The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-03-17
MAY SHIP ARMS
TO |NSURCEN
No General Law to Prevent Ciii-
zens of the United States
From Aiding Rebels.
QUESTION SETTLED
BY SUPREME COURT
Opinion of Attorney General
Harmon and Decision of
Justice Brown Cited.

WASHINGTON, March ls.-Careful
study OF the neutrality laws has left the
adplinis;ratl tlon's advisers doubling II the
United States can prevent the shipment
Of arms ard ammunition TO the Mexican
insurrcctos
The department OF justice view OF the
law and IT'S study OF the prccedents seems
10 bear out the contention as viewed by
administration officials. that the gov
ernmcnt can control I'm a measure the
shipments OF arms. dealing with each
particular case according 10 the circum
stances surrounding II, out that there Is
no general statute which explicitly for
bids ,hc shipments.
Attorney General Harmon. In 1895.
gave an opinion TO the state department
regarding the Shipment OF arms TO the
Cuban USyrEectos. IN which he held that
mere sale or shipment OF arms and mu
uijions OF war By persons in the United
states 10 persons in Cuba Is not vio-
iation OF International law however
strong a suspicion inere may be that
thcs are 10 be used ~ an insutrcction
against tie Spen.sh government"
Surremo Court Decision.
About the same lime Justice Brown in
Lat Il was no ofiense against the neu
tral.Jy laws OF the United States TO
transport munitions or war from THIS
country 10 another. as merchandise only
petition from this country. whether They
. were 20 be used IN war or not. In the
Wiborc case. which was one OF the fill
lustcrs 70 Cuba, the supreme court OF
tfe Gn.tsl states affirmed the opinion
of the court below, ihal IL was no crime
, 10 transport munitions OF war 10 an
used for war or not tnd tia; II was rot
an nNrnse 20 transport persons intend
.lDG 10 enlist IN foreign army and mu-
nilions of war on the same t,ip.
.lN..l.a st,,.1
distinction that Il would have been
br. ach OF law If both the persons In
tending 10 enlist and the munitions Of
war oeinG transported We're parts of
the same military expedition planned and
set on fcot in This country.
Ono Case in Point
One case which bears directly on the
d Mexican situation has been found. that
of the United States versus Ybanez.
the t'Fen tinted ~''" siatas % 10 % invade MEXICO "
Judge Nav held that before conviction
Iii must be proved that the design and
purpose Of the expedition was some at
, country as a military force"
Judge NAV also held that the m-r-
fact that men armed with rifles had
crossed .hc Rio Grande into Mexico
would ne not sufficient in itself 10 con-
stitute n military enterprise of hostile
Intent. hut the proof must be furnished
OF what they were doing and where their
destination was. The court made plain
however. that II any number OF men
Planned in the United States an attack
on Mexico they would be guilty of vio-
Iatinn Of the neutrality laws.
While no official opinion has been
given Il Is understood the department Of
irst!ce. drawing its views from decisions
Of the courts and from the apparently
unanimous opin!ons of the department In
the past. takes the position that there is
no general law 10 prohibit the shipments
of arms TO the insurre~tos. and that this
IS practically understood by the admin
istrat.on.