The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-11-13
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The Cases of the Acapulco and the
Trent.

The Cases of the Acapulco and the
Trent.
Now that your esteemed contemporary has
so far recovered from his anti-M ormon craze
that he has ceased to personally abuse those who
differed with him in his methods and merely
calls them GROWERS" l am quite ready to
correct his mistake as to my position on the
Chilli imbroglio. 1 do not by any means deny
that it is the duty of captain of an American
man-of-war to offer an asylum 10 any foreigner
who has claim on his hospitality but in the
case OF Barrundia this was not asked for. Com
mander Reiter Of the United States ship
Ranger and Captain Pitts of the Pacific Mail
steamer Acapulco have both testified
that Barrundia locked himself up in
his StateroCm and refused to have any com
munication with either of them. NOW we come
tc international law. A naval ship lisa part of
the country to which she belongs wherever and
IN whatever harbor she may be. On the contrary
a merchant ship is subject to the laws of the
nation in whose territory she may be- whether
she is fast TO wharf or at anchor in the roads.
If Barrundla had gone on board the Ranger
Commander Reiter would have 'cheerfully ex.
tended the right of asylum to him. but as he
chose to remain on board the Acapulco he had
no right to interfere with the police force of
San Jose any more than he would have
had, had the capture been made in the streets
OF tn 1t city. 1t may be remarked in pass ng
that he is
'BIDING HIS TINE"
and that he will surely have his court of inouirv
under the next administration OF President
Cleveland when Secretary Tracy will be super-
coded by some one else who will grant the re-.
quest of this gallant officer. 1t will then be
seen II my version of the Barrundia affair." is
correct.
Now as TO the "Trent." 1t will of
course be remembered that Captain Wilkes.
of the San Jacinto stopped this ship upon the
high seas and took from her the rebel ENJOYS
Mason A doc g..
made OF Captain Wilkes consulting his
library" for his authority in this case. As the
san Jaclnto was an old-fashioned craft, doubt
less everything, even to the library about her
was old-fashioned likewise. He probably GOT
hold OF some old English law books before the
date of 1872. If so, he found ample precedent
LOT MS acts; Before that time at least, If not
afterwards, England maintained that she had
the right to search neutral vessels on the high
seas and to take cut of them, forcibly if need he
any OF her subjects found on board. 1t was
mainly IN resistance to this pretense that the
United States declared war against her and
although it is generally conceded that we cot
the better of her in that struggle, it is singular
mat IN the terms OF peace the question of this
right OF search was left unsettled, although il
was tacltly abandoned. The action of CAPTAIN
wilkes was therefore in precise accord with
british precedent and the cutlery made bv
England against 1t was simply a RECOGNITION NJ
the principles maintained by this country. and
was an open though tardy admission that
WE WERE IN THE RIGHT.
The complaint of England was not thar wa
had captured the enemy, but that we had done
It on the high seas, and Captain Wilkes was
blamed in some quarters for not hayin9
captured the Trent and taken her into norf
where she could have been adjudicated mon
His excuse for not doing so was that he did not
wish to put the other passengers to needless in
convenience and the ship to needless expense
1t was fortunate that he did not, as snch a
procedure wou have caused further commit
cations. AS ii was, the result was most safis
factory in absolutely establishing a great prin
ciple. = -
On the supposition that if the Trent. thropob
stress OF weather or accident or any canee
whatever had voluntarily entered the port of
New York with these Objectionable persons on
board, the Tribune is in error in saying that
they would be practically on British territorv
and that the taking OF them from that shin
would have been equivalent to an invasion ~
England herself for the same purpose.
This would be perfectly true had the Trent
been ship of the British navy But preciseIv
like the Acapulco she was a mail steamshir'
ship of the merchant service that carried the
mails which
<. GAVE HER NO NATIONAL. PRIVILEGES
over other merchant ships. She would have been
not only practically but absolutely in American