The Wichita daily eagle., 1897-12-07

lations to the parties thereto. But this
conflict must be one which will be recog-
nized in the sense of international law
as war.
'sBelligerency, too, is fact. The
mere existence of contending armed
bodies and their occasional conflicts do
not constitute war in the sense referred
to- Applying to the existing condition
of affairs in Cuba, the tests recognized
by pubiiciss and writer's on internation-
al law. and which have been observed
by nations of dignity, honesty and pow
er, when free from sensitive or selfish
and unworthy motives, l fail to find in
the insurrection the existence of such a
substantial political organization, real.
palpabie and manifest to the world,
having the forms and capable of the or
binary functions OF government toward
it's own psopfe and to other states, with
courts for the administration Of justice,
with a local habitation, possessing such
organiza ton OF force, such material,
and such occupation of territory as to
take the contest out OF the category Of
a mere rebellious inSurrection, or occa-
sional skirmisnes. and place it on the
terrible footing of war, to which recog-
nition of belligerency would aim 10 ele-
vate it.
the contest, moreover, is solely on
land. The insurrection mas not possess
ed itself Of single port. whence it may
send forth its flag, nor has il any means
Of communication with foreign powers,
except through the military lines Of its
adversaries. No apprehension Of any Of
these sudden complications which war
upon the ocean is apt to precipitate up
on the vessels, both commercial and ma
tional, and upon the consular officers of
other powers, calls for the definition of
their relations to the parties to the con-
test. Considered as question of ex-
pediency, 1 regard the accordance Of
belligerent rights still to be as unwise
and premature as 1 regard it to be, at
present, indefensible as a measure Of
right.
Such recognition entails upon the
country according the rights which flow
from it difficult and complicated duties,
and requires the exaction from the con-
tending parties of the strict observance
cf their rights and obligations. 1t con-
fers the right of search upon the high
seas by vessels of both parties; it would
subject the carrying Of arms and NUM-
tions OF war, which now mey be trans
ported freely and without interruption
in vessels of the United States. to deten-
ton and to possible seizure; it would
give rise to countless veXatious ques-
tions, would release the parent govern
ment from responsibility for acts done
by the insurgents and would invest
pervision, recognized by our treaty of
1895, over our commerce on the high
seas, a very large part of which traffic
is between the Atlantic and Gulf states,
and all Of them and states on the Pacific
passes through the waters which wash
the shores of Cuba. The exercise of this
could scarcely fail to lead, if
not to abuses, certainly to collisions
perilous to the peace Of the relations of
the two states. There can be little
doubt to what result such supervision
would before long draw this nation. 1t
would be unworthy of the United States
to inaugurate the possibility of such re-
suit by a measure Of congress Of ques-
tionable right or expediency, or by any
ndirection."
PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES.
Turning to the practical aspects of a
Of 6elligerency and review
ing its inconvenience and positive dam
ges, still further pertinent considera-
tions appear. In the code of nations
there is no such thing as naked recog-
nition Of belligerency unaccompanied by
the assumption Of international neutral
ty. Such recognition without more will
not confer upon either party to a con-
iict status not heretofore actually
possessed or affect the relations Of eth
Pr party to other states. The act Of re-
,ogrition usually takes the form OF a
solemn proclamation of neutrality which
recites the de facto condition of bellig-
srency az it's motive. It announces a
aw OF neutrality in the declaring state. |
II assumes the international obligations
IT neutral in the presence OF a public |
state OF war 1t warns all citizens and
others within the jurisdiction of the
oroclaimant that they violate those rig
orous obligations at their own peril and |
cannot expect to be shielded from the
The right of visit and
search on the seas and seizure OF vessels
good prize under admiralty law must un-
Ter international law be admitted as a
legitimate consequence of a proclama-
ton OF belligerency. While according
EQUAL belligerent rights defined by public |
aw to each party in our ports, disfavors
would be imposed on both. which. while |
equal, would weigh heavily in |
behalf Of Spain herself. Possessing a |
navy and controlling the ports OF Cuba |
her maritime rights could be asserted |
not only for the military investment OF |,
the island, but UP 10 the margin OF our
1wn territorial waters and a condition |
IF things would exist for which the Gu
oans within their own domain could nor |
hope to create a parallel: while its crea-
ion through aid or sympathy from with |
N ouh domain would be even more i'm |
cf international neutrality.
which We would perforce assume
The enforcement of this enlarged and |
'nerous code Of neutrality would only be |
influential within our own jurisdiction |
oy land and sea and applicable by our
own instrumentalities 1t could fnpart |
to the United State. no Jurisdiction be-
tween Spain and the insurgents II |
would give the United States no right
IF intervention to enforce the conduct
u the strife within the paramount au-
-nority OF Spain. according 10 the inter- !
national code Of war.