The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-09-04
rHH CASE OF rHe xrArA.
II Ht Materially AEseteA ~ the Overthrow
or Baimacedns


II Ht Materially ARsetsA ~ the Overthrow
or Baimacedns
WASHINGTON. Sept 1.-The triumph OF the
insurgents in Chilli has raised the question in
aomo quarters whether the new Government
will not have good claim for damages against
the United States on account OF the Itata
1t does not appear, however, that the success
OF the revolution changes the legal aspects OF
that case. The neutrality laws OF our country
declare that no hostile expedition shall be fit
tod out in our ports against any nation with
which ours Is at peace. and mako 1t the duty
OF the Government officers to examine any
vessel which appears to have such an intent.
International law also requires that country
shall use due diligence to prevent the fitting
out OF a vessel which it has reasonable ground
to believe is intended to cruise against a
friendly Government. Even In the case Of
recognized belligcrents the neutral country
must not, as was agreed by Great Britain and
the United States In the Alabama case. per
NIT or suffer either boil gerent TO mako use Of
its ports or waters ns the base OF naval opera.
tons against the other. or for the purpose Of
the removal or augmentation OF military sup
plies or arms or the recruitment oil mon"
1t Is perfectly true that the voyage OF tho
1tata was undertaken simply for the purpose
OF receiving a cargo OF arms and munitions
sent by rail from New York to San Francisco
for the insurgents. which the schooner Robert
aud Minnie was to bring out Of the latter port
and transfer to her of San Clemente Island.
1t is also true that when the Robert and Min.
ME was libeled for her share in this transac.
ton. Judge Ross o. the United States Cir
cult Court dismissed the libel on the
ground that taking out a cargo OF arms
was not o violation OF the neutrality
laws, but q commercial transaction. and that
there was nothing to show that tho schooner
was fitted out for war purposes. But even this
decision suggested that the facts alleged
might BIO good ground for conf eating tho
1tnta. possibly in view of the distinction that
the schooners credentials wore all right
whereas the 1ta,a, II shown to be an armed
vessel. was not the 70 SO! OF Government
recognized by ours. But q limiting that she
was practically engaged on a commercial
errnnd. divided between her and the Ameri-
can schooner. since she was suspected OF an
intent TO violate our neutrality laws tho Gov
ernment ufice q, the port OF San Diego.
where she anpeared. had an nnIuestionnbls
rlSnt 10 Metain her ior tho purpose OF sSnm.
nation The only Government In. Chill then
rss"ini.nd by US or by any other leading ma
susplcions cha after o: the ltatn. aud 1t was
Simply due diligence not to allow her 10 escape
This vas exactly what was undertaken. No
ese IL 1'an i neen made out against the vessel
h ht WI view ~ ~ dge Rosss decision upon he
hOper' ma Mimi ii cannot he affirmed that
procee ':incs for her conscation would have
ssucceo led. But without waiting for the United
iicnnble right. she ran away. taking N a
United States Marsha. whom she nfterward
put ashore. ami she also went withou, the
clearance papcrs made necessary under the
i pmrt respIiaions OF al countries. She was de-
an Sf s t Th the
receq qsa thu se1 at the to
The Question whether t si ieu Chai could
nave lawfully captured the 1tata on the high
since both the Itata and her cargo We're " voIun.
tarily surrendered by tho .Iunta lie Gobierno
at i1ni to our snip. It has neen SAID that
surrender virtually compulsory. That how.
ever hardly alters tho case. since even had
Snitei states might have enforced by open
hoStlIites the renaraton OF wrong which the
Government required the return OF the Itats
ana her cargo TO its jurisdiction. SO that there
ae Of might
voluntary offer the statute ilne Of $500 for
The kidnapping o, the Marshal and tho no ST.
Die VIC, vioatinn of The neutrality laws then re-
proceeded to take its me Tor this purno 9.
-, The success OF tho Congress party can hardly
mental facts SO lar as any alleged i liability Of
our government is concerned. The recoyni-
tlon % that party as the CHILEAN Government
eject In that particular. In TACT. even had the
!tata belonced to recognized belligerent. her
actual offence against the laws aud dignity OF
the nited States and the duty OF the lntter to
obt a reparation would have been quite as
seized by one OF our war Vessels Tor
carrying military supplies TO the insur.
Colombia. the vessel was declared not to be
q lawful prize but rei"ased. on the ground
that the insurgents had been PRACTICAL recog.
Yet the court held that our war ship was justi.
NOD In making the capture. under the su.pi-
cious circumstances: and its order OF release
was conditioned on tho payment OF certain
costs by the merchant vessel. In the case OF
clai for damages 90 the ground Of nsodlessI1
prol2nging the war by tho seizure OF hor cargo
would be strange indeed. A more reasonable
claim might be one against her for the heavy
expenses sntailed by her escapade.