The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-08
PRIvATEERING RIGHTS.

A question asked in the British Parlia-
ment a few days ago has started some dis
cussion as to the privateering rights of the
The question was asked by Rear Admiral
Lord Charles Beresford whether the United
States, not being a party to the declara-
ton Of Paris, would be bound by it's pro-
visions. The asking of the question shows
that Lord Beresford is not very well in
formed as to the scope of the declaration
of Paris or international law in general
He should have known that compact,
agreement or declaration signed by certain
powers was binding only on the signatories,
and that such a compact or declaration
could not affect powers that did not sign
it nor modify their pre-existing rights
under international law. To this effect was
the answer of the Queens attorney general,
who said the privateering rights of the
United States and Spain as belligerents
were not affected by the declaration of
Paris, and that. according to the law of
nations, this included the right to search
or capture neutral vessels carrying goods
contraband of war. In reply to another
question the attorney general said: There
a number of treaties and expressions
of opinion on the part of the United
States which think must seriously impair
their rights So far as expressions of
opinion" are concerned they could not af-
feet established rights. These can only be
surrendered or curtailed by an agreement
or contract. Rights are permanent, while
opinions may vary according to circum-
stances. But the case of a treaty is diff
ferent. A treaty is the highest form of in
ternational obligation, and if the United
States has surrendered any Of it's privateer-
ing rights by treaty with any other power
it will be bound by the treaty The British
attorney general, however, did not mention
any treaty of this kind, and it is quite
likely he is mistaken 1t is not likely that
this government would surrender by treaty
right for which it has always stood firm
ly and to preserve which it declined to be-
come party to the declaration of Paris.
The history of that declaration is curious
Prior to 1856 privateering was practiced by
all nations when at war, though it was
most important to the United States on ac-
count of her small navy. Yet the United
States had always maintained that neutral
goods, not contraband of war; found on
board neutral vessels. should not be sub
ject to seizure. This principle was ex-
pressed in the phrase free goods make
free ships" 1t distinguished between goods
contraband of war found on neutral ships
and goods not contraband, and was fair
and just. The European powers never recog-
nized it till 1856 The declaration of Paris,
adopted at the Paris conference in that
year and signed by Austria, France, Great
Britain, Sardinia, Prussia, Russia and
Turkey, abolished privateering so far as
these powers are concerned, and recognized
the principle SO long contended for by the
United States that free ships make free
goods" After the declaration had been
signed by the European powers it was sub
mitted to the United States for signature
Secretary of State Marcy approved of all
except the clause abolishing privateering,
and made counter proposition He said:
1t is not the policy of the United States
to maintain vast standing armies and
nav1es. When, unfortunately, we go to war
we depend upon our people to protect us
on land; and on our ship owners to defend
us on the water. If Won will make
all private property exempt from capture
at sea, We will cease priVateering: but
why ask us to abolish it, while you main
tain and send out your great ships of war
which are neither more nor less than l)riva-
teers? They go forth to do exactly the same
thing as the ships that we license in time
OF War-to burn plumber and destroy
Make all private property exempt
from capture at sea, and then We will agree
that priyateering shall cease.
This was a fair and just proposition. 1t
was favorably received by France, Russia
and other maritime powers, but was re-
jected by Great Britain. Thus Great Britain
is responsible for the fact that if war oc-
ours between the United States and Spain.
British ships will be subject to search and
seizure for contraband goods by both bel
ligerents If Great Britain in 1856 had been
willing to surrender the right of confiscat-
ing free goods in neutral ships, as well as
contraband goods the United States would
have become a party to the declaration of
Paris and would now be estopped from
privateering. AS the case stands we have
a free hand in the matter.
-------------~--