The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-28
erik OF CHALMETTE QUESTION

i While the report Of Colonel sCroWder,.
detailed by the war department to report
as to whether the British mule camp at
Chalmette is violation Of the neutrality:
OF the United States, has not yet been
published, it is asserted that it is OF a,
nature that will lead the president to or.
der the, cama broken up.
There is good deal of confusion in the
public mind as to what constitutes neu-
trality. On the one hand, it seems
reasonab BILE that the people of the United
States have right to sell their goods and
products to all comers,S regardless Of
whether the purchasers be at peace or.
war with some other nation than the
United States. That has been the MS
toric American theory of the privileges
&of a neutral. On the other hand it seems
hardly consistent with strict neutrality
to permit officers of the British army to
maintain on American soil a regular
transport supply camp5 which is as much
a base of operations for the British army
in South Africa as the stores at Cape
Town. itself. KS
We would not Sermit either Britons or
Beers to outfit. equip and dispatch an
army from our shores. Neither would
we permit the Beers to build a warsves-
sci In an American shipyard, equip and
supply it for the purpose Of marrying
to much the same thing, when we permit
the British to collect and ship in British
transports, directly<to South Africa those
mules and horses that are as much sup
|. plies of war" as guns and ammunition.
It was this point that Attorney General
Knox had in mind when he said that the
n. ain question was as TO whether the traf-
fic was being carried on as in time Of
I,peace. There is no question of the Brit
ish privilege to buy and the American
right to sell horses and mules. The ques-
ton is as to the manner inEwhich the
traffic is conducted.
Besides general American policy as tt
neutrality, and international usage, tht
United States and England are bound b,
the treaty of Washington OF, 1871 which
contains these provisions: : !,
"A neutral government is bound not to per
| nit or suffer either belligerent. to make US
| of it's ports or waters the base OF nava
! operations against the other,< or for the pur
pose of renewal or augmentation of milltar
supplies or arms or the recruitment OF men
| A neutral government is bound to exereiis
diligence in its ports or waters and as to al
| persons within its jurisdiction to prevent an
I violation of the foregoing obligations an
duties ~
This treaty was specifically cited sb
Queen Victoria in her neutrality procfa
nation issued at the beginning of tn
war between the United States and Spal
and would doubtless have been en-
forced had the United States establishe
at any English port such. "a camp as th
British have atCha lmett e.ss rre
Thus it will be seen that If the govern
ment takes steps to break up the chal
i mette camp, England can have no caus
/; to take offense. Such a'course can not b
/, construed as an expression of ill=Wlll t
Z England 1t will merely be the enforce
\ ment of that neutrality, after carefu
/ investigation of the specific offense al
(; legged, that the American and British gov
/ ernments have mutually bound themselve
! to observe =