New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-03-17
SPANS RESPONSIBILITY.
THE PROTECTION OF THE MAINE IN IIA-
VANA HARBOR INSUFFICIENT
DEMAND FOR INDEMNITY
AND APOLOGY.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.


To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: AS the report Of the Board OF Inquiry Is
now either in Washington or on its way there
and as The universal impression seems TO be
that the findings will show the explosion
OF the Maine to have been due to external force
1t becomes important to consider what action
the Government Of the United States can take
for demand for an indemnity from the Spanish
Govern ment. 1t is assumed. Of course that the
Spanish Government is entirely without com
pcity In the disaster but that II was caused by
some irresponsible person. with the possible
connivance Of some subordinate Spanish OIL
cial
The crucial point in the situation appears TO
be whether the burden Of proof lies upon the
United States or Spain to show that the disaster
was unavoidable or was due 10 negligence. This
would. / think undoubtedly fall uyon Spain.
Our demand for indemnity would be based upon
the ground that the Maine was blown UP by
eXterna! causes. as was clearly established
BY the Board OF Inquiry. during time OF peace.
in n Spanish harbor. over which Spain exercised
both de ture and de facto absolute and complete
authority.
on the face OF this. negligence is apparent.
nor would it be necessary for to prove It,.
Safety and security assured to strangers
within the dominions of every civilized power
in the same measure as that enjoyed by its own
citizens. The measures Of police should be suif'-
cient to guarantee this and If they were not,
the country would not be within the class Of civ
ilIzed but Of semi barbarous nations, in dealing
with which other nations take the law into their
own hands. Spain. as a nation. claims to be in
the same class with ourselves Great Britain
France and others. and TO be strong enough TO
Wv nil 10 "
its jurisdiction. In case Of accident the Spanish
Government is undoubtedly responsible and liza
BILE from the very fact that the protection was
not sufficient and that the disaster could only
have happened through design or through negli-
gence the former being OF course. an nadmis-
sible contention and the latter being. therefore,
essentially true.
While there no exactly analogous cases In
the history Of international law nevertheless
there are similar Instances. and the underlying
principles as sketched above are clearly APP
plicable TO the explosion OF the Maine as to the
numerous injuries to person and property sus-
ta!ned by the citizens Of various nations for
which an indemnity and apology have always
tecn offered by the offending and negligent ma
ton.
In assuming this position the United States
would think be undoubtedly supported by the
best Judgment OF the civilized world. and the
difficulty in the matter will not lie here but in
the undoubted contention of the spanish Govern
ment that the findings OF our Board Of Inquiry
are not conclusive. but sirIply ex parte evidence
Of the facts OF the case, against which VIII be
opposed the findings OF the Spanish court We
should thus find ourselves in the dilemma OF as
sentlng TO an international court OF Inquiry or
OF maintaining the findings of our own Board
bv force WIN. MORTON GRINNELL-
New-York March rs. 1893