The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-07-31

an engagement he can be admitted as q
faith to retain such a flag Of truce if adj
mitted during an engagement. Firing is not
required to cease on the appearance OF q
flag of truce in battle.
A FLAG-OF-TRUCE BEARER.
If the bearer of flag OF truce. presenting
himself during an engagement, IS killed OF
wounded 1t furnishes no ground of COM
plant whatever. If it be discovered and
fairly proved that flag of truce has been
abused for surreptitiously obtaining mill
tary knowledge the bearer Of the flag is
deemed a spy.
1t is customary to designate by certain
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
or pad faith may be good cause for refusing
to respect such flags.
In the matter OF naval warfare the laws
or war are not so clearly defined. This is
natural, inasmuch as the possible loss to
personal property is not so great, and at sea
only those directly implicated in the engage
ments are to be considered. There are no
noncombatants in naval warfare.
The main issue is that of prlvateering. BY
the declaration of Paris the signatory pow
erS declared privateering abolished. This
declaration has been acceded to by all mari
time powers 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 somewhat
varying position toward privateering. After
the revolutionary war treaties were made
providing for its abolition. During the war
of 1872 privateering was extensively prac-
ticed. but during the Mexican war it was
not INDUCED in by either side. In 1856 when
it was proposed to the United States to
accede to the declaration of Paris the gov
eminent declined unless private property at
sea was exempted from capture.
In 1863, during the civil war, a law was
passed by Congress providing for the issu-
ing of letters of marque and reprisal by the
President, but the law was never put into
execution. The United States still MAIN
tainS the right to issue letters of marque and
reprisal to the fullest extent, and it is only
a question of policy which would prevent its
exercise in any war which might come
along.
The conditions of modern naval warfare
have lessened the desirability of privateer-
ing from the standpoint both of the priva-
teer and the national government. The
prizes worth capturing now would be steam
erS. and for this reason priVateers would
necessarily be steamers also. The cost OF
steamers, of their maintenance and the diff
ficulty Of obtaining coal abroad would rem
der privateering very uncertain and expen-
sive, especially as the remunerative prizes
TALLY armed merchant steamers without
convoy. The difficulty of capturing these
and getting them into port after capture
would render privateering a very doubtful
financial venture, especially as without
proper adjudication and sale, which could
only be done in home port, the privateer
would have no recompense.
Noncommissioned vessels have a right to
resist when summoned to surrender to pub
lie ships or privateers of the enemy. The
crews which make such resistance have bel
ligerent privileges, and 1t is a natural con-
sequence of the legitimateness of their acts
that if they succeed in capturing their as
sailants. the capture is good one for the
purpose of changing the ownership of the
property taken and of making the enemy
prisoners of war.