The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-01-10
rHr oAss or rns DzUxrIEss.


Ter Cate"
To THE EDITOR OF THE suN-Sir. I and this
news In THE U Of Friday:
wAsHrxoroS.Jan e.-The tug Dauntiess left jackson.
Vile. Fla, to-day, after having beon detained there for
about n month by the Federal authorities under sus.
picion of being connected with a recent nlibustering
expedition. The United States District Attorney in
Jacksonville wns unable to obtain sufncicnt evidence
TO support a proceeding against the vessel.
So 1t appears that the owners of the Dauntlcss
have boon deprived of tho use Of their property
"for about a month" without lawful cause.
This is not tho first time the Dnuntless has been
subjected to arbitrary detention because some
body thought that she was engaged In transport
ing contraband OF war to Cuba.
Tho United States Supreme Court, in the case
OF Wiborg VS.. Tho United States, decided in
1895. held In accordance with an unbroken line
OF decisions
That It is no OFFENCE against the laws OF the United
States to transport arms. ammunition. and munitions
OF war from this country TO any foreign country,
whether they are to DO used in war or not.
Nor is II an offence against the laws OF the United
States to transport persons out of this country and
to land them In foreign countries when such persons
had an intent to enlist in foreign armies.
But the authorities who caused the detention
Of the Dauntlcss don't seem to care much for the
decisions of that court.
Is there no remedy for such gross oppression
Of our citizensl In olden times there was. In
the case Of Gilston We. Hoyt, In 1918, q jury in
the city Of New York awardtu to the owner of
the American Eagle. which had beon seized there
by the Collector of the Port on suspicion Of VIC
lating the neutrality laws, damages to tho
amount Of S1O7,36 The case was appealed to
the Supreme Court Of the United STATES. but the
verdict was affirmed with interest and costs.
II 1 do not greatly mistake the temper of our
juries, there is the same remedy for the owners
Of the Dauntless now as there was for that of
the American Eagle in 1915.
Be this as 1t may, how does 1t happen that tho
vigor Of the law and the vigilance Of its officers
are C onfned TO harassing the friends Of Cuba,
while those Of Spain arc allowcd to ship with
impunity everything that the Spanish army
needs. Have we ever heard of any effort dur
ing this revolution to stop the shipment of arms
and supplies to that armyi Yet munitions OF
war are constantly shipped to Havana for it's
use. and Spanish agents are now traversing this
country buying and shipping horses for its cav
airy and cattle for its subsistence. II we arc
neutral in this conflict. how is it that we are
affording Spain every assistance In this way
that she calls for. while three or four of our
cruisers and half o dozen revenue cutters are
kept busy patrolling our coasts and watching
for any stray tug that may carry a case or two
OF arms or q score Of cattle to tho Cuban insur-
gentsf What sort OF neutrality is this. what
sort Of fair play, that reads our laws always for
Spain and never for Cubaf
In 1917. on the complaint of Spain and Por-
tugal that armed expeditions were being organ.
lied and despatched from this country to aid
their revolving colonies, President Madison
and Congress passed an act to
preserve our neutrality. But they did not pro-
vide for a one-sided neutrality. They said to
Spain and Portugal: Our citizens shall not In
terfcre in behalf of your insurgent colonies
against you, but, on the other hand, they shall
not interfere in your behalf against your
colonies. They forbade expeditions In favor of
or against either party to the conflict.
After the passage of this law 1t was found
that by some mistake one of its sections was SO
worded as to discriminate in favor of the
mother country and against the colony. Con-
gress set to work at once to remedy 1t. quote
from The Annals of Congress-" Dec. 80. 1917:
Mr.. Miller OF South Carolina called the attention of
the House to the act OF the last session (Maroh 8.
1910. wherein 1t would be seen that. by an oversight
certainly. because 1t could not have been the inten.
ton OF the House, the vessels Of Old Spain might
now enter our harbors and increase their force. while
those Of the colonies were prohibited from so doing.
The omission OF the words - district or people," in
this part of the act gave to It a force as to the vessels
~ s"S >o'SAsNS WANNA ~ NAe hSt - iCkaIob W
Spain. who was not at war with any Prince or
State at peace with the United States. Tho operation
OF the law. thus exclusively favored Old Spain. which,
Mr.. II. repeated. never could have been the intention
Of the House. The act, rs 1t originally passed tho
House. contained no such provision. and the error
could only be accounted for by its having passed
when returned from the Senate without due atten.
tion. 1t was the deliberate sense of Congress at the
session that the United States ought to assume
an attitude entirely neutral in the contest between
Spain and her colonies: but this act having q differ
aspect. he had thought It his duty to bring the
subject to the view of the House that 1t might imme.
diately act on this point.
At this point Mr.. Forsyth, Chairman of tho Com.
on Foreign Relations. took the floor.
He vindicated the on Foreign Rela.
lions OF last session and the House from participa.
ton In the error which was apparent in the act; for,
as the gentleman from South Carolina had truly
stated. 1t was the object OF the House Of Representa-
tives. and. he believed, of the Congress. to pass an
to preserve to each party all its rights as a ma
ton. He stated that the mistake occurred In the
Senate. and had been overlooked by the House in tho
hurry OF business in the closing hours of the session.
In conclusion, Mr.. Forsyth observed that he could
say with confidence that II the did
nothing else on the subject referred TO them they
would attend to this object.
He kept his word, and the error was corrected
In the Act of April 20. 1913. which placed SOW. |
anu tnelr revolving colonies on precisely
the same terms. as far as our neutral obligations
are concerned. That act has been incorporated
in the Revised Statutes. and Is still the law of
the United States.
Yet in 1863. during the Cuban revolution of
that date, when Secretary Fish submitted to At |
torney-Gcneral Hoar the question whether a
libel would lie against the gunboats then build
ing in New York for the Spanish Government
to be used against the Cubans, that Ulcer gave
an opinion that 1t would not. because he Cuban
had not been recognized as belliger-
ents by our Government, although no admitted
that libels were at that very time pending in
our courts against vessels fitted out in the
United States in aid of the Cubans.
Our officials seem to have followed this opinion
during the present revolution. 1t 10 unfair and
In its operation. 1t Is utterly incon-
sistent with the letter and spirit Of the statute.
WASHINGTON. Jan. 3. j., S, T,
FLA ~ 81 SNUG HARBOR.