The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-04-12
MORE TROOPS NEEDED.


that more troops arc needed to guard
the Mexican border; that the shipment
of arms across the border to the insur-
gents goes on without much Interrupt
ton, the latest case being the reported
shipment of four machine guns, five
hundred Mauser rifles, and 800, ,000
rounds of rifle ammunition have been
"smugglcd' across the border. billed
to the american Mining Company
as mining machinery. being sent from
8 lonely station in New Mexico.
OF course, it is impossible for the
comparatively small military force that
the United States has upon the Mex
lean border to completely patrol the
upwards of two thousand miles Of bor-
der line. To undertake 10 string the
twenty thousand troops we have on the
border, along that line, would give but
ten soldiers to the mile, and these ten
could manifestly be evaded in the long
| intervals between each two; besides,
with that sort of tactics the line would
be so weak as to be easily broken by
anv squad of armed men that might
wish to operate from either side of the
line. But the troops are kept in con
centrated form, as is quite right, so
that, when they move, they will be
able to move with rapidity and with
sufficient power to meet every need
But is the United States under any
| Obligation to prevent the shipment of
/ T
fessor Hershey, who holds the chair Of
| political science and international law
| in Indiana University, and is recog
nlzed authority, says in The lndepcn-
dent that "Thc merest tyro in inter
| national law knows that neither the
law of nations nor our neutrality laws
prohibit the supply of arms and ammu-
milton either to belligerents or insur-
gents. There should be no need of
smuggling. The trade may be carried
on openly. But anything in the ma
turc of an organized military expedi-
tion (6libustering) and the use of a
port or a portion of our territory as
regular and continuous base of sup
plies for militar-' operations is forbid
dem
That, of course, has been fully under
stood all the time by those versed in
international law. 1t is as fully under
stood, doubtless, by President Taft as
by anybody. So that the reason urged
from El Paso for increasing the mill
tary forces is not good one. and will
be probably and justly disregarded.
In this same connection it is again
asserted and again denied, as it was
denied at the first, both by President
Taft and bv Baron Uchida of Japan,
ambassador to the United States,
that the concentration of troops on the
Mexican border was by reason Of in
formation of a treaty about to be con
eluded between Japan and Mexico, ccd
ing coaling station on the west coast
of Mexico to Japan. President Taft IS
r-iteration of the denial ought to be
conclusive, and, should put an end to
that story altogether.
But we should not undertake to do
on the Mexican border more than in
ternationl law and our treaty obliga-
tions require us to do; and while pre-
venting the use of any portion of the
United States territory as q recruiting
ground or station for warlike operations
against Mexico, we have no right what
ever to stop Shipments of arms and
ammunition, nor to prevent persons
crossing the border who may want to
enlist in the insurgent ranks. Those
enhstments, of course, cannot occur in
this country, nor can any agents of the
insurgents be allowed to establish re"
cruiting stations within the borders of
the United States; but it would not be
violation of our neutrality laws for
person to leave this country with in
tent to enlist in the insurgent ranks in
Mexico. On this point Professor Her
shey quotes decisions of the Unite,
States Supreme Court, and his state
ment Of the case is undoubtedly both
authoritative and fully backed by legal
precedent.
So far as there is any problem re.
naming as to the reason why our mill
tary concentration on the Mexican bor-
der was made, that problem still re-
mains a problem. But it is evident !
that, if the United States forces should |
undertake to prevent shipments of arms
to the insurgents in Mexico, they would
be exceeding their legal authority, and |
In so far as they might undertake to
prevent Americans from crossing the |
border to join the insurgent forces in
Mexico, they would be acting contrary
to the rights Of those persons. The pres
ence of the United States forces on
the Mexican border, so far as can now
be ascertained, means simply that the
President was determined to prepare for
anything that might develop, without
having any aggressive intentions, and
without designing to take any part in
the internal affairs Of Mexico.