New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-05-13
NrrTRALTTY And BELLIGERENCY.

NrrTRALTTY And BELLIGERENCY.
The fnct that the CHILEAN insurgents have not
heon recognized by the United States as bel
,ioerents does not affect the Governments OBJ
location to prevent the conversion of American
waters into base of naval operations and sup
niles. England sanctioned the belligerent rights
~ the Confederates as early as May, 1861, but
this did not relieve its government from re-
sponsibiliy for the escape of the priyateers from
its ports II it had never accorded that recog-
milton of belligerency 1t would still have been
convicted before the Geneva tribunal OF lack
of diligence in allowing the Alabama, Florida,
Shenandoah and their tenders to sail out OF
british waters unmolested. The duty and re-
sponsibility Of the American Government at San
Diego would not have been altered II inc
CbiIian insurgents had been previously recog-
nized as belgerents. They would not have
had the right under any circumstances to enter
American waters and increase their naval ana
military ornaments. The three rules OF the
Treaty of Washington preclude such operations
as were conducted by the insurgents at san
Diego and the adjacent islands.
A courteous correspondent, who erroneousy
concludes that The TRIBUNE is proceeding
upon the assumption that the CHILEAN insurgents
have acquired the status of recognized bellIger-
ants asks this question: "Is it not the gen.
oral nrinclple that until recognition OF bellger-
oncv has been obtained by insurgents, direct
" or indirectly, any acts OF violence on 'ne
high seas done or threatened by theh are uh
lawful in the eye of international law thaC
slch unrecognized insurgent cruisers are mere
anNs
disturbers OF the peace OF the seas ana may
he lawfully captured at the discretion OF any
Government: and that in so doing the Govern
ment is amenabe to the bar Of public opinion
alone?r On the contrary, we think that there
is General agreement among civilized nations
that warlike attacks of insurgent vessels do
not constitute piracy. Spanish American couh-
tries have been accustomed to proclaim ships
in revolt against national authority as pirates
and to invite foreign nayieS to capture them as
the enemies of mankind but the common prac-
tice among nations has not sustained this course.
Instruction is not piracy. A Government may
outlaw revolted ship, but other nations are
under obligations to discriminate between YES
sci that fires upon one flag and pirate that
makes war upon all flags.
Let us make direct application of the prln-
chile to the Itata and the Esmeralda, for when
the Charleston is now heading In southern
waters. The ltata Is tender of the Esmer-
aida. being commanded by her officers and
armed with her guns. The Esmeralda IS
vessel of the CHILEAN Navy. When the Con-
cressional party virtually deposed President
Balmaceda last January, the fleet supported IL
and reyoted against the Executive authority
The feet is under the Gillian flag and is max
ing war upon the army which in the main mas
continued loyal to the President. The Esmer-
aida and her tender cannot be regarded as
pirates. They are not enemies of mankind. III
the Charleston overhauls and captures the ltata
the act cannot be justified on the ground OF
piracy. but solely because she has violated the
neutrality and port laws CT the United states
That is the only tenable ground OF action. The
Huascar was fred upon by The Shah in Peru
Wan waters because she was boarding BfltlSh
ships and committing depredations on COM
merce without flying any national nag Inc
Itata has not been guilty OF any acts OF Vlo-
lence on the high seas nor made war on COM
merce She is carrying on war against Pres
ident Balmaceda with the support of the Chillan
Navy and the majority of the recent Congress
This does not expose her to outlawry sit Is
only for her violation of American law that
she can be pursued and seized by the Charles
ton.
The Ambrose Light was captured, we are
aware by United States man-of-war when in
revolt against the Colombian authorities, and
Judge Brown in the United States court held
that the seizure Of the vessel as piratical was
technically sanctioned by the law CT nations,
since it's commission was unauthorized and void 4;
but he decided that an implied recognition OF
an existing state of war in Secretary Bayard S
correspondence of the same date prevented her
condemnation as n prize. Recognition of bel
igereny is a sovereign act on the part Of a
foreign Power. 1t places an insurgent on an
equal footing with the Government with which
he is in revolt, not only on the high seas, but
also in foreign ports. Neutrality, however, can
be maintained before beigerency is accord
cd, not perhaps of the strictest kind, but an
| impartial observance of fair dealing with in
surgents whose proper status is undetermined.
In fact, the ordinary attitude of the United
States whenever there is civil war in Spanish
America is negative, rather than positive in
tervention in such case being scupulously
avoided and the principle Of neutrality being
ordinarily applied "with due diligence"
| .
FRIVOLOUS PRACTICE CONDEMNED
| ,nLo- A. INo1o,oI Crp,npoa Dcur+ yivoc