The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1878-05-11

has also its benevolent fund for the as
sistance of poor members in the educa-
ton of their children and otherwise.
Privateering and Piracy.
A writer in the London Truth says in
regard to the naval complications likely
to arise between England and Russia
should war occur:
A good deal of vague correspondence
has been going on in the Times to prove
and to disprove that, in the event of the
Russian ports being blockaded by our
fleets, British commerce will pursue the
even current of its way across the ocean
as though war did not exist. Most of
the correspondents for and against this
theory have evolved their facts in re-
spect to international law from their
moral consciousness. The subject is
somewhat technical one, and it is i'm
possible to dogmatize upon it without
having thoroughly studied it. A cob
bier who has learned how to make shoes
knows more about them than the great
est sage who has never cobbled. spent
years of my life professionally learning
international law, and this Is why I
know more about it than the ingenious
but, no doubt, more intellectually gifted
correspondents of the Times, who mix
up privateering with piracy, and fancy
that the latter might be put down by the
simple expedient of hanging those who
engage in it. Piracy is exercising acts
of hostility on the high seas without q
commission from any government, or
exercising them with q commission
from two governments. Thus, if pri-
vateer during the Crimean war had OBJ
tanned letters of marque from France
and England, and, after destroying a
Russian vessel, had been taken BY the
Russians, the Captain and the crew
might have been hanged as pirates.
Why this is 1 do not pretend to know,
but of the fact, according to interna-
tional law, there is no question.
Under no circumstances can a vessel
with letter of marque from a bellig
erent become pirate. If the vessel be
captured its crew are prisoners of war.
Were they otherwise treated this would
simply lead to reprisals on prisoners
taken from the belligerent that treats
them in an exceptional manner. A bel
ligerent may establish prize courts in
neutral ports. The decisions of these
courts are binding. The effect of con-
demnation, however, is merely this: If
a vessel be taken BY a belligerent (and
whether 1t be taken by vessel of war
or by privateer makes no dffference),
and if it be retaken before condemned
BY prize court, it reverts to its original
owner; but if once condemned, the
original owner is Invested of all property
in it. Thus, supposirS that an English
vessel was taken by Russian pri-
vateer, brought into port, and condemn
ed as gold prize, and the ship were
then on its voyage from this port, to be
taken by an English vessel, it would not
revert to the owner, but become the
property of the English Admiralty.
Once taken the ship is the absolute
property of the captor. If he can not
bring it into port to be condemned he
may destroy it. But if he does SO he
runs the risk of it being shown that it
does not really belong to belligerent,
10 which case he would have to pay
heavy damages to the State to whom it
does belong. By the treaty of Paris
certain countries, in the exercise Of their
sovereign rights, agreed thenceforward
not to have recourse, as a means of
war, to "td course" by which was
meant that they would not issue letters
Of marque to ship-owners, allowing them
to make war on joint account with the
ISIS uers. 1t would be most unjust were
any of them to withdraw the first time
that they are at war from this engage
ment. But were Russia to withdraw
there would be no remedy against her
beyond declaration of war, and war
would already be existing. The remedy
IN any case, however, would be against
he State, and not against the individ-
lals acting under letters of marque
granted by the State.
As to what constitutes contraband of
var no two countries have ever agreed.
Russia would, therefore, pretend to find |
IN excuse for issuing letters of maruue.
y pleading that we were unfairly con-
lemning as contraband of war what, by |
law, is not contraband.
But the radical error in the whole
Times correspondence is to suppose that
russia could not prey on our commerce,
we're she to maintain the declaration of
Paris in regard to privateers, and were
Ter ports to be hermetically sealed up.
Nothing would be easier than to have
THAT, practically, would be privateers,
Without violating the agreement to abol-
sh I" Ia course" A term which is used
q technical sense is most limited in its
pplication, and, if used in a general
ense, most vague. What would occur
7ould be precisely what did occur dur
lg the American civil war. A Russian
gent would buy ship, say, in q Spanish
ort. 1t would be equipped to act as a
essel of war, but would not be armed.
would then innocently sail out of
ort. At, Say, the Azores, there would be
uns for it in another ship. The first yes.
d would sail to the Azores. The second
essel would issue from the Azores.
eyond the three miles territorial limit,
lat is to say on the high seas, the guns
ould be shipped from the second in
the first vessel. A Russian naval Of
Ger, heretofore passenger, would
en read his commission, and the ves-
would then become Russian ship-of-
ar.
1t may be said ~, that our consuls
ould be on the alert to prevent the