The Press. MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1900. THE BEIRA DIFFICULTY.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10637, 23 April 1900, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1900. THE BEIRA DIFFICULTY.

Several interesting questions of international law ihave been raised during the present war. One which is xsav? attracting Some attention tb as to .whether the action of the Portuguese Government in allowing British troops to be sent through Portuguese territory via Beira to Ehodesia. ia or is not a breach of neutrality. This may be I discussed first from the podnfc of view of the general doctrine of international law Upon the subject, and then io the light of the special treaty obligations existing between- the two countries. Until within very recent years writers on international law were united in the opinion that a, neutral power had the right to grant to a i belligerent free passage of troops through his country without an any way violating his jeutrality. Kent, in his "Com- ! mentaries an International Law," remarks— "The right of a refusal of a pass over a neutral territory to the troops of a bel"ligerent power depends more upon the j " inconvenience falling on the neutral State "than on any injustice committed to the "third party who is to be af- " fected by the permsssioo or the " refusal. It is no ground of com- " plaint against the intermediate neutral " State if it grants a passage to belligerent " troops, though inconvenience may there- " by ensue to the adverse belligerent." Sir Koberb Ehillimore, Sir W. Vernon Harcourt, Halleck", and- Sir Travera Twiss adhere to this view, modifying it only so far as to insist that the , privilege thus granted 1 must be given impartially to both belligerents, and? that leave must be obtained from the neutral State, and must not be presumed. However, Hall, who ds perhaps the best modern authority on the subject, asserts a directly contrary opinion. According to him "The grant of permission is an act done " by the State with, the express object of "furthering a warlike end, and is in its "nature an interference in the war." As a case in point he adduces the case of the Swiss Federal Council, which "in 1870 denied a passage to bodies of Alsatians enlisted for the French Army, but travelling without arms or uniforms," and he adds, "Passage for the sole and obvious purpose of attack is clearly forbidden." In fiis nest statement, coupled with the Anglo-Portu-guese Convention of 1891, cited, by Portugal in reply to Mr Rdtz's proteste, lies the solution of the Beira difficulty. "A breed "distinction must be drawn between a grant u of passage for a specific purpose in time of "war, and a grant of paa»ge in tame of ''peace to enable a State to reach an ootijttng i "portion of its territory, or to enafcJe-it to preach its possession with more ease than "would isave otherwise been prac&oable. "In th« former case the grant is essentially "an tmneutral one, but in the" latter it is "colourless when made, and if by occurrence "of a war which touches tie outlying ter"ntory, its effects become iojnrious to on© "of the two belligerents, the result is an "accidental and possibly an unforeseen one." It is on tins dictum, probably, that the Poztoguese Government take tbetr stand. In a Utacruisfiobliibed it-ij

reported that Mr Reitz has pwt«eted againet the British fonas being avowed to paw tbrongh Portuguese territory by the Beira route. Portngal fees replied the* the consent given was in accordance with the 1891 treaty. Prwiou*totb» signing of the latter on Jun»-llßi>-188L, these had been » good deal of friction between the Chartered Company and the Portuguese officials. The British, Govera-

menfc madee.demooetration in Delagoa Bay; the Portaguese Government fitted out an expedition and actually went so far as to threaten to break off diplomatic rotations. The matter, however, -was amicably arranged and the Anglo-Portuguese convention already referred to, was the result. Its main object was to lay down the boundaries between Rhodesia and the Portuguese possessions on the east coast. Under Article XIV., the Portuguese Government agreed to construct a railway between. Puugvre and the British sphere (the Beira railway) and to give "absolute freedom of passage between " the British sphere of influence and Pun- " gwe Bay for ell merchandise of every de- " scription." Article XII. provides: —"The "Portuguese Government engages to per- " mit and to facilitate transit for all persons "and goods of every description over the " waterways of the Zambesi, the Shire, the "Pungwe, tbe Busi, the Limpopo, the "Sabi, and their tributaries, and also over " the laadways which supply means of com- *' muDJcation where these rivers are not "navigable." This, in itself, coupled with Hall's dictum, might be held; to justify Portugal in the action she has taken. It is said, however, on the authority of a telegram from Pretoria in the "Cape Times," that the Portuguese Charge d'Affaires has notified Pretoria of the existence of a secret treaty giving the British the right to send troops and war material through Beira to the British protectorate. The Transvaal Government, on the other hand,*contends that the operation of the said secret treaty is just the same as tiiat of Article No. 6 of the Republic's treaty with Portugal. Whether this is correct or not we are not in a position to aay. All we know is that in 1891, when the trouble was on with. Englaxvd, General Joabert went to Portugal and had an intervdeiw with the King. Of course the rule laid ddwn by Hall would apply to a Portuguese treaty with the Transvaal just as well as to tne AngloPortuguese Convention. If an arrangement for the passage of troops was made either with England! or the Transvaal in time pi peace, it is no breach of neutrality if Portugal allows English or Transvaal troope to pass through her territory even in time oS war. It would be a rather nice point to consider, (however, whether, if she iiftd Jnadle a similar agreement with each Government, it would be a breach of neutrality if she were to gave a passage to the troops of one and refuse it to those of the other.