The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-17
SPANS LIABILITY.
The President Said to BE Studying the
Questions Involved.

Questions Involved.
| ST. LOUIS, March 16-The Globe-Demo-
Gratis Washington correspondent says: The
! court of inquiry may report that the de-
struction of the Maine was not accidental,
and yet there may not be the facts on
which this government can base claim for
| indemnity. This is view which has scarce
ly been presented. But it is now before the
President. The Maine may have been blown
up by external force and Spain may not be
responsible This is not probable, but it is
possible. 1t will not be a welcome turn for
the Maine affair to take. Public opinion
will resent it. But the administration may
be obliged to face 1t and admit that it has
no claim against Spain. Some of the inter-
national lawyers are combating this as a
contingency. The President has taken coun-
sci on it. There seems to be no way around
it. Those who contend that the destruction
of the Maine by external force entailed a
responsibility on Spain may have to yield
their contention. The laws and precedents
have been overhauIed with special reference
to this fine point. 1t appears that the Maine
could have been blown up and no financial
responsibility attached to Spain. There will
be sharp controversy in this country over
the action of the administration If it shall
be reported that the Maine was lost through
no internal cause, and if the court is obliged
to stop right there
According to the case as carefully exam
ined from the legal points of view there are
three ways in which the destruction can be
classed if it shall be found that the explo-
sion was not an accident
First-It could be found that the Maine
was blown up by external agency with in
tent Of Spanish authority. But this has al
ready been eliminated. The declaration of
Secretary Long will be recalled.
Second-The Maine may have been de-
stroyed by external force and there may be
no evidence that Spain, being in control of
the harbor, did not exercise due diligence
to protect the vessel.
Third-The evidence may show in one of
several forms contributory negligence OH the
part of Spain.
If the Maine was anchored over mine
and the mine was exploded through the con-
nivance of the subordinate officials, or
through negligence in guarding the cleo
trcal connections, there is responsibility on
Spain. If the ship was destroyed through
the explosion of the mine from any cause
there rests upon Spain responsibility in
varying degrees. But If the explosion was
not the result of a mine located there if
all VI the USUAL W ana
guard the harbor were taken, Spain cannot
be held accountable. If a quantity of ex-
plosives was towed against the Maine and
exploded by persons unknown in a way that
ordinary precautions would not have pre-
vented, then Spain is not to be held respon-
sible any more than If the explosion was
shown to have been accident.
There win be strong demurrers to such
reasoning. But this view is one of the pos
sible contingencies before the President. A
man may have a guest in his house and a
burglar may break in and shoot the guest:
the host is in no way responsible But If
an employe of the host should shoot the
guest, there would be responsibility. If
man sets spring gun in his yard and IN
vites mis- neighbors in and leaves the gun
loaded and exposed so that somebody Is
shot, there Is responsibility. But il one of
the visitors trips and falls downstairs and
breaks his leg, there is no responsibility on
the host. A nation does not insure ships in
(COntinued ON Second Page3