New-York tribune., 1902-04-06
OF law now fully agreed upon is that neutral
nation shall not give aid to one of the belliger-

OF law now fully agreed upon is that neutral
haton snail not give aid to one OF the pelhger-
ents In the carrying Of war carrying on
commerce with u belligerent in the manner usual
before the war is not giving such aid. The mere
increased demand for warlike articles and their
increased quantity in the commerce do not
make that commerce cease TO be the same as
pefore the war 1t does not seem to be set
lied that the fact that the belligerent govern
ment is a purchaser makes the neutral govern
ment's permission Of the commerce a departure
from the obligation to give no aid TO the beliig-
erent. The fact that neutral merchants give AID
TO the bellgerents from motives of gain seeking
does not relieve their government from its OBJ
legation to prevent otherwise it would be lawfu III
to supply warships with coal. cannon and pow
der The difficulty lies in drawing the line be-
tween the right OF carrying on and Of govern
mental permission TO carry on the commerce
usual before the war. and the obligation upon
the government and citizens of the neutral gov
ernment to give aid to the belligerents.
NOT SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DECIDE.
The Attorney General speaks at some length
of the difficulty in disposing of these cases, each
different from the other. and without exact
precedent. and he falls back on the principle
recognized in international law. that the pre-
ponderant characteristics must control the de-
termina ton. He gives long citations from cases
in the nature of precedents. and says in con-
cluson:
While discussions of such matters have. as in
the Alabama claims cases. principally concerned
war vessels ana expeditions py Sed- IL CdHiol I've
doubted that aid given to an army engaged In
actual warfare stands upon the same footng
aid given a fleet engaged. since both
equally involve taking part by the neutral
in furthering the military operations or the
bellieerent. Nor should the municipal laws or
England and the United States or Of other
countries by principally dealing with such YES
sells and expeditions. obscure the fact that aid
can as well he given to military operations OF
the belligerent the way the other, by
proceedings carried upon the neutral terri
tory. .
From all that has been said, I think that 1t
may be concluded that. in determining whether
d transaction of the kind referred to, which In
one respect is commercial in character, Is yet
not entitled to enjoy the rights belonging TO
commerce. but is prohibited to the neutral ma
ton and its people being an aid to one or
the belligerents in carrying on war against the
other the criterja practically impossible to
specify and enffmerate IN advance. Each case
that arises must be considered in all its cir
curnstanCes and determined accordingly.
In the case before there is no statement
Of facts by you upon which to give an official
opinion TO the law. and do not understand
that one has been requested. number or al
legations and some testimony have been sent
me- and they sufficient to challenge atten-
ton. But the first thing to be done is to as
certain whether the allegations true L
have endeavored well ! could in advance.
shall only add that, among the points by which
to be guided are the systematic character of
the transactions. their greater or less extensive
ness their persistence in time or the reverse.
their governmental character or the absence or
il, their objects and results. and principally OF
course their relations. If any, with the prosecu-
ton of the military operations IN South Africa