The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-05-26
MARINE CABLE CUTTING.

Among the new questions raised by the
war is that Of the right of belligerent to
cut submarine cable as a war measure.
ternational law it can only be considered
in the light Of general principles. AS gen.
eral rule a belligerent has a right to do
anything that may embarrass the enemy
or promote his own chances of success, sub
ject to his own responsibility to other pow
ers If their rights be interfered with. OF
course, all property of an enemy may be
captured end destroyed which is of a mill
tary character or susceptible of appropria-
ton to military use, such as forts, arsenals,
dock yards. magazines and military stores
Of all kinds Property that is essentially
nonmilitary In character and used for re-
ligious, charitable, scientific or educational
purposes is not subject to capture or de-
struction. A submarine cable does not
come under either of the latter heads any
more than does a telegraph line on land,
and if it were the property of the enemy
there would be no doubt as to the rights
of belligerent in the case. No person
would question our right to destroy a land
telegraph line wholly in the enemys coun-
try, and there is as little question as to our
right to cut a cable belonging to the enemy.
The question can only arise as to cable
owned by other governments or citizens of
other countries than Spain, and this raises
the three-mie jurisdictional question 1t
is not contended and would not be claimed
that we have right TO cut cable in the
high seas. The right, if 1t exists, only ap-
plies to cables near the enemy's coast line
1t is a recognized principle of international
law that state has complete jurisdiction,
as against other states, over the sea to the
extent of three miles from it's coast. This
belt of coast sea, called the marine league
is, for all jurisdictional purposes, part of
the country which owns the coast. Whether
this right of jurisdiction includes a right
of property is close question. 1T is doubt
full whether Spain has such a property
right in an English or French cable within
three miles of the Spanish coast as to justi-
fly us in treating 1t as Spanish property
within that limit, We say this is doubtful
because it has never been decided by COM
petent authority nor settled in any work on
ldW. II ID ii HcW question:. An
international convention was held twelve
years ago for the protection of submarine
cables against willful damage. etc. In the
| agreement reached at that convention these
words were inserted: 1T is understood that
the stipulations of the present convention
| do not in any way restrict the acts of
belligerents" That evidently contemplated
the cutting by one bellgerent of a cable
| owned by another. but it does not touch
the question of three-mile marine jurisdic-
| ton. There would be no doubt as to our
right to destroy telegraph or railroad
track on land. even though they were owned
by British or French companies. but the
case of an international cable seems to
stand on different footing. On the whole
it is not quite clear that our cutting of the
cables running into Cuba may not involve
| a future claim for damages.