The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-04-12

ish army" He also alleged that the
Milwaukee was commanded by army
officers
i Secretary Hays letter in answer to
| that of the governor says: Il have re-
/ ceiVed your letter of March % and sub
submitted to the president. who directs
me to inform you that he has requested
an opinion from the attorney general
/ in regard to the points of law involved
| in the matter TO which it refers. and
| has also ordered an immediate investi-
| cation OF the facts in the case
! The attorney generals opinion is
dated April 4. He says that the prin-
cipal question, and a delicate one. is
whether there has been a departure
] from neutrality on the part of our. gov
eminent in this matter, and. nOtWith-
standing the urgency of Pearson and
Governor Heard, he thinks this gov
eminent should not take any action
without mature consideration by the
president and his advisers
He submits some tentative Sugges-
lions. First, he says the sale of con-
traband of war supplies to a belIiger-
ent is held by many eminent authori-
ties to be unlawful. and something
which q neutral nation must forbid
to its citizens, but the weight of au-
thority is the other way. A rule of
law now fully agreed upon is that a
neutral nation shall not give aid to
one of the belligerents in the carrying
on of war
Carrying on commerce with a sell
ligerent 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 does not make that COM
nerce cease to be the same as before
the war. 1t does not seem to be set
tied that the fact that the belligerent
government as a purchaser makes the
neutral governments permission of the
commerce a departure from the obliga-
ton to give no aid to the belligerent
The fact that neutral merchants give
aid to the belligerentS from motives of
gain seeking does not relieve their gov
eminent from its obligations to prevent
otherwise it would be lawful to supply
warships with coal, cannon and pow
der.
SAYS IT IS DIFFICULT CASE.
The difference lies in drawing the line
between the right of carrying on and
of governmental permission to carry on
the commerce usual before the war. and
the obligation upon the government
and citizens of the neutral government
to give no aid to the belligerents. The
attorney general adverts at some length
to 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 prepon-
derant characteristics must control the
determination. He enters into long CT
tation of cases in the nature of prece-
dents, and says, in conclusion:
while decisions of such matters
have, as in the Alabama case, princi
pally concerned war vessels and ex-
petitions by sea, it cannot be doubted
that aid given to an army engaged in
actual warfare stands on the same
footing as aid given to a fleet so en-
gagged, since both equally involve a
taking part by the neutral in further
ing the military Operations of the bel
ligerent.
From all that has been said. think
it may be concluded that in deternin-
ing whether a transaction of the kind
referred to, which, in one respect, is
commercial in character. is yet not en-
titled to enjoy the rights belonging to
commerce, but is prohibited to the
neutral nation and it's people as being
an aid to one of the belligerents in car
rying on war against the other, the
criteria are practically impossible to
Each case that arises must be consid-
cred in all its circumstances and de-
termined accordingly"