
as between both and Congress, and the Gov.
eminent 81 the United States had In the end
foreseen itself confronting. ss proposed, both
England and Spain. were intensely sugges-
tive, and. after the comments thereon n" hf
heard should he even more interesting in
the Forthcoming volume which his Boston
publishers have announced BElNl.
NEw NpEk March q