OCR Text |
Show THE MULE CAMP IN THE SOUTH. Correspondence That Has Passed Between Be-tween the Various Officials Investigating Inves-tigating the Character of the Establishment Es-tablishment Where British Officers Send Mounts to South Africa. Washington, April 5 The state department today made public the correspondence that has so far taken place between the United States government and the governor of Louisiana concerning the latter's statement state-ment touching the shipment of live stock and supplies for the British army on the South African from Chalmette, La. There are three principal letters and a number of appendixes. The principal letters are one from the governor gov-ernor of Louisiana, dated- March 2S, touching the conditions at Chalmette; a reply from Secretary Hay, dated April 4, announcing that he had ordered or-dered an investigation, (which will be made by an army officer), and a long opinion from the attorney general on the legal points involved in the Chalmette Chal-mette shipments. Governor Heard's letter already has been outlined in the press dispatches. He begins with a statement that he had received from the mayor of New Orleans a copy of a letter from Secretary Secre-tary Hay calling his attention to a threat of Samuel Pearson to "commit a breach of the peace in New Orleans," and referring that letter to the mayor for consideration. Mr. Pearson's letter is one heretofore published, dated at New Orleans, Feb. 1, and addressed to the president, calling call-ing attention to the conditions of affairs af-fairs at New Orleans and Chalmette. The mayor transmitted this correspondence corre-spondence to the governor of the state, on the ground that the acts complained of were permitted in the parish of St. Bernard, out of the jurisdiction of the city authorities. The governor immediately imme-diately mrote to Sheriff Nunez of the parish in regard to the matter. The sheriff's reply, a part of the governor's letter, is dated St. Bernard, La., Feb. 28. He reports concisely that mules and horses were being loaded at Chalmette Chal-mette for the British government, either directly or indirectly, but the loading was done by longshoremen of ho ritv nf X'ew Orleans, sunervised by Englishmen, who might, or might not, be officers of the British army. Certainly Cer-tainly there was no one there in uniform. uni-form. In concluston, the sheriff says: "There is no such thing as a British post with men and soldiers established at Fort Chalmette. So far as the recruiting re-cruiting of men is concerned. I am sure I can certify that it is not being done in the parish of St. Bernard. As I understand, un-derstand, the only men taken on the ships are muleteers, who are employed in the city of New Orleans." . Governor Heard says it is conceded by the British officers themselves that the animals were for the British army in South Africa. His letter says: "The burghers of South Africa are making a fight for their homes and their liberty, which cannot but appeal to the sense of fair play of the American Amer-ican people. As the executive of the commonwealth of Louisiana, whose people have always been ardent lovers of the Boers, I cannot but feel that the establishment and maintenance of a base of war supplies for the British army upon our soil places upon me a grave responsibility. AID THE BRITISH GREATLY. "These mules and horses shipped from Port Chalmette are indispensable to the operations of the British army. Hence they must be considered as contraband con-traband of war, of greater value, it seems, than soldiers that England can so easily furnish from within her borders." bor-ders." The governor gives it as his opinion that it is the function of the national o-overnment. and not of the state, to enforce obedience of the neutrality laws, yet if the duty belongs to the state where the violation occurs, he would not hesitate to act as the law may warrant, and calls upon the secretary sec-retary of state for his view on the matter. In a postscript to his letter, the governor gov-ernor reports the arrival in New Orleans Or-leans of General Sir Richard Campbell Stuart, an aide of the British army, on a tour of inspection of the transport service in the vicinity of New Orleans. He also encloses a number of newspaper news-paper clippings and statements from ! individuals as to the operations of the ! British remount service, a transcript of the proceedings in court and a number of letters from individuals protesting against the continuation of the animal shipments. The most important of these is probably itn affidavit of one Tourennc, setting forth his engagement for service on the transport Milwaukee, signing articles before the British vice consul, being assigned to duty by Lieutenant Lieu-tenant Thompson, of the yeomanry of the British army and. acting under his orders to Cape Town, thence to Durban, Dur-ban, where horses were delivered to British officers. in uniform, and where . the men were not allowed to go ashore, 'unless we would agree to sign with the reori'j.ting officer and join the Brit ish army." He also alleged that the Milwaukee was commanded by army officers. . j Secretary Hay's letter in answer to that of the governor says: " have re-! re-! ceived your letter of March 20 and sub-submitted 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 investigation investi-gation of the facts in the case." The attorney general's opinion is dated April 4. He says that the principal prin-cipal question, and a delicate one. is I whether there has been a departure ' from neutrality on the part of our. government gov-ernment in this matter, and. notwith-I notwith-I standing the urgency of Pearson and : Governor Heard, he "thinks this gov-. gov-. ernment should not take any action without mature consideration by the , president and his advisers." I He submits some tentative sugges-i sugges-i tions. First, he says the sale of con-j con-j traband of war supplies to a belligerent belliger-ent is held by many eminent authori-j authori-j lies to be unlawful, and something which a neutral nation must forbid to its citizens, but the weight of authority 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 belligerent bel-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 commerce com-merce cease to be the same aa before the war. It does not seem to be settled set-tled that the fact that the belligerent government as a purchaser makes the neutral government's permission of the commerce a departure from the obligation obliga-tion 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 government gov-ernment 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 011 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 preponderant prepon-derant characteristics must control the determination. He enters Into long citation ci-tation of cases in the nature of precedents, prece-dents, and says, in conclusion: "While decisions of such matters ha-e, as in the Alabama case, principally princi-pally concerned war vessels and expeditions ex-peditions 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 engaged, en-gaged, since both equally involve a taking part by the neutral in furthering further-ing the military operations of the belligerent. bel-ligerent. "From all that has been said, I think it may be concluded that in determining determin-ing whether a transaction of the kind referred to, which, in one respect, is commercial in character, is yet not entitled en-titled to enjoy the rights belonging to commerce, but is prohibited to the neutral nation and its people as being rylng on war against the other, the criteria are practically impossible to specify and enumerate . in advance. Each case that arises must be considered consid-ered in all its circumstances and determined de-termined accordingly." |