New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-05-29
ASKING FOR RECOGNITION.
MINISTER REID GRANTS A HEARING TO
AGENTS OF CHILEAN INSURGENTS.
THE MOVEMENTS OF THE cHARLEsroN-coAL
ENOUGH FOR THE EsMERALDA TO
LEAVE ACAPULCO.
rBr TELEeRArH TO THE TkIBUSE.l

rBr TELEcRAPH TO THE TkIBUSEl
Washington. May 2s-A communication has been 10
ceived at the State Department from Minister Reid at
Paris reporting that he had been approached By two
representatives Of the Gillian insurgents on May 10.
One exMinster of Finance of Chill and the oter
was merchant Of Valparaiso. Both represented that
they were deputed to negotiate with the American rep
reeentave They asked that they might be recognized
by the United States that at least some assurance
might be given 10 them that this Governments would
use no violence toward the Gillian insurgents. They
sought to Justify their antagonism TO the Balmaceda
Government and 10 establish the merit OF the revolution
The insurgents asserted that they acted with the ap-
prevail Of their party and promised that the PROVISIONAL
Government would make such rcparation as tne o'eo
States deemed proper in the Itata case.
Minister Reds letter states that he allowed inc
representatives Of the insurgents bearing, and prom
ised that their desires would be communicated 10 uc
State Department They told that such acuon on
the part Of the Minister did not involve the Government
and that promise could be given 20 them OF any TO
spouse to their application
As the Itata, 30 far unmolested, approaches "io
Gillian coast the interest in the pursuit is revived
and her daily progress presents new phases on u'e
international question which the episode Is caacula'o"
to create. The Secretary of the Navy has been pos
tive from the first Of his authority TO rctahe uno
escaped Gillian vessel. That position, based on inc
principle that no one can transgress United states
Law without dtspute has been sustained by the legal
authorities of this and other countries. The opinions
and decisions having bearing upon the cases nave
been gathered at the Navy Department. and the legal
Justification Of the second seizure OF the itata mas
been established. This material, bow In ohe pos
session Of the legal branch Of the Department, VIII
be kept for future use.
The main point in the case is the fact that this
vessel was seized in a port of the United States by
authority Of the United States for act against the
laws Of the United States. It is general principle
that private vessels-that Is merchant vesseis-havo
an immunity from the Jurisdiction of any State but
their own at That principle Is subject TO SONS
weIldefned exceptions. among them the belligerent
right of search and capture. 1t Is generally admtten
by publcists that exception exists in the case
of az infracon Of the local law where pursuit begun
before the vessel goes ont Of the territorial waters or
Immediately afterward That rule applies to revenue
cases. The Itata not only alleged to have oom-
mitted such fDfraction, but she had been actually
seized and she was therefore, IN the possession and
custody Of the United States. The National
authority had been stretched out over her
and she had been taken into possession,
and that possession was represented by the
presence Of an officer Of the law on board the snip
IT, in the case of ordinary infractons OF the law where
the vessel has not been arrested, IL Is 1ustnaoie 10
pursue and take her Immediately after her escape rom
territorial waters it Is held that there exists stronger
reason for pursuing taking vessel which not only
committed an nfracton but was actually arrested Tor
it, 1t Is clear act Of defiance Of the exercise OF the
legal authority of the United States within its own
territory.
Hall the most recent writer Of authority on inter
national law in England states as one OF the exceptions
to the general principle OF the immunity OF vessels at
sea from any Jurisdiction other than that Of their own
flag that when persons on board ship lying In or
passng through foreign waters commit acts In viola
ton of territorial law the legal authorities may pursue
the offending vessel into the open sea in order 30 vim
dictate jurisdiction. II the reason for pursuit and
oapture ON the open to vndicate jurisdiction OF
an offended nation, and it is permissible so TO pursue
in the mere case of ship committing an offence, the
necessity for vindicatng the jurisdiction IS much
stronger where the vessel has been actually seized
and has broken arrest by forcbe dspossesSion OF the
officers Of the law in possession.
p,untschli the great German authority, says prac-
tcauy the same thing. "H the crew OF SHIP, reahs
the translation has committed crime on shore, or
IN waters forming part Of the territory of another
state and is pusued by justice, the pursuit can be
continued beyond those waters and into the open sea-
Hefter another German authority, concurs IN THIS
opinion.
Woolsey. an American authority, says "For
crime committed in port o vessel may be chased ihto
the high seas and there arrested without the perri
toIeal rights having been violated"
Gases of the arrest Of foreign vessels in territorial
waters frequently occur at the suit OF private lno[
vdiual In an admiralty court on questions Oh marine
tolls or contracts-cases Of salvage, COLLISION cue.
When the vessel nbeed at the suit OF an INDIVIDUAL
by process Of the admiralty court, foreign or Amer
iran they do not put an armed crew on board such
vessel They simply place there some one who IS an
emblem of the authority and sovereignty OF the coun-
try No case is readily recalled where that authority
has been defed by foreign vessel noeleo III an ao
r,ralty court although the lbelng Of foreign YES
sci is frequent in all maritime countries
II that were DONE II would be breach OF arrest The
Itata case Is O much stronger one than that,
because the offence here is not an offence against
a private Individual, and seizure Is not made at
the instance of a private Individual but the offence
one against the laws Of the United States ana tne
seizure is made at the instance OF the state losen
1t is much stronger case than case OF civil action
brought by private suitor, in that II Is criminal
action In which the United states is the prosecutor
and what makes it stronger still is that the united
States is conducting this prosecution In order that
IL NAV perform its National obligations OF neutranIy'
That is the object of the statutes under which the
seizure is made. 1t is. therefore, case OF Nauonal
performed to prevent breach of National law ana
in order TO fulfil National obligations. mat Is INC
seizure Of the Itata in port.
The Department authorities inclined to the
belief already expressed in these dispatches by seere
tary Tracy that there is no obligation to pursue
the Iata that the United States If it failed to pur
sue would render itself liable in damages for not having
exercised due diligence" according to the terms OF
the Treaty OF Washington. In this connection refer
ence is made 10 the remarks OF Judge story In the
case OF La Amstad De Rues, that when neutral
Nation called upon by either Of the belgerents 10
net, in such cases all that justice seems to
require is that the neutral Nation should fairly
execute It's own laws, and give no asylum 10
the property captured On the other hand, II is
said by Story in "The Mariana Flora that "lt is
true that 1t has held in the courts Of this country
that American ships offending against our laws, and
foreign ships In like manner offending. within our
jurisdiction may aferwar be pursued and seized upon
the ocean, and rightfully be brought into our courts
for adjudication. This, however, has never been sup
posed to draw after II any right Of visitation or search
The party in such seizes at his peril II he es
ablshes the forfeiture, he is justified II he falls, he
must make full compensation in damages"
Sir W. Harcourt, in crticlsing these rulings, In