United States; that the work was being supervised by Englishmen who might or might not be officers of the British army, although none of them wore the uniform of Great Britain.  But the Sheriff positively asserted that a British post with men and soldiers was not established at the port; that no recruiting of men was taking place within the parish; that the only men taken on the ships were muleteers who were employed in the city of New Orleans by the contractors; that these men were taken on board the ships when in mid-stream by tugs which set out from the city wharves.

[Footnote 29:  H.R., Doc. 568, 57 Cong., 1 Sess., p. 4; Nunez, Sheriff of St. Bernard, to Heard, Governor of Louisiana, Feb. 28, 1902.]

In a personal interview “General” Pearson made the same charges to the Governor that he had made in his letter to the President.  He asked that he be allowed to offer forcible resistance to the shipments to South Africa, and to the enlisting or employing of men as muleteers, who, he alleged, were later incorporated in the British army.  This interview took place the day following the Sheriff’s letter partially denying the charges to the Governor, and the latter was not disposed to take any action in the matter until proof of the accuracy of the averments was produced, although the facts which were alleged had become widely known.

The attitude of the Administration with reference to Pearson’s letter, it was believed by the press, was not of a character to inspire great confidence in the strict performance of neutral duties.  To ignore an allegation of so flagrant a character as the breach of neutrality, it was declared, constituted a disregard of American ideals in the interest of British imperialism which could not be excused by jocular references to “General” Pearson’s request to the President “to either put an end to this state of affairs or permit me to strike one blow."[30]

[Footnote 30:  The Republic of Chicago, Feb. 15, 1902.]

It was pointed out that the problem raised by Pearson was not one that might be laughed out of the White House, but was the serious question whether the British Government should any longer be permitted, in violation of American neutrality, to use an American city and port as a base of warlike operations against a friendly people.  The newspapers, too, had made public the movements of the English army officers in charge of the shipments.  It seems that the base of operations at first used by Great Britain was Southport, but that Chalmette had later been selected.  The efficiency of the latter station was reported upon in March, 1902, by General Sir Richard Campbell Stewart of the British army.  Everything pertaining to the efficiency of the transportation service was carefully inspected on behalf of the British Government.  Colonel DeBergh, who was in command of the remount service in the United States, declared that he had not received orders from the British War Office to discontinue the shipments, and that they would be continued “unless General Pearson and the Boer army drive our garrison away."[31]