The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-01-02
BUR DUTY TOWARD SPAIN.
4n0E WO0IsEK or YALE SAYS THAT
& IT MAS BEEN WE'LL DONE.

ROY W00IsEK or YAEE SAT- THAT
AZ IT HAS BEEN VEL DONE.
m ehs nsauirsuents or International Raw
with Regard to Cuba Fuiaiiea-Ne coed
III 0reands ror spain's Complaints Concern
fng Ahegea HIitbusterinE Expeditions
Tro. the Yale Lav Journal.
The complaints which the Spanish Ministry
baid to have made to our Government, Of its
laxness In preventing hlibuaterinR expeditions,
nav called out from tho Secretary Of the Navy
on interesting rejoinder. The statement OF
Mr.. Long attempts to show on the part Of the
United States q diligence in preserving Its
nsutrality that is not only due but even un-
usual under the circumstances. This corre-
e1ondence is not yet published. The mere fact
- its existence and probable tenor Is known.
We cannot scrutinize the assertions Of fact and
lAw and precedent therein contained. Never.
theless, perhaps we may use tho incident to
advantage as n peg upon which to hang two In
cuirios, the one relating TO fact, the other to
law; tho ono recalling n bitter national contro-
versy, long since settled; the other concerning
che duties Of n State in view Of an insurrection
against o friendly power, an insurrection
which cannot well be recognized as belligerent.
What b faint and far-away memory that
phrase ''due diligence suggests! And yet In
The Alabama claims arbitration, q quarter Of
q century ago, national responsibility and mil
Hons of dollars in damages rested upon Its In.
depreciation.
Tho military engines which tho Southern
Confederacy bought in neutral England pro-
1ongcd tho war, destroyed or drove to other
zlngs tho commerce of the North and gave rise
70 tho most serious complaints. Just so to-day
those military supplies which Cuba buys from
the manufacturer of the United States are
prolonginR the insurrection, may make inde-
yondence possible and do much to disturb our
friendly relations with Spain. They likewise
may serve as o basis for claims for damages
In no very distant future. There is an apparent
parallelism between the two cases. Is 1t real .
Tho salient features of our relations with
neutral powers during the civil war were
these: tho recognition Of Southern belligerency
by the States whose interests were affected,
which thereby declared their neutrality; tho
application of the rules Of maritime capture to
them, by both sides in the war thus recognized;
The sale OF military supplies to the Confederates
" neutral merchants, tho onus of preventing
their delivery resting upon the shoulders Of
the Northern Government; finally, the despatch
Of armed expeditions from British soil, coupled
with their illegal armament and enlistment of
men, In British colonial ports, with great dam
ago TO American commerce resulting. There
Was o European sympathy for the Southern
cause also, which was CALLING to the North. but
tt II the unneutral act, not the unneighborly
nentiment that international law takes cogni-
uance OF.
u, Turn now to our relations with Cuba
As the Cuban ports Of Importance are all In
Spanish hands, our shipping interests have not
been 30 affected as to make the recognition
Of Cuban belligerency necessary. Therefore,
there has been no blockade, no right to capture
goontraband on the high seas. no right Of search
q American ships except within Spanish juris-
diction. Az in Great Britain in our civil war.
there has been free sale of military supplies In
our markets to the Cubans, but with the as
sumption that the burden of preventing them
from reaching their destination rested upon
Spain; and lastly, armed expeditions, that is.
the combination OF munitions of war with men
Snlisted to use them, have been checked and in
large measure prevented by our Government,
Il great cost and with much trouble, by many
arrests, several trials and q few convictions,
10 that It can honestly say, as Secretary Long
does say, that 1t has exercised diligence in this
regard.
American sympathy for the Cuban cause
exists. 1t is natural, even inevitable. II is
calling to Spain. But We say again that ex-
p~ressions of sympathy are not within the cogni-
rance of the law.
Reviewing the two cases. we sec that they
are not parallel. but in strong contrast.
The one was war Inv with dt6 neutral r. . d duties and
speaEins, and no belIi gerant rights. The one
put the duty of preventing contraband articles
ionged. In the other Spain appears to shirk
thiS duty; to try and place it upon the wrong
Negligence in tho Alabama, Florida. and
Fhenandoah cases made Great Britain liable
dl In connection with Cuba can be brought
home to the United States. Its seaboard Is
fGto prevention Of hostile expeditions welinish
impossible. But by the use or both navy and
81 policed as to make the despatching OF such
Expeditions very hazardous and very uncertain.
Due vigilance has been observed. Can more
And now for the second inquiry.
rWhat is the law to govern a State in its re-
lations to q mere instruction in a friendly
is a. Estates own statutory law the sum and
aneasure OF its duty in the casei
5@How far does the character of lawful COM
msrco attach to trade with the Insurgents in
such questions as these have forced them
pelves upon both executive and judicial depart
years, But, there must naturally be a differ-
6hce In their point of view. The Executive is
fonal law and by its conviction OF national pol
Icy; while the courts, though also applying in
employ and Interpret the statutes enacted for
the enforcement OF that law, Violation OF the
ior redress. So. TOO, insIficlency OF the stat,
ute, as interpreted, POUNDS q valid claim for
Of aI statute is not a ground for cson Complaint, un.
less bad faith can be proven. Where an insur-
rection breaks out in another State II Is TO DO
remarked that ones own political relations
with that State are necessarily affected, Tor 1t
involves the and the property rights
OF our citizens. II Of a character to warrant
II, the insurrection will be Recognized as bellig-
efent. We are presupposing, however. that
for one reason or another this course IL mad
missible, There results no recognized war.
There can, therefore, DO no neutrality (since
pgutrality implies war;, nor any neutral duties.
We have so-called neutrality acts which oper.
Ate without wal, 1t is true, but the neutral,
ity" 10 here merely a convenient name, and not
= proof of status. The same thing In England
IL called a Foreign Enlistment act.
But though there may be no neutral duties
and rights, technically spe1Aang, there are
nevertheless the duties which every State owes
70 every other; there are the rights of CONNER.
ctal freedom which every, State enjoys. and
there 10 the right of self-defence, the duty OF
maintaining its own integrity, which the in
S~urgents' sovereign Possesses.
These fundamental rights do not depend for
their operation upon any formal recognition
of belliRerenCy, Nor can / see thar they nre