Los Angeles herald., 1891-11-04

y
acting secretary of state, already referred
to, are to be considered as indicating the
light in which the Congressional party
of Chile were regarded by the executive
department of this government prior to
| their recognition on the 4th OF Septem-
ber, the position of the United States
towards them seems to have been
similar to that taken by the United
States towards the insurgents against
Hayti in 1869. That position
was thus stated by Mr.. Fish, then sec
retary of state, in letter dated Sep
tember IA, 1869.
81. That we do not dispute the right
OF the government OF Hayti to treat the
officers and crew of the Quaker City and
Florida (vessels in the service of the in
surgents against Hayti), as pirates for
all intents and purposes. How they are
to be regarded by their own legitimate
government is question of municipal
| law into which we have no occasion, if
we had the right, to enter.
"2. That this government is not
| aware of any reason which would re-
quire or justify it in looking upon the
vessel named in a different light from
any other vessel employed in the service
OF the insurgents.
"3. That regarding them simply as
armed cruisers of the insurgents not yet
acknowledged by this government to
have attained belligerent rights, it is
competent to the United States to deny
and resist the exercise by those vessels
or any other agents of the rebellion of
the privileges which attend maritime
war, in respect to our citizens or their
property entitled to their protection.
We may, or may not, at our option, as
justice or policy may require, treat them
as pirates in the absolute and unquali-
fed sense, or we may, as the circumstan-
ces OF any actual case shall suggest,
waive the extreme right and recognize,
where facts warrant it, an actual intent
on the part of the individual offenders
not to depredate in criminal sense and
fot private gain, but to capture and de-
stroy iure beli. 1t is sufficient for the
present purpose that the United States
will not admit any commission or
authority proceeding from rebels as
justification or excuse for injury to per-
sons or property entitled to the protec-
tion OF this government. They will not
tolerate the search or stopping by
cruisers in the rebel service of vessels OF
the United States, nor any other act
which is only privileged by recognized
belligerency.
Z "a. While asserting the right to cap
ture and destroy the vessels in question,
and others OF similar character, if any
aggression upon persons or property en-
titled to the protection of this govern
ment shall recommend such action, we
cannot admit the existence of any obli-
CATION to do SO in the interest of Hayti
or Of the general security OF COM,
merce." (Whart. Int. L. Dig, vol 3,
PIP. 465-6.)
"Does section 52S3 OF the revised
statues apply to any people whom it is
optional with the United States to treat
as pirates? That section is found in the
chapter headed Neutrality and it was
carried into the revised statutes and was
originally enacted in fnrtherance of the
obligations of the nation as a neutral.
The very idea of neutrality imports that
the neutral will treat each contend
ing party alike; that it will accord no
right or privilege to one that it with
holds from the other, and will withhold
none from one that it accords to the
other. In the case of the United States
VS.. Quincy, 6 Peters. 443, the supreme
court of the United States said that the
WOTu pcOplc III Luc tuiIu scCIlOu VI
the act of April 20, 1918, (and from that
carried to the revised statutes as section
52S3), lis one of the denominations ap-
piled by the act of congress to foreign
power" This can hardly mean an as
sociation of people in no way recognized
by the United States or by the govern
ment against which they are rebelling;
whose rebellion has not attained the dig
v,itxy Ofx ond xuyhn Nv a 70 nnf.nr,
of the United States, be treated by them
as pirates. Prior to the passage OF the
act of April 20, 1918, the supreme court
OF the United States, in the case of Col
ston vs.. Hoyt, 3 Wheat, 245, speaking
through Mr.. Justice Story, held that
section OF the act of 1894, prohibiting
the fitting out of any ship, etc., for the
service of any foreign prince or state, to
cruise against the subjects, etc., of any
prince or state with which the United
States were at peace, did not apply to
any new government, unless it had been
recognized by the United States or by
the government of the country to which
such new country belonged. And that
a plea which set up a forfeiture under
that act, in fitting out a ship to cruise
against such new state, must aver such
recognition or is bad. Congress in pass
ing the subsequent act of April 20, 1918.
by whichthe provision referred to, of the
act of 1894 was, in substance, re-enacted,
must be presumed to have known the
construction that had been heretofore
put by the supreme court upon the
words sprince or state" in the act of
1894, and with that knowledge, in pass
ing the act OF 1918 inserted in the same
clause the words colony, district or
people," This was done according to
Dana's Wheaton, section 439, note 215,
and Wharton's Int Dig, page 561, upon
the suggestion of the Spanish minister
that the South American provinces then
in revolt, and not recognized as inde-
pendent, might not be included in the
word Estate" But in every one of
those instances the United States had
acknowledged the existence Of state of
war, and, as consequence, the belliger-
ent rights of the provinces. (The AM
brose Light, 25 Fed. Rep, Ala, and
references thereemade.)
cit will be observed that the supreme
court. in the case Of Golston VS.. Hoyt,
did not say that the independence of the
new government must have been recog-
nized by the United States to make the
statute of which it was speaking appli
cable.
"In nv opinion it is, to say the least,