New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-07-10
THE JTATpS REAL CHARACTER.

The Itata case will furnish procedentS for
future action in the Governments dealings with
insurgents. and it is of the highest importance
that the questions at issue should be exhaustive
" considered by the United States courts. The
shin was originally detained on suspicion OF
intended violation of the neutrality laws. The
authority of public law was dehed when tho
shin was taken out of port without clearance
papers and with representative of the United
States Government On board. The action Of
the Navy Department in ordering the pursuit
and recapture of the Itata was grounded upon
this defiance of public law. The ship had been
forciby rescued from the jurisdiction Of the
courts, and it was the plain duty OF the Gov
ernment 10 fetch it back where it belonged
This obligation has been discharged The ltata
is now subject to the rulings of the courts.
Tho technical breach of port law in sailing
without being properly cleared can be settled
bv the payment of fine of $500, as arranged
by the Treasury Department. This is the full
penaty that can be imposed under the naviga-
ton laws. The remaining charges upon which
the ftata can be seized are violation of law IN
carrying off a Deputy United States Marshal
and the ftting-out of a war-veSsel 70 cruise
against the recognized Government in Chill.
The decision Of the United States court dismiss
ING the libel against the Robert and Minnie
seems 10 forecast similar action in the ltata
case 1t would appear at first sight to be
natural inference that if one vessel were not
guilty Of violation Of the neutrality law, the
other was not liable to seizure. There are
however, two circumstances which materially
affect the Itata's chances of release. One is the
| h nj
other is her character as a tender Of the Is
merada and an auxiliary ship of the insurSent
navy The plea is offered by representatives OF
the insurgent cause that the Deputy Marshal
was n detective of the Bamaceda Government
We do not know whether this is true or false
but cannot perceive that it affects the main
question at issue. Whoever the Deputy Mar
shall was, and whatever were his relations with
the CHILEAN factions, he was invested with the
authority Of United States law when ho was
placed on board the ship. His partisan connec-
ton with the Balmacedists. if it can be proved,
NAV affect his credibility as a witness in de-
scribing the measures adopted by the officers
in taking the ship out Of port with revolvers
leveled against him and the pilot; but re-
sigtanco to and defiance Of United States law
are undisputed facts which may have an i'm
portant bearing upon tho alleged violation or
neutrality law.
This is the main issue. Let it be granted
that there was no illegaity in the shipment of
arms by the Robert and Minnie, and that the
libel against that vessel was properly dismissed
The It1ta unlike the Robert and Minnie was
not trading vessel. 1t sailed north under
CONVOY of the Esmcrada it was commanded
e 4I,o a
crew armed wholly or in part; it sailed south
to meet the Esmeralda and then headed for the
nitrate coast under Instructions received from
that vessel. All these circumstances tend to
establish its character as a tender of the Is
meralda and as a recognized adjunct of the
insrgent navy The explanation is offered by
the representatives of the insurgents that the
Deputy Marshal and the dcscrterS from the ship
lied about the armament and crow and that
there were only two small sauting cannon Oh
board, only one officer from the Esmeralda and
no armed marines These are matters that
ought to be fully and thoroughly Investigated ;
but oven if these allegations are well grounded
IL will still be necessary to discriminate sharply
between the Itata and the Robert and Minnie
The Itata was a tender Of tho Esmeralda and
was commanded by one of her officers; and his
conduct in carrying off the Deputy Marshal was
not that of peaceful trader. II the ltata was
not a merchant ship, but essentrd1y a war-veS-
sell entering an American port for the purpose
of recruiting the military supplies Of the in
Surgents manifeStly there are broader grounds
for legal proceedings under the neutrality laws
than there were in the case of the Robert and
Minnie.
The kidnapping Of the Deputy Marshal can
not involve the permanent seizure of the ship
or the cOnfiscatiOn of the cargo. 1t was an
offence like the sailing without clearance, for
which fines may be imposed or proceedings in
| stituted against the commander II may have
a bearing in determining the warikc, not to
say piratical, character Of the Ship but it can
not be considered valid ground for condemna-
ton OF the ftata The main question which the
courts will have 10 decide is whether a vessel
exercising the function of tender to a walShip
can enter American waters and increase its
supplies of war-material without violation of
the neutrality laws 1t is a question of critical
! importance for the insurgents, for they need
the rifles in order to arm their military forces
and to advance against BalmaccdaS army The
decision Of the French Court of Appeals an
| IulilHR INC u-ttcc dSdlIsV lnc NdI-NCSSClo OI-
dercd by Balmaceda will enable him to obtain
a navy for operations on the nitrate coast. The
insurgents will have TO make THEN advance
speedily or their naval supremacy will be at an
end; and without the ltataS arms and aminuni-
ton they win be unpreparcd for a successful
campaign.
>------------s
HOLLANDS GOLDEN AGE PASSED.