The record-union., 1898-04-30

engagement, he can be admitted as a
very rare exception. It is no breach
of good faith to retain such a flag of
truce, if admitted during an engage
ment. Firing is not required to cease
on the appearance of a flag of truce in
battle.
If the bearer of a flag of truce, pre-
senting himself during an engagement,
is killed or wounded, it furnishes no
ground of complaint whatever. If it
be discovered, and fairly proved. that
a flag of truce has been abused for sur
reptitiously obtaining military knowl-
edge the bearer Of the flag is deemed a
spy.
1t is customary to designate by GER
tain flags, usually yellow, the hospitals
in places which are shelled, so that the
besieging army may avoid firing on
them. 1t is justly considered an act
of bad faith to deceive the enemy by
flags of protection. Such acts of bad
faith may be good cause for refusing
to respect such flags.
In the matter of naval warfare the
laws of war are not so clearly defined.
This is natural, inasmuch as the pos
sible loss to personal property is not
so great, and at sea only those directly
implicated in the engagement are to be
considered. There are no non-combat
ants in naval warfare
The main issue is that of privateer-
ing. BY the declaration of Paris, the
signatory Powers declared privateer
ing abolished. This declaration has
been acceded to by all maritime Pow
ers except the United States, Spain and
Mexico. So in case of brush with the
Spaniards, privateering will probably
be recognized by both Governments.
The United States have taken a some
what varying position toward priva-
teering After the revolutionary war
treaties were made providing for its
abolition. During the war of 1912 pri-
watering was extensively practiced,
but during the Mexican war it was not
INDUCED in by either side. In 1886,
when it was proposed to the United
States to accede to the declaration of
Paris, the Government declined unless
private property at sea was exempted
from capture.
In 1868, during the civil war a law
was passed by Congress providing for
the issuing of letters of marque and
reprisal by the President, but the law
was never put into execution. The
United States still maintains the right
to issue letters of marque and reprisal
to the fullest extent, and it is only a
question of policy which would pre-
vent it's exercise in any war which
might come along.
PRIVATEERING WOULD BE EX-
PENSIVE.
The conditions of modern naval war
fare have lessened the desirability of
privateering from the standpoint both
OF the privateer and the National Gov
eminent. The prizes worth capturing
now would be steamers, and for this
reason privateers would necessarily be
steamers also. The cost of steamers.
Of their maintenance and the difficulty
of obtaining coal abroad would render
prlvateering very uncertain and ex-
pensive, especially as the remunerative
prizes would be the large, fast and
probably partially armed merchant
steamers without convoy The diff
Guilty of capturing these and getting
them into port after capture would rem
der privateering a very doubtful finan-
cial venture, especially as without
proper adjudication and sale, which
could only be done in home port, the
privateer would have no recompense.
NOn-commisSiOned vessels have a.
right to resist when summoned to sur
render to public ships or privateers of
the enemy. The crews which make
such resistance have belligerent privi-
leges, and it is a natural consequence
Of the legitimateness of their acts that
if they succeed in capturing their as
sailants the capture is a good one for
the purpose of changing the ownership
of the property taken and of making
the enemy prisoners Of war.-New York
Herald.