The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-31
THE RIGHT or PRIvATEERING.
Il Has Never Been Abandoned by the
United states.

1t is appropriate to the existing con-
lton of affairs to call to mind that
Spain and the United States are the
only civilized nations that recognize the
right of privateering as an auxiliary
Of maritime war. The abstract justice
of such a method of war is plain from
the following opinion of Bluntschli
quoted in Wharton's book on interna-
tional law: "As nothing prevents a
state from forming a body of volun-
teers to be employed as a part of the
auxiliary force of its army, so a mari
time nation may. with entire propriety,
re-enforce it's fleets by adding vessels
previously employed in trade"
And Thomas Jefferson stated the case
even more forcibly. He said: What
difference is it to the sufferer that his
property is captured or destroyed by
a national or privateering vessel? Did
our merchants, who lost 917 vessels by
British capture. feel any qualification
that most of them were taken by his
majesty's men -of-war, and but few
of them by British privateers? Were
the spoils less rigidly exacted by
seventy-four gun ship of war than by
a privateer of four guns? In
the United States every encouragement
should be given to privateering in time
of war with a commercial nation"
And it is mere matter of fact that
one among the most illustrious of our
naval heroes, Paul Jones. was priva-
teer.
The first strong movement against
privateering was made by France and
Great Britain during the progress of
the Crimean war. The motives at work
are thus set forth in a memorandum
of NJ. Drouyn de Lhuys, at that time
French minister of war: What most
influenced the English government was
the fear of America inclining against
US and lending to our enemies (The
Russians) the cooperation of her har-
dy volunteers. The maritime popula-
ton of the United States, their enter
prising marine, might furnish to Rus
sia fleet of privateers that, attached
to Russia'S service by letters of
marque, and covering the seas with a
network of sails, would harasS and
pursue our commerce Chat of England
and FL lantO even in the most remote
waters.'
The United States declined to enter
into a treaty with France and England
for the abolition of privateering unless
Russia also should be a party. The
progress of the war made this mpos-
sble.
But at the close of the war privateer-
ing was abolished on the parts of Italy,
Germany, Russia, France. Austria and
| Britain, and all of the nations of
Northern Europe. The United States
was asked to become a party to the
/ treaty. and expressed her willingness
to Join. provided that the private prop
erty oe belligerent on the high seas
| should be exempt from seizure by the
/ public armed vessels of the other bel
| l;gerent, unless such property We're con-
| traband Of war. Great Britain refused
| to entertain this equitable proposition
and so the United States held aloof
1 and now stands free to equip priva-
teers in her own defense or for the
purpose Of destroying the commerce OF
an enemy. 1t is the plainest of propo-
sitions that in case of need the United
States could equip twelve privateers
where Spain could equip one.