The San Francisco call., 1896-12-20

special trip to Georgetown, S. c., yester-
day they were instructed to convey to Sec
retary Olney the Presidents approval of
his proposed announcement.
It is regarded by many Senator'S as
step in advance in diplomatic history for
the President thus to assert that he and
not Congress IS the Judge of when execu-
tive action should be taken in the matter
OF recognition of new government.
Nevertheless the precedents seem to
sustain Secretary Olney's position. When
President Monroe, IN 1916 recognized the
inderendence of Southern Spanish
American colonies he did SO without Con-
gressional action, but previously sent out
three commissioners in a United States
war vessel ito visit the several colonies,
inquire into the condition OF things in
respect to the probability of endurance of
successful hostilities and then report"
These commissioners were not nomi-
mated By the Senate, though that body
was in session when they sailed, but went
exclusively on the Presidents nomina-
ton. On the report thus presented Presi-
dent Monroe recognized all these former
Spanish colonies as independent states.
Mr.. Monroe on this occasion said: ''As
soon as the movement assumes such q
consistent form as to make the success of
the provinces possible the rights to which
they were entitled by the law of nations
as equal parties to civil war have been
extended to them"
Reviewing this declaration the Supreme
Court OF the United States said. in the
case OF Ford VS.. Suget," in an opiniod
rendered by Justice Harlan:
"But this rule breaks down in several
places. The proba bility is a creature of
the mind, something merely subjective,
and ought not to enter into a definition OF
what nation ought to do. Again, the
success does not depend on steadiness and
consistency of form only, but on relative
strength, of parties. If you make a
probability of success the criterion
of right in the case, you have
to weigh other circumstances before
being able to judge which is more prob
able-success or defeat. Would you, if
you conceded beiligerent rights, with
draw the concession whenever success
ceased to be probable? And still further,
such provinces in revolt are not entitled
by law of nations to rights as equal par
ties 10 a civil war. They have properly
no rig hts, and the concession of belligeI-
ency is not made on their account, but on
account OF considerations of policy on the
part of the state itself which declares
them such, or on the ground of humanity
"Precedents are to be drawn chiefly from
modern times. The revolt of the Low
Countries was hardly all analogous case,
E. 81. -o4 ko.o Ho., 4.
charters, not connected with Spain, ex-
cept SO far as the King OF Spain was their
suzerain. In our Revolutionary War,
precedent was not all on one side. Great
Britain stoutly declared Paul Jones to be
pirate, because he was British subject
under command from revolting colonies,
and Denmark agreed to this. In the South
American revolutions the concessions of
belIigerent rights were given freely by
neutlals, most freely by the United
States, and as for proclamations, our
Government went so far as to issue one in
1888 'for the proven tion of unlawful in
reference in the civil war in Canada"
where no civil or military organiza-
ton had been set up. The true
time for issuing sucn a declara-
ton, if it Is best to issue it at
all, is when revolt has its
organized government prepared for war
on either element or both or when some
action involving the intention or fact OF
war has been performed By one or both OF
the parties. Here are two facts, the one
political and the other pertaining to the
acts of political body. The fact of war
is either declaration OF war or something
implying 1t, like proclamation or block
ade, or, it may be actual contest
Secretary Olney's statement was re-