Evening star., 1899-02-04
Attorney Generals Decision Against
Gable Company.
REAR ADMIRAL DEWEY'S WORK
Justified by the Exigencies of the
State of War.
s ETS A P r E G E D E n T

| Attorney General Griggs has rendered an
! opinion which Is of international import
| ance, inasmuch as it decides the question
! o. the right of military commander to
/ cut a cable within the territorial waters of
an enemy without making the country he
represents liable to damages to the owner
| of the cable The question at issue arose
from the cutting of the cable at Manila
| last May by Admiral Dewey. The cable
was the property of the British Eastern
Extension Australasia and China Telegraph
Company, and the latter filed a claim with
the State Department for SIG, 900 DANA ges.
Secretary Hay, on January 16, addressed
a letter to Attorney General Griggs reIa-
tive to the claim, and asking for an opinion
As to whether this government was in any
way liable for those damages and losses.
The Secretary's letter was accompanied
by correspondence explanatory of the claim
and an opinion by Sir r. T. Reid and Mr..
Henry Sutton favorable to the validity of a
demand for indemnity to the extent of the
amount expended in repairing the cable.
No Ground for the Claim.
In responding to Secretary Hays letter,
Attorney General Griggs has rendered an
exhaustive opinion, which finds that upon
| the law of the case there is no ground for
the calm to indemnity.
The claim presented some very novel
points, and the decision is therefore all the
more interesting. The cable company did
not deny that the cable was properly cut
by Admiral Dewey a necessary war
measure, and it was not pretended that the
interruption of traffic over the cable, in
the circumstances existing at Manila was
regarded as giving rise to any right Of
indemnity, but the claim was made that a
able is new and peculiar species of prop
sod 1a
cutting of a cable was difficult to find.
The Attorney General found that the strict
law applicable to the case does not on that
account become doubtful.
property of neutral permanently sit
uated within the territory of our enemy is
says the Attorney General in his opinion
from its situation alone liable to damage
from the lawful operations of war, which
this cutting is conceded TO have been. and
no compensation is due for such damage
1t is said, however, that this rule has never
been applied to cable; that the whole
utility of the cable over many miles is as
much destroyed by cutting in territorial
waters as by cutting it on the high seas
which last act. it is claimed. would un-
doubtedly entitle the owners to compensa-
ton; and that the United States admiral
did not merely aim at preventing the use
of the cable by the Spaniards, but also at
using it himself.
do these reasons withdraw this prop
erty from the rule that has been stated?
Rule Applying to Property of Neu-
trails.
'1n the first place that is a rule apply
ing to property Of a neutral which he has
placed within the territory of our enemy,
which property our necessary military
operations damage or destroy. 1t takes no
account of the character of the property
but only of It's location, and no account
Of any motives of its owner or of the mill
tary officer who finds 1t necessary to med
6ll h IN xI,0.
1T across his path and brushes it away and
the rule cited says that the owner, by put
ting his property in the country, took the
chance of a war against it and of all law
ful military acts to carry 1t to success
full issue.
1T argues nothing that cables have not
heretofore been the subject of any discus
sion of this rule The same might be said
cf many kinds Of property, either because
they happened not to be injured or because
the rule was SO well understood that a dis
cussion was deemed superfiuous. 1t is neces-
sary to show why the cable property is eX-
empt from the rule and not that the rule
has ever been applied to it. The reasons
suggested do not seem to me to bear eX-
animation.
1T is said that the whole utility of the
cable is destroyed for many miles by a
cutting within territorial waters; in other
words, that the damage extends outside of
territorial waters. But is this true? Un-
doubtedly the interruption Of traffic over it
does or may extend many miles, but the in
terruption of traffic is not the basis of the
claim. When repaired, 1t was repaired as
1t had been cut, within territorial waters,
and was then the same as before the in
jury. 1t was possible to take up the outer
end and operate the cable to Hong Kong
from the time it cut; and it was the
sealing of the cable at Hong Kong and not
the cutting that prevented this from being
done 1t seems to me, therefore, that the
injury by cutting can properly be regarded
as in no way Withdrawn from the rule by
reason of the supposed extension beyond
territorial waters, even if an extension of
the injury could, in any case alter the
rights of the belligerent."
Cutting Within and without Terri
tora1 Waters.
In conclusion, the Attorney General
sErote as follows:
THE obvious difference between a cutting
within and cutting without the territorial
water, however it may be troublesome to
the owner, goes to the foundati ton of the
rule authorizing the destruction of proper
ty because it is within the territory 1t is
equally troublesome to the owner of auy
property to have it injured or destroyed in
or out of the enemy'S country. This how
ever, does not affect the belligerent's rights
with regard to his property within the enc
my'S country.
'"To say that the American admiral de-
sired to use the cable himself as we'll as
to prevent the Spanish government from
using it, is but to attribute to him mo-
tive in addition to one which justified his
act. This can in no way diminish the right
to cut the cable, nor, seeing that he did
not use it, can it give rise to any different
rule as to compensation.
Il am of opinion, therefore, that, upon
the law of the case, there is no ground for
the claim to indemnify
<------------