New-York tribune., 1911-03-17
NEUTRALITY LAW IN WAY
Shipments of Arms to Mexico
Nav Not Be Wholly Stopped.

Washington. March 1e.--Careful study of
the neutrality laws has left the adminisTa-.
1:cn's advisers doubling grsyely # the
United safes can entirely prevent the ship
rnert OF arms and ammunition 10 the MeNl-
can insurgents The view Of the law taken
hy the Department Of Justice and its study
Of precedents seem to bear out the contep-
ton of the administration officials that the
government can control shipments Of arms
in . measure, dealing with each case &C
cordine 70 the circumstances. but that there
ia no general statute which fatty forbids
such shipment
ATTORNEY General Judson Harmon in 1925
gave an opinion 10 the state Department re-
sarding shipment of arms TO the Cuban
revolutoniEts in which he said that the
mere sale or shipment Of arms and muni-
lions If war b. persons in the United States
tc persons in Cuba is NOT A violation Of in
,.rnational law, however strong q suspicion
there nav be that they are 70 Re used in an
resurrection against the Spanish govern
rent'
Ahcut ths same time Justice BroTn. IN
N. United States supreme Court held that
- vas no offence against the neutrality
laws cf ths United States - transport mu'
rltions Of war from'this country - another
IS n1erchs ndise only. If not designed 20 aid
military expedition from this countrv
whether ihsv were - be u5ed IN way cr not
IN the Wihorr case involving flihuster-
'rz expedition TO Cuba the Supreme Court
held that " vas no crime 20 transport n1u-
r,ticns of war to another country If they
were ~ he used for VAT of not. and that II
vas not an offence 20 transport persons in
tending 10 enlist in foreign ARM and mu-
rlticns # war on the sarle trip. Tho court
however. made the fine distinction that y
would have been violation Of ,law If The
PERSONS intending TO enlist and the mum
tens Of war being transported were parts #
the same military expedition planned and
set on foot N this countrv.
IN his opinion Chief Justice Fuller said
1T Is impossible 70 lsy down any hard and
fas, line separating commercial trans
actions in munitions of war and the or
ranizinT Of hostile expeditions. Inter-
national law Is Incapable Of teing defined
ard LAID down with the precision attain
zrle r. municipal law. The question is
one of 11fent. and u K the duty of
neutral government 70 exercise due dill
Fence IN sscertainng vha' the real char-
sct.r re the transaction may be-
When Secretary Knox was attorney cen
srsl he was asked Il the Law prohibited the
deportation Of arms and ammunition 80
China. where there vss unrest Mr.. Knox
orly short time before h,d decided there
was NJ absolute emb2reo on The shipment
o. mules 10 south Africa 1or use in the
Transvasl war
The mere shipment or expectation of
arms m the vav Of commerce TO A coun-
try IN which there arc insIrIectorv move
men's does not seem 70 80 prohibited by
our statutes nor by the law Of nations
ne SAID. And for this reason there ap-
pears n ne nothing this denar'rent can do
ir the direction of restricting shipments Of
arms and varlke materials r. China
one case bearing on the Mexican situa-
,ion is that Of the United states against
Yhanez charged with forming an ex-
r.dition in the United states 20 invade
Mexico The court held that before con
viction il must be proved lnat the design
and purpose of tho expedition WAS some
attack on or invasion Of aroiher people or
country ~ 2 military force u was also
held that Tho mere fact that men armed
with rifles had crossed She Rio Graude
into Mexico would not be sufficient I'm itself
80 constitute a military enterprise or hos
.Ie intent but proof must 20 furnished of
vhat they were doing and where their
dsftinstiou was. The com: made plain.
however. that if any number Of men in
the United states planned an attack on
Mexico they would violate tho neutrality
laws
While no Official opinion has been rcn-
dered. II is understood that tho Depart
yn,r, of Justice 6ra wing its conclusions
from the decisions of tho courts and the
apparently unanimous opinions Of the de-
partment in the past. takes the ground
that there is no general law 20 prohibit
tho shipment Of arms to tLc insurgents,
and that this is practically The view OF the
administration.