The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-03-07
BELLlGERENT RIGHTS.
Opinions of Some of the Legal Authorities,
Washington Star. y

| Washington Star)
The recent action of the Senate looking
to the recognition of the belligerency OF
the Cuban insurgents has provoked a
| general discussion in diplomatic and
official circles as to what are the rights
of belligerents, as well as the conditions
that call for their recognition by neutral
nations. 1t is conceded as general
proposition that when an insurgept body
becomes a belligerent 1t passes from a
band OF men of no standing to the place
of an organized, political entity, having
equal rights co those Of the government
it attacks, in the ports and territory of
the countries that recognize It's belliger-
ency; SO that for the practical purposes
ofawarfare it has the rights of sovereign
state.
Me- John B. Moore, formerly of the
State Department and now of Colum bia
College, who is recognized authority
on international law, says: "When you
recognize an insurgent as belligerent,
you grant TO him the same rights in your
ports that the other party has; that is
the substance of belligerent rights"
In Dana's edition of Wheaton the ques-
ton is treated in part as follows: "The
recognition of belligerent rights is not
solely to the advantage OF the insurgents.
They gain the great advantage of recog-
n1zed status, and the opportunity to en-
ploy commissioned cruisers at sea, and
10 exert ell the power known to maritime
Wafars, with the sanction of foreign
nations. They can obtain abroad loans,
military and naval material, and enlisted
men, as against everything but neu-
trality laws; their flag and commissions
are acknowledged, their revenue laws are
respected, and they acquire a quasi
political recognition. On the other hand,
the parent government is relieved from
responsibility for acts done in the insur-
gent territory; its blockade of it's own
ports is respected, and it acquires q right
to exert, against neutral commerce, all
the powers Of party to maritime war
| "s The foreign state is bound
and entitled to consider the preceding
| history OF the parties; the magnitude
and completeness Of the political and
military organizations and preparations
on each side; the probable extent of the
| conflict by sea and land; the probable ex-
tent and rapidity Of it's development, and
above all, the probability that its own
merchant vessels, naval officers, and con-
|
dlfioulJ complications abroad. The best
that can be said is that the foreign state
may protect itself by seasonable deois-
ion either upon a test case that arises or
| by general prospective decision-while
on the other hand, If it makes the recog-
milton prematurely, it is liable to the
suspicion OF an unfriendly purpose to the
parent state"
AS showing what the other party gains
by the recognition of the be,ligerenoy of
insurgents, Wharton's digest quotes from
Bernarde's Neutrality of Great Britain
as follows:
sit is easy to see what they (the Unit
ed States) gained (by ths acknowledge
/ ment of confederate belligerency). They
gained the liberty to exercise against
British ships on the high seas the rights
to visit and search, of capturing contra
band and of blockade, rights which
spring solely from the relation of be1lig-
erent and neutral, and which the neutral
anknow lodges by recognizing the exis-
| tence of that relation. The advantages
rehped in maritime war by the exercise of
such rights fall, where there is a dispar-
ity OF force, into the hands of the stronger
belligerent; where the disparity is great
he has monopoly Of them, for he Is able
to shut up his enemy in port and drive
| him from the sea. ~
| Judge GIier of the Supreme Court, in
cases, spoke OF war and ibelligerency as
| follows:
ga civil war is never solemnly de-
clared; it becomes such by its accidents
the number, power, and organization of
the persons who originate and carry it on.
When the party in rebellion OCCUPY and
hold in hostile manner certain DOL
ton Of territory; have declared their
Independence; have cast off allegiance
have organized armies; have commenced
hostilities against their former sovereign,
| thesWorld acknowledges them as belliger-
ents, and the contest a war;"
Wharton also quotes the following from
Addy's Kent:
cit has been the constant practice of
European nations and of the United
States to look upon belligerency as fact
rather than principle holding with
Canning that a certain degree Of force
and consistency acquired by a mass of
population engaged in war entitled that
population to be treated as belliger-
| ents.''
Prof 7. S. Woolsey, professor Of inter-
national law at Yale Law School, speak
ing of the effects of INCORPORATION Of the
belligerency of the Cuban revolution.
said that while it gave the insurgents
certain secondary war rights III regard to
neutrals and somewhat higher stand
ing, it also gave Spain much more i'm,
portant privileges, among Them the right
of search on the high seas, the right to
blockade Cuban ports and immunity
from responsibility for damages done to
American property by the Cuban insur-
gents.
Spain, in his opinion, gained rather
than lost from recognition Of belligerency
by this country, which, on the whole.
he deemed inadvisable, though an opin-
ion on that point could not be stated
with absolute positiyeness He thou CHIT
it probable that intervention ut lsIor
date on grounds of humanity, If affairs
in Cuba reach sufficiently serious con
dition, was better than action in the
direction Of recognizing belligerency now.
The professor expressed the fear that the
United States is creating series of ex-
ceedfngly dangerous precedents
A letter written by Secretary Seward to
Minister Dayton in 1868 In regard to the
war Of France against Mexico has a spec-
ial application to the Cuban case of to-
day He said:
" Difficult as the exercise of self-goyern.
ment there (Mexico) has proved to he. II