The record-union., 1898-03-05

age designated. Thus the Spanish al
thority assumed control and to that
extent accepted responsibility, and
therefore it must prove that the ex-
plosion was from internal cause. rms
is ingenious. and whether it is the Ia"
or not. it will occur to most readers
of the Record Union that nation
in whose port such an accident nap
pens will, if actuated by high purpose
hasten to clear itself of all possible sus-
picion. and to shake off even the sus-
gestion of responsibility, but that il
is bound to do so is illogical. II
is true, as Mr.. Butler says, that II
ought to be easy for Spain to prove the
fact, if it is fact, that there were nc
torpedoes or mines planted in the har-
bor
In still further support of his POSI-
ton he quotes from Wheaton that
ship of g. friendly nation in port is un-
der the protection of the authority and
law of place (Sec. 1909 He quotes also
from Vattel's Law of Nations.
"The sovereign ought not to grant an
entrance into his state for the purpose
of drawing foreigners into snare. AS
soon as he admits them he engages to
protect them as his own subjects. and
to afford them perfect security so far as
depends on him.
Also at another place, in the same au-
thor: He who promises security by a
safe conduct, promises to afford II
wherever he has the command, and ne
is bound not only to forbear violating
that security either by himself or his
people, but also to protect and defend
the person to whom he has promised it;
to punish any of his subjects who have
offered him violence, and oblige them TO
make good the damage" Vattels S
Law of Nations,' 104 and 416.
This line of argument has been made
in these columns, and it is not ques-
toned, though where the burden OF
proof of failure to adequately protect
lies is a different question.
In the case of the Creole. in 1S41 the
United States recovered damages from
England for slaves escaped from an
American ship driven by stress of
weather into a port of Great Britain,
says Mr.. Butler That was not case
of connivance, but simply of damages
for on-prevention. The same was true
in the celebrated Alabama cases, be-
cause England should have prevented
the departure from her ports of Con-
federate ships of war ships suspected
of being in Confederate service, though
such arrest of the ships would have
been upon suspicion rather than on pos
tive proof of their unlawful outfitting.
So, he argues, it was the duty OF
Spain not merely to passively permit
the Maine to enter and remain in the
harbor, but to throw every possible
safeguard about her, and until she
shows that she did so Spain must rest
under suspicion, and that ii is her duty
to dissipate The demand Of President
in point. There Spain conceded the
point that she must, besides returning
the captured men, salute the flag, "un-
less she could prove that the Virginius
had nc right to carry the American
flag" We submit that this was a very
different matter There an act undis-
puted had been performed namely, the
seizure of the sailors and ship, and the
shooting of thirty-seven Of the prison.
ers Very naturally in that case Spain
was put upon her defense affirmatively,
the United States having rested on the
assertion that the Virginius was an
American ship.
Mr.. Hutler. cites other cases in sup
port, such as the bombardment of AL
exandria in 1882 and the capture of a
Sandman steamer by a Neapolitan
cruiser in 1857. But enough has been
given of his line Of argument to show
what it is 1t is assuredly an interest
ing position, and will enlarge and in
form thought upon knotty problems or
international law. without at all involv-
ing any fevered heat concerning trouble
with Spain. But, as we have indicated,
we do not think Mr. Buffers argument
will hold good.