New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-01-03
Mr.. BAYARDS REBEL SYMP4THIES.

I
----------------
Mr.. BAYARD'S REBEL SYMP4THIES.
Mr.. Bavarl must rue the day when he resigned
his seat in the Senate. Only a tattcred
remnant Of the reputation he had acquired for
political capacity is now left The strange
adventures of Mr.. Kelley. the fantastic CORE
spondence with the Austrian Government, the
many discreditable appointments made upon
his recommendation and the conversion OF the
Consular Service into a clearinghouse Tor the
liquidation of political debts, have brought re-
prOach upon the State Department. Fhc cXtraor-
binary agreement with the British Govern
ment respecting the fisheries claus : has been
pronounced by a distinguished Democratic
! authority an act OF usurpatlon demanding
the penalties of impeachment. To complete
Secretary Bayard's humiliation, one of the
United States Courts has reviewed his proceed
ings in relation to the Colombian instruction
ana convicted him of ignorance of the laws of
nations.
This judicial action was taken in the case OF
the Ambrose Light, the insurgent brgantine
captured by the United States gunboat Alliance,
on April 21, in the Caribbean Sea, and sent to
New York as a prize The seizure was made
States squadron was searching for Prcstan, the
rebel leader. The Government, in the proceed
ings before the United States Court Southern
District of New-Y York;, claimed the forfeiture of
the ship as piratcal, under the law of nations,
because she was not sailing under the authority
of any acknowledged Power. The owners con-
tended that being actually belligercnt, she was
in no event piratical; but if so, that the subSe-
1ucnt recognition of belligercncy By the state
Department by implication entitled her to re-
lease. Judge Addison Brown decided that the
rebel commission of the Ambrose Light as
vessel of war was unauthorized ami void III
international law; that the seizure Of the vessel
rs piratical was technically authorized by the
law of nations; but that the implied rccog-
milton of an existing state of war IN letter
written by Secretary Bayard on the day of
seizure prevented condemnation OF the vcsse
and effected her release. Judge Browns
decision was bitterly denounced by oliici1ls of
the State Department when it was rendered
The text. as given in a current number of Inc
Federul HeD0rter, shows that the decision was
made after Il detailed examination of everything
bearing on the question. 1t is n mastery
presentation of the two main questions at issue:
% the plratical character of war vessels of
rebels if unrecognzed as bclgercnts by any
nation (2) the recognition of bclligerency by
implication in this clse by Secretary Bayard.
Owing to the SecTetary's blundctng sympathy
for rebellion the release of the vessel was
ordered. although, as Judge Brown demon
strated with adm iraDe lucidity, the great
weight of authority drawn from every source
making up the law of nations warranted the
condemnation of the prvatetr as piratical.
1t is true that Secretary Bayard has asserted
that his letter Of April "a to the Colombian
Minister was not intended to involve recognition
of the belligerent rights of the insurgents.
Judge Brown, with the text of the letter before
him, decides that whatever may have been the
intentions of the Secretary, the text did involve
by implication a recognition of the rights of the
insurgents as a de facto government, having the
counter-rights of belligcrent. If the inaulrcc-
ton had not been speedily suppressed this i'll.
timed recognition of belligerent rights would
have had important consequences i'll relation TO
any claims on the Colombian Government for
damages to American property. AS it is, the
release OF the privateer which ought to have
been condemned as pirate is a trivial result.
Now the incident serves to illustrate net only
the SecretaTy's ignorance of international law,
but also his secret sympathes with rebellion
in other countries we'll his own. In his i'll
timed and ill-advised letter he ostentatiOusly
held that the Colombian Government could not
close its ports by decree alone when these wee
held by rebels, although the latter were no.
where recognized as lawful belligercnts and,
moreover, that such rebel vessels of war were
not piratical even in blockading a loyal port
and excluding therefrOm vessels of other
nations In taking these positions, as Judge
Brown conclusvely proves, the Secretary acted
without warrant of international law. One
point, which necessarily is not discussed in the
legal opinion, we may be permitted to add
The Secretary, in eyincing his sympathies for
rebellion, snubbed and insulted friendly
Republic and supported a baseless and disrep-
utable instruction OF political usurpers at the
very moment of its collapse.