The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-09-25

ornments yenezuela's case Is the last,
aud we shall state il as the public has
nieked it up by piecemeal. IL the iac's
~ rho case should really be different from
what they are now understood to De- our
| discussion of the case will still be entirely
In order because it will apply to the po-
eition taken by the administration IN the
Barrundia affair with Guatemala, and is'
therefore. really discussion of propo-
s;tion OF international law, and IN which
we hold it to be clear that he IS entirely
wrong.
The facts in Venezuela's case are IN
derstood 10 be these: One of the custom
arv revolutions in South American coun-
tries is in progress there. An American
merchant chip. flying the American nag,
touched at Venezuelan port. She had
on board four or five persons who were
guilty of political offences, according to
| the doctrine Of Venezuela's government,
the laws of which were in operation and
control in the port touched at. The Ven
ezuelan authorities sent armed men on
board this American ship and forclbiy
captured and took the offenders away.
Mr.. Harrison has sent three United
States men-of-war to Venezuelan waters
TO demand a rest ,ration of these men to
the United States. Presumably. they
must be surrendered or there will be war
between this country and Venezuela.
! The Venezuelans are right and Mr.. Har-
rison is wrong, if the Supreme Court OF
tic United States knows anything what
ever of the laws of nations applicable TO
such q case.
The question first came before that tri-
bunal in 1872, in the case Of the schooner
Exchange. reported in 7 Cranch, p. 10,
and its opinion wass delivered ty Chief
Justice Marshall. The opinion Is one Of
the most luminous and comprehensive
ever delivered by that great magistrate,
and the case was one calling for the e1-
ercise Of his very highest powers. because
conflicting doctrines had been ass erted by
| the different powers Of the earth, and it
! WIS his task TO reconcile these and blaze
out a path that reason and justice would
| thereafter commend for adoption to all
| The conclusion arrived at was that when
an armed vessel belonging to sovereign
enters the waters of friendly power 1t
remains subject only to the laws of its
own country; but when a merchant vessel
enters those waters for the purpose of
trading, it subjects itself to the laws of
the country owning the port and it must
in all respects obey and observe them.
He said at page IA;
when private individuals of one ma
| ton spread themselves through another
as business or caprice may direct, min
| Cling unfortunately with the inhabi-
tants of that other. or when merchant yes
| sells enter for the purpose Of trade. it
would be obviously nconvenient and dan
| gerOus 10 society. and would subject the
| laws to continual infractiOn, and the Gov
! eminent to depreciation, if such indvidu-
ais or merchants did not owe temporary
and local allegiance. and Were not amen
able to the jurisdiction of the country
Such has been the accepted doctrine of
| the court from that time.
In 1886 the Belgian steamship Noord-
land was lying moored at the dock of the
| port of Jersey City, In the State of New
Jersey, flying the Belgian flag. An ARRAY
occurred on the ship below deck between
some Of her seamen. in which Wildenhus
fatally stabbed Fijens. No one was pres
ent or witnessed the ARRAY except mem
bers of the ships crew, all. of whom were
subjects of the King of Belgium. The
authorities of New Jersey invaded the
ship, arrested Wildenhus, locked him I'D
in Jail, and were about to try him for
murder. He applied to the United States
Court to release him on habeas corpus.
upon the ground that the State held him
in violation of the laws of nations The
Supreme Court of the United States held
| go L. s. r., u that he must answer to
| New Jerseys laws.
The Court makes this distinction. If
the matter in question amounts to no
more than a disorder on the ship, then
the local authorities will take no note of
it and will leave il to be dealt with by
| the ships officers or the law of the coun-
try to which she belongs when she re-
turns to that country. But when the
matter is of such a character as tends.
In its nature, to jncite to violence, dis
order and breach of the peace amongst
the inhabitants of the country where the
ship temporarily is, then it is one to be
inquired into by the laws of that country,
and the ship, by coming into the ports of
that country, has voluntarily subjected
herself to the operation of those laws.
The doctrines of these two cases plain
ly made the American ship entering the
Venezuelan port liable to Venezuea's
laws, and her authorities were entirely
justified by them in taking the alleged
offenders from her. Nor could this coun-
try tolerate for moment an opposite
doctrine. Thousands of foreign ships
come every year to our ports. If the ac-
cepted doctrine is TO be that the flag pro-
tects all on board the most outrageous
crimes might be committed in Broadway
in open day, the culprits to go free by
running to the wharf and jumping on a
foreign ship. We would go to war with
the civilized world before we would adj
NIT the principle. Mr.. Harrison may.
however. seek TO defend his course upon
the ground that the parties taken from
our ship were accused of political Of
lenses. There is nothing in the nature