The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-09-28
THE rrArA AND THE AMBROSE LroHr
Points OF Heseunbiauce and OF DiEerence ne
tween Their Cases.


Points OF Hesembiauce and or DiRerence ne
tween Their Cases.
WASHINGTON. Sept. 27.-Tho fixing OF day
for the trial OF Mr.. Trumbull and his Associ.
atos. charged with Attempting breach Of our
neutrality laws through the doinps OF the Ttata.
and tho release Of the vessel meanwhile. on
the filing VI bonds In double the unount Of her
appraised value. and finally the taking Of EVIL
dcnce from somo OF her officers to be used at
tho trial. indicate that the recently reported
agreement OF her owners and tho representa-
tIves Of the Junta with our Government was
not carried into effect The basis Of that al
logged agreement was that Chill. upon the re-
lease Of the vessel and the Abandonment Of all
suits arising out Of its seizure. should pny tho
expenses incurred in pursuing lIcr to 1luique
and bringing her back. We observe. however,.
that some such outcome of the affair is still
predicted. and it Is suggested that even should
the case 20 to triai and judgment, q clue to its
Issue may be found In tho case OF tho Ambrose
Light. This lattor was Colombian insurgcnt
vessel. seized by ono OF our cruisers but re-
leased at tho close Of hostilitics on her owners
paving the cost Of the seizure and other OK
pcnscs incurred.
This case Of tho Ambrose Light which was
considered with great care. has a certain SINH
larlty to that OF tho Itata. but yet fundament-
al points OF difference. 1t hus recently been
stated in somo dispatches on the subject that
tho insurgents OF Colombia were succcssful.and
that thcrcupon tho arrangement In question
was made This. however. is not correct. On
the contrary tho instruction in Colombia had
been absolutely qucllcd when tho libel In the
case Of tho Ambrose Light was decided.
Peace had been restored to the republic. and
IN nj l,, oh ol,a 4,
commissioned no longer existed. This. OF
course. is ono great difference between her
case and that Of the ltata.
4, Another striking point o. difference ia that
condemned as n lawful prizo OF the Alliance.
her captor. was based by the court on the fpct
t ar sthsr on tho day h.r seizure day
from our department OF. State included q
phrase which was held to be a recognition OF
On the other hand the seizure oi tho itata. hor
ana hrr and
tn" iIInSn' Junt'' in whose service she was
rendered Ly Judge Addison Brown in tho case
oi the Ambrose Light was made to turn wholly
an .nc recognition sx OF 6eissrenry II is no
Chill. the Insurgents held important seaports.
and naturally undertook to carry on hostltles
ever. npisrtaksn 10 control III" lsts sH s% Of
Panama. and tho destruction Of property and
danger 10 American residents. as we'll az tho
interference with ira nslt. had caused our Gov
ernmcnt TO send down naval expedition,
which mad restored order and driven out the
insurgents. 1t was because Prsstan, a no.
torious insurgent leader concerned In the out
RACES at Colon. was suspected OF being on
board the Ambrose Light that the Alliance
overllauled her. On examination she was
found to he carrying troops and arms
70 one OF the insurgent ports Judge Brown
held in the strongest terms that unless the in
surrectiunary Government had be- I'm recognized
as belliRerent. the Ambrose Light must be
by not an encmy OF the human race, but yee-
sci which had undertaken 70 carry on belteer-
ent operations at sea, without an. authority
asmuch a constructive recognition by our
Government Of the Colombian Insurgents was
shown she could not be condemned as prize
Nevertheless her voyage had been undertak en-
prior to such recognition. and It was not only
haul her and take her into custody. She had
committed nm offence which had led to this act
on the part Of the Alliance. and the owners
were required TO pay the e Expenses Of the sub
segment proceedings.
In the case Of the Itata, the recognition of
the authority that had her In its service at the
time OF her seizure was made long after that
seizure: and the technical question in this
respect. surprising her to have committed a
breach of neutrality. would turn apparently
upon the time Of recognition rather than upon
the question whether tho insurrectIUn sue