The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-07-23
SATURDAY. July q. 1904.
the RESCUE ny THE YACHT DEER
HOUND.
WHAT DO COURTESY AND INTERNATIONAL
Comfy DiCrATEP

retain SEMMEs and some of his officers, af er
having rescued them from drowning, has,
from the very first discussion Of the topic,
Teen generally decided in the negative by
Americans. 1t Is the impression of Captain
WINsLow and Of his officers, that the persons
carried of by the yacht were rescued in contra
vention ofall rules Of courtesy and international
comfy. But when every loyal American may
well scrutinlze his judgment in a case where
his feelings are necessarily enlisted, it is easy
TO conceive that In the position in which the
officers Of the KearsGrOe ind themselves, they
are Of all men the ones who cannot be re-
gardcd In this matter as high authority. They
had signally defeated their enemy. They felt,
as they bad right to feel, that the alabama
and all which she contained were the lawful
prizes Of their skill and bravery; but 10 just
as they feel assured that they are about to
gather the olly spolls which the envious sea
WIN not engulf, the chief prize of their triumph
Is gone, spirited away.
A New York paper took the view that
SEMMEs, although a prisoner, had right to
use any means at his disposal to escape, but
that Mr.. LANCASTER was wrong In removing
him; and there Is evidence adduced to show
that Mr.. LANCASTER felt himself to be in the
wrong. Indeed, Mr.. LANCASTER himself
says he expected, as he was moving away
to be brought to by a shot, plainly indi-
eating 70 whom, IN his opinion at that time,
those herhad taken on board belonged, and
the Character OF his own act In conveying
them away" Now this evidence does not
at all afford proof that Mr.. LANCASTER knew
be was doing an unworthy act. 1t merely
goes TO show that Mr.. LANCASTER was think
Ing of the point Of view from which Captain
WNsLow would probably regard the aiding
hs ESCAPE OF his enemies.
As 10 the request Of Captain WINsLow to
Mr.. LANCASTER to pick up the drowning
men Of the alabama, it has nothing to do
with the question. Courtesy could not place
Mr.. LANCASTER under more obligation to
surrender SEMMEs than to retain him; for
such courtesy TO Captain WINsLow would not
be courteous TO SESnIEs. 1t is a question of
right, and of duty derived from right-not one
Of courtesy. An infraction of courtesy, super
addsd to an infraction Of right, would aggra-
Vate the chief offense; but an infraction of
courtesy cannot legitimately enter into the
consideration Of question involving the lib
!. erty OF individuals.
Were the Ald6amG's officers and men pri-
sOners when they were struggling in the
water, or were they not9 If they were, Mr..
LANoAsTER's act in picking them up could
not confer liberty upon them. If they were
not, then they were free to sail away with
any one. AS to the motives which actuated
Mr.. LANcAsTEB we never had any doubts
All the testimony in the case goes to show
that his sympathies were enlisted in favor o
the drowning men long before they wer,
drowning men. But with his motives vi
have nothing to do. The point which W
wish to ascertain, Is whether he had the righ
to retain the Al0bamo'S officers and men whom
he rescued from the water. The subject beinj
thus divested of irrelevant matter, is sus
eeptlble of investigation, with some hope @
arriving at just conclusion.
We think that SESDIEs is the culprit an
that Mr.. LANCASTER acted as he In his posi-
tlon of neutral had the right to behave, bu
as he probably would not have behaved with
out personal feeling In favor of the AidbGmC
The DeerhOuRd at sea is just as much
portion Of English territory as if she wa
mOored to its shores, or lay there high an
dry. To her boats, OF course, belonged til
same inmunities as TO herself II natio
held men in durance on board of prison-shiI
and the ship were to founder, and her creI
were 10 be picked up by neutral II cOul
not be justly maintained that such assistinc
constituted valid liberation from imprisor
ment- 1he men were really prisoners at th
time Of the laundering. They are temporaril
although unintentionally, in the position
men who have broken bounds. No neutral
under an obligation to save them; but hayin
saved them, they are undoubtedly the rlghtft
possession Of their original captors and iIil,r
But had these men of the Aia5Gmd who too
refuge on the DeerhOund ever been prisoners
What cOn'tituted them prisoners? II WI
no possession Of their persons, for the Kel
sarge did not obtain them. IfCaptain WIN
Ion had right IN them, II must have bee
because they were technically prisoners, b,
mo- absolutely. The question now arises as
wi at could make them technically prisoner
1t was the act Of SEAIMEs in surrendering h
ship. This he did in two ways Firstly, b
hauling down his flag; secondly, by sendin
10 the hedrSdrge boat with an officer VII
made formal surrender OF the ship. Fro
the very nature OF the circumstances, h
terms Of surrender were unconditional. Vi
conditional surrender implies the giving U
of everything, both personal and materia
SEAniEs, as commander of the defeated shi
was pledged to such a surrender; hence
had no right TO sequester himself or to allo
his subordinates 10 avail themselves of an
means ofescape except from drowning.
We have been told that instances have o,
CURED where ship in a general naval er
gagement, after having struck her flag. ha
on observing favorable change In the comba
raised it again, and has prosecuted the agb
without having been supposed TO act In cor
travention Of honorable procedure. We d
not Vouch for the accuracy Of the statement
but even admitting the PrOpriety of allowiu
a ship in a general naval engagement
come In O action again after having su
rendered, such case and the one under co
deratlon are essentially different In