Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-04-28
AS TO PRIVATEERING
VIEWS OF TWO LAW PROFESSORS ON
THIS TOPIC.

NnEltES III IN WAT, Dut
spain Would lie the Greater Sufferer.
On account of the exceedingly impor.
tant part priyatoering has played in our
past wars the possibility of its use in
case of a war with Spain becomes of in.
terest James Il. Colby, professor Of
law in Dartmouth college. who recently
concluded course Of lectures on inter.
national law in the New York Law
school, in an interview on this subject
said in part:
Prior to 1866 common international
usage in maritime warfare allowed the
employment of privateers, authorized
the coniiscation of an enenly's goods
found under neutral flag, exempted
from seizure neutral goods, except con.
traband Of war, found under an enemy's
flag Though France and Spain acted up
on the rule that the eneniy's flag faint.
ed and made coniscable the neutral
goods, and was alleged to justify paper
blockades-that is, those declared but
not maintained so as to make ingress
and egress impossible. In 1856, at a
congress of the nations which had been
called to conclude the Crimean war by
tho treaty Of Paris, four rules were
proposed: First, that privateering be
abolished; second, that enemy's goods,
excepting contraband of war, be exempt
ed from capture under a neutral flag;
third, TINT neutral's goods under an en-
emy's flag be exempt from capture,
with the exception of contraband of
war; fourth, that paper blockades DO
invalidated.
"These propositions were accepted by
the powers directly concerned, and the
so called declaration of Paris is bind
ing upon them. Neither the United
States nor Spain, though both were in.
vited to do SO, has ever signed this
declaration. In the event of war there
fore, between the United States and
Spain their respective rights and duties
as belligerents on the sea would be de.
termined by the common law OF nations
as it existed prior to 1856, except so far
as that may have been modified by their
treaty engagements of 1895 and 1919.
While the effect Of war upon all
treaties unfortunately is not free from
doubt, and while the construction of the
| particular treaties of 1895 and 1919 may
| discover some difference Of opinion,
it would appear, first, that both the
| United States and Spain are left free to
exercise their international common law
right to use privateers against each 9TH
or, though by tho treaty of 1895 each
| state agrees not to allow its subjects to
accept letters Of marque from any third
state with which the other may be at
war, and, second, that tho United States
and Spain not only have agreed to the
| rule that the flag Of the neutral shall
cover enemy's property as between
themselves but also have stipulated
that this shall be SO understood with
respect to those powers recognizing this
principle, and this, of course, includes
all states which have signed the decla-
ration of Paris.
1.-The righ5 of visit and search, which
is the right of belligerent to stop and
examine neutral merchantmen on the
high seas to ascertain whether ship or
goods are liable to capture, was not
modified by the declaration of Paris
and undoubtedly would be exercised by
both the United States and Spain, if at
war, whenever any neutral merchant
man might reasonably be suspected of
having as o destination blockaded
port or having as part of her cargo
contraband of war"
Mr.. j, b. Moore, professor Of inter
national law in Columbia university,
speaking in an interview of the attitude
of the United States toward the declara-
tion'of Paris, said:
SIT was near the end of Pierce's adj.
ministration and when Marcy was Sec
Rotary Of state that the United States
was invited 10 become party to the
declaration, and the invitation was ac-
cepted with the reservation that private
property, excepting contraband of war
and in the case of blockade should be
exempt. This was under consideration
by tho powers when, upon the inaugu-
ration of Buchanan, the whole matter
was dropped. After the civil war came,
however, the federal government, with
the intention of ending the privateering
on the Confederate side, offered to ac-
cept the terms of the declaration, but
the offer was refused. AS Spain also
was not party TO the terms of the dec
laration it is probable that privateering
would be engaged in by both nations in
war;
From rapid survey of the commerce
Of the two nations, although that of the
United States is by far the more extern
sive, it would seem assured that Spain
would be the greater sufferer from the
effects of privateering. The reason lies
in the fact that seven eighths of the
] commerce Of the United States is inter-
nal, owing to her unrivaled bodies Of
! inland waters. Out of n total of 20, 97S
vessels of all sorts flying the American
flag l9,S02 in 1897 were engaged in
what is called the coastwise trade. BY
, far the greater part of this number is
engaged in internal trade, and nonsus.
ceptible to privateering.
With Spain the case is different.
Within her boundaries there are no nav
igable bodies of water which can be
compared to our own, and therefore the
, conclusion is that her trade is mostly
external and open to the ravages of pri.
vateers But the glory and gold of Ole
) Spain have departed, and nothing but
, the memory of them remains. The snut
nosed galleon Of the Spanish main
which so appealed to the fancy of Drake
I and only incidentally to "good Queen
Bess" is n myth, and the Spanish shiI
: on the Spanish main Of today, while