The Irish standard., 1895-10-26
BELLIGERENT RIGHTS

BELLIGERENT RIGHTS
Considering the interest which Ameri-
cans take in the Cuban struggle for In
dependence, q, brief review of those rules
of. international law which bear on the
case will probably be of general interest,
says the New. York World. Of course
the question Of recognition Of the Cubans
as belligerents comes first in Importance.
Such recognition, usually called a proc
lamation of nuetrality,' declares that q
state of war exists between two certain
PARTIES announces, therefore, that in the
exercise. of the rights of war they may
interfere with neutral commerce within
certain limits and warns the citizens of
the state issuing the proclamation
against unlawful assistance OF either
party in war Such a proclamation does
not necessarily look toward the recogni-
ton of the territory in revolt as a new
state, nor does it pretend to judge Of the
right OF wrong of the struggle. 1t is
simply declaration Of the fact that war
exists.
The difficulty is that in the case of a re-
VOTED territory it is hard to determine
Jtst when the trouble ceases to be q trif-
ling iusurrection and becomes war. In
the case Of the slate unpleasantness' our
Town supreme court admitted the fact that
war existed before the British govern
ment issued it's proclamation Of neutral
ity. so that if England made mistake in
recognizing the confederates as bellig-
erents she did so in company with emil
nent union lawyers. During the revolt
Of the Spanish colonies in South America
the policy OF the United States was gov
erned by the principles thus expressed
by Monroe: "As soon as the movement
assumes such a steady and persistent
form as to- make the success OF the
provinces probable, the rights to which
they were entitled by the law Of nations
have been extended to them. :" It seems
as il under that principle Cuba. deserved
to be recognized as a belligerent. The
instruction has assumed STEADY and
consistent FORM" as Campos could testi-
fy. and that s'the success Of the province
is probable no one can deny. Il the
Cubans could only gain possession Of an
important port there is not the least
doubt as to their recognition by most
nations. 4.. e,
Next to. the subject Of recognition
comes the question Of what would such
recognition 3 entail on the part OF the
United States. To act in a strictly neu-
trail manner, she could do no more for
Cuba than she would do for Spain. 1t
would be a violation of neutrality to lend
money. supply troops, allow foreign en-
listment, permit American subjects to
preparesog aid in preparing any hostile
expedition against either belligerent,
supply military stores to cruisers, or al
low prizes; to be brought into our ports.
1t was not her proclamation OF neutrali-
ty, but her violation Of neutrality, which
England paid for In the Alabama case.
But though the state itself is prevented
from aiding either party, citizens OF TIT the
United States could not be prevented
from so doing in certain ways. Private
persons. unless some special treaty with
one Of the belligerents forbid $, can lend
money to a bel1igerent state for purposes
of war, can sell it arms or ammunition, or
can enter its service as soldiers without
rendering their own country guilty of a
violation Of neutrality. And it is in this
way Cuba would derive the greatest ben
eft from our recognition of her bellig-
ereney. The American citizen has al
ways in the past proved himself willing
to aid people struggling for liberty,
and he would do SO now II the United
States government were squai1y just or.
generous. But the precedent set by the
actions toward Hawaii will be hard TO
disregard, and It will ia Ee great. popular
pressure to induce the government to
recognize the beIligerent lights Of Cuba.