The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1898-05-07
OF MUCH IMPORTANCE.

, caEtors legal right to them or not?
These are questions which are botherins
naval experts just now, and the lay mind
is much pcrpleXed to give them a proper
answer, says the Boston Republic
A test case will undoubtedly be made
OF the Spanish steamer Buena Ventura
the first vessel captured. Her owners
have protested against her seizure on the
she was taken. 1t will be remembered
that the United States ultimatum tc
Spain fixed Saturday at noon as the
time when hostilitios would be COM
menced if Spain did not comply with tie
terms Of the ultimatum. Therefore tie
owners of the Buena Ventura claim that
n seizure made prior TO that time, was
not legal. While awaiting the decision of
the prize court it will be interesting to
consider briefly the facts o: the case.
A recognized English authority. Owens
Declaration of War" says that ION the
outbreak of hostilities the right to cap
|
portant point to determine then, is at
what moment hostilities actually began.
Many lawyers versed in admiralty hold
that the act OF Spain in Withdrawing her
minister from this country and handing
his passports to Minister Woodford was Il
| hostile act. Others claim that the order
of the government to Admiral Sampson
to blockade Havana was Il beginning Of
hosti!ities. There are more conservative
! ones. however, who contend that hostil-
! tiles may begin only when guns are fired
Or a blockade actually established. Such
conservatives. therefore, virtually admit
that the firing upon and seizure of the
Buena Ventura was n hostile act and
marked the outbreak of lostllites. Ac-
cording to their views, then, all vesse Is
captured after her seizure are legal prizes
of war
The few preccdents which have any
bearing on the case seem TO sanction The
seizure. Here is one from Phllmores
international Law" recognized author
ity:
In 17G1 negotiations Cor peace between
England and France were set on foot.
by Article X of the first memorial pre-
scented by France it was demanded that
captures before the declaration. except
kings ships, should DO restored, or re-
cOmpenSe made, because taken contrary
to the law IF nations. And here it may
be remarked that the exception proposed
in favor of merchantmen as contrastad
with kings ships is wholly at variance
with one of the fundamental rules of in
tarnational law, namely. that the will Of
the subject is bound up In the will of his
government. The answer lc this demand
was perfectly sound in point Of reason
and justice, and what was no doubt
framed with the advice Of the eminent
civilians who were at tina: time The adj
viscrs OF the crown. The demand Of
restitution OF captures before the war
cannot be admitted. for il is not founded
resulting from the law of nations; for
tic right az ! Istiities. does not result
from a formal declaration of war; bit
from the hostilitics wh:rh The asgrcssor
first offered
The souuGress Of the law and the
business of the reasoning appear to have
been eventually admitted by tho enemy
himself, for even at the peace Of Paris in
No, irn ,r
not mentioned with respcc: to the claims
If France
Tho same work describes another case
which might have some bearing on the
present controversy. This difficulty was
also between France and England Eng
land seized French ships during the
American revolution when France came
to Americas aid, but the seizures were
made before France took any active part
in hostilities. Says the book:
France had declared war when she an
nounced her treaty with the rebelious
subjects-for such at that time they
wcrc-of Great Britain, when she sea-
her fleet to America with orders which
could not fail to lead to open hostilities;
she had declared war when she recalled
her ambassador, and no one cOgnizant
with the principles of international law
can seriously doubt that it was perfectly
competent to England. upon the an
nouncement of the treaty and the with
drawal OF her ambassador, to have immc-
diately commenced open hostilities. or to
have adopted the preventive measure Of
embargo. 1t was simply a question of
discretion upon the part OF England as 10
the moment at which she should choose
to order the first cannon fired Mr.. Fox.
the English minister. replied and justly
repudiated, as altogether untenabe, the
position which France cndeavored for the
first time to establish. that a war in
America was to be distinguished from a
war in Europe. and. therefore, that the
captures In Europe made before a declar-
alton was illegal. Mr.. Fox also justly
rested the attack by the English admiral
on the law Of self-defense, and pointed
out the situation where the captures were
made as evidence that they were taken in
a hostile enterprise; and Mr.. Ward cor